SURF THE NET WITH

THE APELSLA BOARD

The Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation now has a home page. General agency information and the APELSLA Board's Rules and Regulations may be accessed at:

http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/dporweb/welcome.cfm

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

REQUIREMENTS

The Board has received calls and questions relative to offering professional services through a business operating under various state and local authorities. To offer professional services in the Commonwealth of Virginia, one must have a business license, an individual professional license or certificate, and register the business with the Board, with few exceptions.

To have an individual professional license or certificate without a business license or business registration with the Board, is only one leg of the tripod. One cannot practice without a business license and one cannot use the business registration without an individual professional license or certificate.

We suggest that you review the currentness of your individual professional license or certificate, your business registration, and your business license to assure your total compliance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board and the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

§12.8.A of the Board's Rules and Regulations states:

The professional has exercised complete direction and control over the work to which it is affixed. Therefore, no regulant shall affix a name, seal or certification to a plat, design, specification or other work constituting the practice of the professions related which has been prepared by an unlicensed or uncertified person or firm unless such work was performed under the direction and supervision of the regulant which under the regulant's contract or while employed by the same firm as the regulant. ..."

Therefore, by applying his or her seal, a regulant is signifying that he or she has exercised complete control over the work being sealed and accepts full responsibility for the work.

However, in order to seal and accept responsibility for such work, a regulant must be competent in that field so they may properly control and assume responsibility for such work. Please note that §12.5.A of the Board's Rules and Regulations states:

"The professional shall undertake to perform professional assignments only when qualified by education or experience and licensed or certified in the profession involved. The professional may accept the assignment requiring education or experience outside of the field of the professional's competence, but only to the extent that services are restricted to those phases of the project in which the professional is qualified. All other phases of such project shall be the responsibility of licensed or certified associates, consultants or employees." (see RESPONSIBILITY, PAGE 2)

For example, an architect may perform such professional engineering work such as mechanical, plumbing and electrical design when it is incidental to an architectural project and the architect sealing the work, and taking responsibility for the work, is competent in that area of practice.

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

§54.1-406.C of the Code of Virginia states, "Any person, partnership, corporation or other entity which is not authorized to practice in accordance with this chapter and which uses the words 'architecture,' 'engineering' or 'land surveying' or any modification or derivative thereofe (emphasis added) in its name or description of its business activity in a manner that indicates or implies that it practices or offers to practice architecture, engineering or land surveying as defined in this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of §54.1-111. " Standards of Practice and Conduct: §12.9 - Organization and Styling of Practice, states that, " Nothing shall be contained in the name, letterhead or other styling of a professional practice implying a relationship, ability or condition which does not exist. An assumed, fictitious or corporate name shall not be misleading as to the identity, responsibility or status of those practicing thereunder."

The above two issues relate to those who are regulated by this Board and those who are not regulated by this Board. Regulants and non-regulants alike use titles not permitted by the Code of Virginia. This is misleading to the public as to what services they are authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide, causing unnecessary investigations. Such unauthorized use of titles has led to increased investigations.

The Board repeatedly sees practice entities with several surnames not all of which are licensed or certified to practice the disciplines noted in their letterhead. The use of titles, and or derivatives thereof, is prevalent with those offering services for which they are not licensed to perform.

(CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN)

PROFESSIONAL RULES
OF CONDUCT

The primary obligation of licensees and certificate holders to protect the public is clearly stated in §12.1 of the Rules and Regulations. The Rules and Regulations also mandate truthfulness in all matters (§12.2) and caution regulants about conflict of interest (§12.3), including the representation of their work to clients and others (§12.4.2). Licensees and certificate holders are prohibited from engaging in dishonest business practices (§12.6.A) and from using another's work (§12.6.D). Regulants are also required to report violations of the Rules and Regulations by their colleagues to the APELSLA Board (§12.6.B).

A segment of the Rules and Regulations which may not be clearly understood by regulants is §12.5 - Competency for assignments. This section places the regulant's responsibility as a licensee or certificate holder above certain business practices.

§12.5.A restricts the regulant to performing work within the discipline they are licensed or certified to perform. Assignments outside the regulant's field may be accepted "only to the extent that services are restricted to those phases of a project in which the professional is qualified." For example, a landscape architect may enter into a contract with a client to design a non-exempt building, but the architectural portions must be designed by a licensed architect, the engineering systems by a professional engineer, et cetera.

§12.5.B mandates that the professional must not misrepresent his qualifications and the scope of his responsibility on a project to a prospective or existing client. Licensees and certificate holders are responsible for accurately informing the client about the depth and breadth of each discipline's professional responsibilities as it relates to the delivery of professional services. For example, the client must understand that even as the lead consultant the Landscape Architect is prohibited from making decisions pertaining to the means of egress or to

(See CONDUCT , PAGE 3)

CONDUCT the design of the structure or of the HVAC system. Additionally, to §12.5.B requires licensee or certificate holder to ensure that the best professional judgement is exercised when unlicensed individuals, including employees and consultants, are involved in a project. The professional must remain in "responsible charge" Code of Virginia §54.1-400 - Definitions.) of the project and may not delegate this responsibility to unlicensed persons.

