All entities offering or rendering the services of architecture, engineering, land surveying or offering the title of certified landscape architect shall register with the APELSLA Board. There are exceptions to this requirement (see § 54.1-411 of the Code of Virginia); however, many complaints and misunderstandings result from the lack of knowledge of this requirement. You are encouraged to read the Board's rules, regulations and statutes to understand their applicability to your particular style of entity.

UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER # 15

"Thank you" to everyone who participated in the public comment period regarding the review of the APELSLA Board's regulations pursuant to Executive Order # 15. The public comment period ended as of July 31, 1995. The Board's regulations will now be reviewed by the staff of the Department in light of the comments received and they will draft a report to be submitted to the Governor by next Spring. Δ

REVISED APPLICATION FORMS

The Board has revised the following applications: licensure as an Architect; licensure as a Professional Engineer; registration as a Land Surveyor-In-Training; and licensure as a Land Surveyor. The application for certification as an Interior Designer (see APPLICATIONS, PAGE 2)

A source of concern and confusion within the professional community, associated client base and local jurisdictions has been the interpretation of the term "final documents" contained in Regulation § 12.8.B.1 which states that, "All seal imprints on final documents shall bear an original signature and date."

The language of the regulation does not allow for the variation of professional practices found within the disciplines of the APELSLA Board. An example of the variation in disciplines is seen in the areas of civil engineering and land surveying as compared to architecture. In the practices of civil engineering and land surveying, professional services are usually associated with a specific site. An argument can be made in these disciplines that placing a seal and signature on original tracings before reproduction may be justified. This is largely due to the fact that the drawing sets are often significant in size and that the sets are required in large quantities.

In contrast, architectural drawings for standard designs can be used repeatedly with site specific modifications in differing locales and jurisdictions. The requirement for seal and signature on a set of either mylar or velum originals in an architect's flat file is impractical for this very reason. The lack of clarity in defining "final documents" furthers the liability exposure of the architectural profession by allowing (see FINAL DOCUMENTS, PAGE 3)

NEW BOARD STAFF

A new administrator for the APELSLA Board started last September. The previous administrator, Willie Fobbs, III, left the Department to pursue other interests and has since returned to the Department in another capacity. Mark N. Courtney was selected to replace Mr. Fobbs. A 1986 graduate of Virginia Tech, Mr. Courtney was an internal auditor for several state agencies for five years before coming to the Department in June of 1991 where he served in various positions with several regulatory boards. Δ

THE COMPUTER DELIVERED ARCHITECT REGISTRATION EXAMINATION

Please share this article with individuals who are contemplating taking the Architect Registration Examination.

The Architect Registration Examination (ARE) will be administered year-round via computer at a nationwide network of computer-based test centers beginning in February of 1997. The APELSLA Board will administer the last paper-and-pencil version of the ARE on June 17 through June 20, 1996, and no other version of the ARE will be offered until the computerized ARE (CARE) is offered beginning in February of 1997.

The decision to computerize the examination was made in June 1993 at the NCARB Annual Meeting. Since that time a major focus of the Architect Section of the Virginia APELSLA Board and of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) has been to work toward full

(CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN)

Division B - Site Design (Graphic) and Division C -Building Design (Graphic) will be scheduled for a fixed length of time, including breaks. A paper describing the vignette format introduced in 1994, Understanding the Vignette Format of Division C: Building Design, is available from the NCARB (202)783-6500. The Site Design format is similar.

The multiple-choice divisions will have maximum time limitations, but due to the structure of the scoring, most examinees will not need the entire time to complete the exam. For information on how the multiple-choice sections of the examination work, a paper, Computer Mastery Testing (April 1995), is available from the NCARB.

The graphic and multiple-choice sections require the use of a mouse to record answers. Candidates will have the opportunity to revise answers and move from question to question during the examination. On-line help will be available throughout the test session. The NCARB's Circular of Information No. 2-Architect Registration Examination provides an overview of the examination process and contents.

Taking the Computer-Delivered Architect Registration Examination (July 1995) is a publication available from the NCARB on the CARE. The publication provides a detailed explanation of the application and administration process for the CARE. It also provides scenarios of situations which will help candidates understand more clearly how the process will work for a typical candidate who plans to take the exam for the first time as well as for atypical situations, such as when an individual who has not completed all sections moves to another jurisdiction. Δ

In practice, the denotation of seal and signature warranties and informs the public that the drawings are complete and were prepared under the direct supervision of a registered professional. Without this clarification, the possibility exists that changes, unknown to the registered professional and the public at large, could be made to a set of previously signed and sealed drawings. Given the possibility of such an event, the Board felt it necessary to clarify their regulation while acknowledging the differences between the varying disciplines under the auspices of the APELSLA Board. This clarification strives to address the practical concerns of all groups. The clarification adopted by the APELSLA Board is:

"'Final documents' are completed documents or copies submitted on a client's behalf for review and/or approval by authorities or recordation. In such cases, the cover sheet of the documents or copies shall contain a list of drawings included in the set on which a seal, original signature and date will be affixed for all regulated disciplines. Every page of the submission, other than the cover, may be reproduced with a seal, signature and date in lieu of a seal, original signature and date by each discipline responsible for the work. A seal, original signature and date is only required on the cover sheet."

If desired by the professional, and permitted by the locality, this language allows a reproducible seal and signature on the reproducible documents. In addition, the language defines a final document, for purposes of the regulations, as a submission to a local jurisdiction for review and approval. A built-in safeguard requires that the original seal and signature be (CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN)

BOARD CHANGES

The newest appointees to the APELSLA Board are Sara L. Cowherd and Mary Lou Barnett Horne of the Interior Designer Section. Ms. Cowherd and Ms. Horne joined the Board in July of 1994.