In addition to the standards set forth in the Rules and Regulations, the licensee or certificate holder is required to adhere to all minimum standards of practice of his own profession (§12.5.C). Each professional organization has enforcement procedures and systems for filing complaints and disciplining members.

ARCHITECT REGISTRATION

EXAMINATION

The Computerized Architect Registration Examination (ARE) is on the way. February of 1997 will see the introduction of the new ARE which will be totally computerized including the two graphic divisions (B & C).

The computer-administered ARE was field tested by approximately two hundred candidates in February 1996. The field test involved candidates from seven jurisdictions who volunteered to take one or more divisions. Based on the results of the field test, two significant changes have been made to the exam format.

First, the 12-hour Division C: Building Design examination proved to be more of a burden to candidates taking the exam on computer than the paper-and-pencil version. This is partly because it is harder to sit at a computer for 12 hours, even with the scheduled breaks, than it is to sit at a drawing board. Since the exam is already delivered as a series of vignettes, it is easier to break the exam into multiple parts to ease the candidate's exam-taking experience. Therefore, beginning in 1997, the exam will be separated into two parts - Building Planning and Building Technology.

The Building Planning division will contain three vignettes: Block Diagram, Schematic Design, and Interior Layout. The Block Diagram and Schematic Design vignettes have been a part of the paper-and-pencil Division C exam since June 1994. This division will be scheduled for approximately 5.5 hours. The Building

(CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN)

Second, while the intent of the computer-administered exam was to have only eight divisions, there will continue to be nine divisions with the following titles and corresponding two-letter identifiers:

Pre-Design (PD) (previously Div. A)

Site Planning (SP) previously Div. B)

Building Planning (BP)(previously Div. C)

Building Technology (BT) (previously Div. C)

General Structures (GS) (previously Div. D/F)

Lateral Forces (LF) (previously Div. E)

Mechanical and Electrical (previously Div. G)

Systems (ME)

Materials and Methods (MM) (previously Div. H)

Construction Documents (previously Div. I)

and Services (CD)

The field test was scheduled a year before implementation of the computer-administered exam to make necessary changes such as those noted above.

BOARD CHANGES

The newest appointees to the APELSLA Board are David L. May, Jr., who replaces Mary R. Reader in the Architect Section, and William P. Gimbel, who replaces Granville F. Hogg in the Land Surveyor Section. Messrs. May and Gimbel joined the Board in July of 1996. Look for biographical information in the next issue.

DESIGN NTEGRITY

The Interior Design Section of the APELSLA Board is aware that ASID has a new Retail Partners Membership Category that may potentially place certified interior designers in conflict with the APELSLA Boardás Rules and Regulations. The Retail Partner Membership will be composed of retail establishments, individuals or multiple store locations, engaged in supplying home and business design-related equipment, products and interior design services to consumers. In simpler terms, any

(See INTEGRITY ON PAGE 4)

INTEGRITY retail establishment, including, but not limited to furniture stores, accessory shops, office product stores and home improvement centers, may now be associated with ASID through their Retail Partner Membership. In order to qualify for this membership, at least one ASID Professional or Allied Practitioner Interior Designer must be employed at each location that is applying for membership. In addition to paying an annual membership fee, each Retail Partner must also meet and abide by the eligibility criteria set forth by ASID.

The new ASID Retail Partner Membership will provide many employment opportunities for professional and certified interior designers in retail sales positions. In doing so, this may also place professional designers in a position where they may be offered compensation from manufacturers, suppliers, contractors and employers for specifying a particular product or supplier. The Interior Design Section of the Board is aware that these types of offers are not uncommon practices in today's marketplace. The Interior Design Section reminds its regulants that accepting any type of undisclosed compensation violates §12.3 - Conflict of Interest, of the Board's Rules and Regulations.

Included in the list of eligibility criteria is the provision that each Retail Partner will abide by ASID's Retail Partner Code of Ethics and comply with all state and federal regulations governing the practice of interior design. §12.3 of the APELSLA Board states:

"The professional shall promptly and fully inform an employer or client of any business association, interest, or circumstances which may influence the professional's judgement or the quality of service.

A. The professional shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on or pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed in writing to all parties of the current interest.

B. The professional shall neither solicit nor accept financial or other valuable consideration from suppliers for specifying their products or services.

C. The professional shall not solicit or accept gratuities, directly or indirectly from contractors, their agents, or other parties dealing with a client or employer in connection with work for which the professional is responsible."

(CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN)

The Interior Design Section has also discussed whether it is a violation of §12.3 when certified interior designers specify and purchase products on a cost-plus basis for their clients. This method of operation is widely used among the design profession and is accepted by the public. As long as the client is fully aware and agrees with all methods of compensation, there is no conflict of interest. It is in your best interest as a professional and in the best interest of your client to include with specificity information regarding payments and compensation in a letter of agreement or contract.