Ms. Cowherd is a 1983 graduate of VCU with a B.F.A. in Interior Design and has over 12 years of experience in the interior design profession. Ms. Cowherd was previously the Vice President of The Deep Run Design Group. Ms. Cowherd is now an Associate with the firm of Baskervill & Son where she has practiced for the last six years and is the Interior Design Manager.

Ms. Horne has been in the interior design business for over ten years. Ms. Horne earned her B.A. in Interior Design from Marymount University in Washington, D.C. She developed and headed up the Gallahan's Design Studio in Fredericksburg, Virginia, for three years before opening her own business in 1993, Horne Design Associates. Horne Design Associates, located in downtown Fredericksburg, is the first in the area to offer primarily commercial and corporate design services. The firm recently expanded its residential design division as well. Ms. Horne is a native of Clover, South Carolina. She is the mother of two sons and currently resides in Stafford, Virginia. Δ

NCARB INTERN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

In 1992, the Architect Section of the APELSLA Board included in the (see NCARB IDP, PAGE 4)

Currently, thirty-eight (38) states require the IDP for examination (and four (4) more will require the IDP in 1996). The District of Columbia (1996), Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia all require the IDP for examination (each jurisdiction bordering Virginia). This will complicate Virginia regulants' attempts to become licensed, via comity, in other jurisdictions which require the IDP. The complication with comity involves any regulant passing the ARE after adoption of the requirement for the IDP by another jurisdiction(s). The other jurisdiction(s) requiring the IDP for comity will require the regulant to initiate an IDP file with the NCARB and complete the file as if starting the process toward initial examination (the time frame of three years is not a requirement; however, the file must be completed). Completing a file after initial licensure is time consuming and complicated.

Although Virginia's position relative to the IDP requirement is less burdensome on the candidates, the comity issue will surely be a nightmare for those licensed after another jurisdiction has begun to require the IDP. It should also be noted that examination candidates with the IDP files have higher pass rates than those without. The IDP provides more complete and better documented experience than that of candidates without the IDP.

The Architect Section is considering clarifying the requirement for the IDP in the future. As the review progresses, there will be opportunities for public input. Δ

SEALING "EXEMPTED" WORK

The Code of Virginia (§§ 54.1-401 and 54.1-402) permits, in (CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN)

"EX PARTE" COMMUNICATION

WITH BOARD MEMBERS

Board members make decisions regarding applications for licensure/certification, disciplinary cases and other matters before the Board. Often times applicants, respondents, complainants or attorneys will call a Board member directly about one of these matters in an attempt to influence the Board's action.

This contact is not appropriate and may cause the Board member to have to recuse him or herself from participating in the discussion and vote on the matter. This may have the opposite effect that the caller intended as that Board member may have been in agreement with the caller's position but can no longer participate.

Any information that an applicant, respondent, complainant or attorney wants to have considered by the Board should be sent, in writing, to the appropriate Board staff. In addition, subject to certain procedural constraints, the Board does have a public comment period at the beginning of each meeting. Δ

File Number 94-01045, Hossain D. Manesh, PE

Violation - Manesh allowed an employee with an EIT designation to sign as a PE on information released by the company. Mr. Manesh failed to properly renew his PE license and the firm's registration. Board Action - Monetary penalty of $2000. Manesh will provide the Board with a list of all clients who received the misleading marketing materials; will provide proof of notification of affected clients; further disciplinary action may be taken if complaints are received from clients other than those included in the list provided to the Board. Regulations -(1992) 9.4, 10.2.B, 11.4.2 (1991) 8.4, 9.2.A.B.C.D.E, 10.4.2 (1990) 8.4, 9.2.A.B.C.D.E, 10.4.2 (1988) 1.4.A.B (1985) 1.3. Effective - September 8, 1994

File Number 93-01085, J.T. Ward, LS

Violation - When surveying a property, Ward noticed an error made previously by him on an adjoining lot. The location of a pipe was entered incorrectly from his field notes. Board Action - No sanction. Regulations - (1988) 4.12.A.B.3, 4.13.A Effective - November 22, 1994

File Number 94-01058, Frederick D. Neal, PE

Violation - Neal advertised the professional services of engineering and land surveying through local yellow pages and, although properly registered with the Virginia State Corporation Commission since 1984, he failed to register his firm, CAD-CON Consulting, Inc., for a period of approximately 10 years with the Board. Board Action - Monetary penalty of $2500. Regulations - (1985) 1.4 (1988) 1.4 (1990) 9.2 (1991) 9.2 (1992) 54.1-406.A.B, 54.1-411, 10.2 Effective - December 5, 1994

File Number 94-01605, A. N. Elrefai, PE

Violation - Elrefai failed to exercise proper supervision over a licensed employee who performed inspections. Certifications were signed and sealed for concrete inspections for wall and column footings prior to the county's approval of the concrete mix design and for structural steel inspections (CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN)

File Number 94-00793, 94-00794, 94-00795, Albert E. Neighbors, Jr., LS

Violation - Neighbors prepared two plats for the same property and failed to properly identify one of the plats as "preliminary". Board Action - $50 monetary penalty and $400 to cover partial investigation costs for a total of $450. Regulations - (1991) 10.8.B.2 Effective - January 16, 1995

File Number 94-01202 and 94-00505, Maharaj K. Jalla, PE

Violation - On two different occasions, Jalla's firm, Consulting Engineers Corp submitted Building Certifications to the City of Manassas. A records check determined that Consulting Engineers Corp. was not registered as a business entity or professional corporation with the Board at the time the certifications were submitted. Board Action - $1100 monetary penalty and require Jalla to register the business entity with the Board within 30 days of the effective date of the Order. Regulations - (1992) 54.1-411.B, 9.2.A Effective - June 30, 1995 Δ