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Interior Design Section are not meant to restrict anyone from practicing the profession of interior design. They were designed and enacted not only to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, but they are also intended to educate, guide and protect the interior designer concerning standard professional practices. In order to increase the respect and uphold the integrity of the design profession, all certified interior designers must abide by and enforce the professional business practices and ethical conduct standards set forth in these regulations.

CHANGES TO THE LARE EXAM

At the 1995 CLARB Annual Meeting, the Landscape Architect Development Program committee presented the results of a factor analysis evaluating proposed exam formats, which included, among others, the existing LARE seven part exam, and the proposed two part fundamentals/professional exam. Based on this analysis, beginning in 1997, CLARB will adopt a six part format which is achieved by combining sections 2 and 7. This format will result in reduced time and cost to sit for the examination.

Times">The CLARB Record/Certificate is available as a permanent record keeping service which facilitates reciprocity and continuing education record transfer. Call (703) 818-1300 for more information.

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

File Number 94-01219, Joe T. Gollehon, LS

Violation - Gollehon performed a boundary survey that did not meet minimum standards and procedures. Gollehon agreed to prepare an amended survey which upon review also failed to meet minimum standards and procedures. Board Action - Monetary penalty of $1600. Regulations - (1992) 11.5.(C) (1994) 5.10.(C)(2)(d), 5.10.(C)(2)(k), 5.10.(C)(2)(m), 12.5.(C). Effective - September 25, 1995.

File Number 94-00418, S.L. Coleman, LS

Violation - Coleman transposed numbers from his computations resulting in a plat of survey failing to meet the permissible error for boundary closure. Board Action - File a corrected plat with the Clerk of the Court and provide proof of filing to the Board. Regulations - (1983) 2.11(c)(d)(1).13.A Effective - October 12, 1995.

File Number 94-01972, Michael A. Matthews, PE

Violation - Matthews, trading as The Structures Group, Inc. failed to register his firm as a business entity or professional corporation. Board Action - Monetary penalty of $250. Regulations - (1992) 9.2.A, and Code of Virginia 54.1-411.B. Effective - October 12, 1995.

File Number 95-00543, Frank T. Holbrook, LS

Violation - Holbrook performed a boundary survey that failed to meet the minimum standards of the 1992 Regulations. Board Action - Written reprimand. Regulations - (1992) 5.10.2(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(m) Effective - October 12, 1995.

File Number 95-01285, David R. Gardy, LS

Violation - Gardy performed a house location survey that failed to comply with the provisions of the Board's Regulations. In an attempt to meet Board Regulations, Gardy submitted a revised survey that also failed to comply with those regulations. Board Action - Written reprimand and an agreement that all future surveys will comply with the minimum standards of the Board in effect at the time the survey is conducted. Regulations - (1994) 5.11 inclusive. Effective - October 12, 1995.

File Number 95-01062, Joseph F. Alexander, PE

Violation - Alexander signed and sealed Phase I Environmental Site Assessment indicating that the Assessment was in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E-1527-93 for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

(CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN)

for Commercial Real Estate. The report did not contain or present all information required by the Standard.

Board Action - No sanction. Regulations - (1994) 12.11.A.(3)(5) Effective - April 8, 1996.

File Number 94-01599, Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC (PHR&A)

Violation - PHR&A entered into an agreement with a client to determine the cause of damage to his residence. The report concluded that vibrations from heavy compaction equipment used by a contractor most likely caused the damage. The client took civil action against the contractor and requested that PHR&A act as an expert witness. The client was advised by PHR&A that it would be unable to testify as an expert witness because the contractor was also one of PHR&A's clients. Board Action - It was determined that PHR&Aás original contract for services did not include testifying as an expert witness. Therefore, no sanction was imposed. Regulations - (1990) 10.3 (1991) 10.3 Effective - April 20, 1996.

File Number 95-01455, Marvin L. Crutchfield, LS

Violation - Crutchfield completed a boundary survey that included the location of a cemetery reservation, which after review of all available information, was not supported. The survey did not comply with the minimum standards and provisions of the Board's Regulations. Board Action - File an amended plat in accordance with the current minimum standards, Reimburse Board investigative costs in the amount of $1000, submit correspondence to the Board clearly defining how his work product has been misinterpreted by others and deliver copies of the plat and correspondence to each of his clients and their agents. Regulations - (1992) 5.10.A, 5.10.B.(2) & (3), 5.10.C.(1) & (2)(a-n), 5.10.D.(1) & (2), 11.2, (1994) 12.2 Effective - January 29, 1996.

File Number - 95-01508, Ralph Edward Hurst, Arch

Violation - Two sets of plans were submitted for approval by Hurst, although they were prepared by an unlicensed individual who was not employed by Hurst on either project. The license seal was undated and did not include Hurst's address. Board Action - Hurst agreed to inform his clients of his obligations to clients as a licensed architect in regard to contractual arrangements and supervision of work, and to provide proof of this notification to the Board, and a monetary penalty of $550. Regulations - (1992) 11.8.A.B(1)(3) (1994) 12.8.A.B.(1)(3) Effective - April 5, 1996.