Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, Speaker of the House, Mark Ferrandino, House Chair of the Business Committee, and State Senator Jeanne Nicholson were each given a Notice of Claim for conspiring to commit racketeering. There are sill more than 10 legislators to be served for renewing SB 161, which is the architects practice act in Colorado. The DORA board of engineers, architects, and surveyors as well as DORA Executive Director Barbara Kelley and all of her staff connected with the racketeering by the AIA/NCARBHickenlooper was told 6 months ago of the violations of the architects practice act, which include the following:
1.) "no more than 3 years of practical experience" can be demanded by the board if an applicant has a professional degree. Mathew Arnold's "Concerning Licensure research has proven that the span from degree, which in 1983 did stand at 3 years is now 11 years. NCARB also admit to violating Colorado law with its Screw 'Em 'By The Numbers' reserach showing the shakedown has only grown to 9 years.2.) The board must have a "set passing score" for its exams or those it purchases. No DORA has admitted to not having a set passing score. The law does state for the corporation committed to racketeer have one. Its states that the board must and it does not. NCARB does not have a set passing score, but makes one up per person, per test, per day.3.) The board must have a "minimum competency" exam. DORA freely admits that they have no definition of "minimum competency." All know that the extreme corruption of NCARB could care a less about "minimum competency." Having a structures exam that tests on earthquakes and lateral forces of water towers (illegal since architects can't design water towers) than any statics or the study of how a building stands up.Hickenlooper failed to respond in anyway to those letters. Jeanne Nicholson was told a year ago of the multiple law violations (far more than just the above) and decided to vote to renew an agency that was violating the law anyway. Sunset laws are to be renewed after a vetting, which obviously did not happen. What was done my the legislature is equivalent to giving a known drunk and repeated DUI offender the keys to the car and told them to go destroy more careers and lives so the weak and incompetent don't have to compete.Stay tuned. This is going to be fun.
FYI, no one has any idea what you're talking about. Try explaining it like we're not familiar with the actors or the play.
Did you look up the research I stated? If you're an architect, been denied due to NCARB's lies, or are applying to have a license, this should be very clear. What is holding you up from understanding what I wrote?
There is no minimum competency required to hold public office.
I can't tell if the numbered points are things in the act that are being considered violations, things that are violated by the act or some third thing. I also can find no news that corroborates anything in your post.
I googled to try and figure out what you were talking about. Nothing. It makes zero sense.
new roark? you get to pick an anonymous alias, and that's what you go with?
this does not seem credible.
Yet another plea to Archinect to require 10 posts from members before they can start a new topic.
Totally guessing, but I'd guess he didn't acquire the LU's needed to qualify for the CO license exam. Maybe he thought that he just had to put in 3 years doing whatever and it'd be enough?
If you are going to whine about CO, complain that there is only one accredited architecture school and it's a masters from UCD; You can get into that program with any undergraduate degree and slam through it in a couple years..
Fun fact; There used to be "X" licenses. Basically when CU Boulder lost it's accreditation, the graduating classes that had yet to take the ARE were screwed over. So they sued and won. Out of spite, rather than the "B" nomenclature for a resident architect or the "A" for non-resident... they got a rare "X". Now they just use numbers...
Another fun fact; I believe it is still possible to do a 10 year internship without a degree and be eligible for the exam in CO (not NCARB certified though). That has to do with the school limitations and politics so a resident isn't forced to go out of state. The last changes might have done away with that though. Engineering degrees also have that weird 10 year clause. I know I'm eligible for a structural license having worked under one for so many years... Just don't have it in me to take the exam or document that history.
NewRoark, speaking to others' comment: Just for example, these two sentences:
No DORA has admitted to not having a set passing score. The law does state for the corporation committed to racketeer have one.
don't make any sense. I think you were maybe writing quickly and made some confusing sentences and dropped some words? Do you have links to news items about this?
SneakyPete, Yes those are from Colorado law. The news will come. Local mainstream have been told a long time ago. They put their heads in the sand. The Notices of Claim were served. The actual suit will be served after all of the Notices are sent out. There are still 31 letters to be written for 10 more legislators, the entire DORA Board, Executive Director Barbara Kelley and her associated staff. Its a quirky Colorado law that any governmental agency or governmental person must be served a Notice of Claim prior to serving an actual suit. Hickenlooper was told in 9 separate letters of the violations of DORA more than 6 months agoNotsomightyaa, 25 years, a BS in CM and an MARCH, which is nothing but a financial shakedown. You must arrogantly be receiving protection from NCARB.If the average span from degree to licensure has grown from 3 years (with a professional degree) to 11 years today by NCARB's use of fraud, it does mean that the board is breaking the law by a matter of 4 fold. It even breaks the clause of 10 years if you don't have a degree. NCARB's only purpose is to lie. You didn't look up the research did you? There are now 2 CU schools Denver and Boulder that are separate to serve your whining about something insignificant. I would rather care about quality, which is very poor both in education and in the profession.I am better and more educated, have better range of knowledge, and better experienced than the architects on the DORA board. All I get is lies from DORA and NCARB. They're even dumb enough to put the lies in writing.Maybe you should wake up and realize you live in a very corrupt place?CU Boulder has not has an accredited professional degree since '72. CU Denver lost its accreditation in 2000. btw. Those '72 graduates never took NCARB's ARE, which did not start its fraudfest until 1983. The same year the span from degree to licensure began to escalate.Here's the simple version. The politicians both personally and their offices, the agency allowing NCARB to violate Colorado law and the AIA members that comprise the board are getting sued for violating multiple Colorado laws for the sole purpose of using fraud to obstruct commerce commonly known as racketeering.They will also be sued for rolling out IDP, which they admit in their meeting minutes slows down applicants by 5 years. State law states very clearly that the board can demand "no more than 3 years practical experience." Yet, the average is now 11 and they keep asking for more. CO was the very last state to implement IDP because they know it is illegal here. They did it anyway.Yeah, Archinect we need more rules to prevent us from learning about things that will change the industry at least back to pre-NCARB ARE rules or get rid of the license entirely since the AIA has proven to have grotesquely abused it over the last 30 years. Rules make us feel powerful and glorious when we are really just complicit to the crime.
Ah, gotta love it.
Another newby shows up on our doorstep unannounced, absolutely convinced he/she is smarter, more capable, better informed, better educated, etc. than everybody already here. Hell, she/he comes right out and says it" "I am better..."
She/he's right - "this is going to be fun."
Oh, by the way, NewRoark are you, by any chance, the "plaintiff" in this upcoming action?
Yeah, thought so!
The only thing missing out of those sentences is a period after No. DORA has admitted to not having a "set passing score," which in of itself is against the law. Not forcing NCARB to have a "set passing score" and a "minimum competency" is another violation of the law.
Maybe, I've had my face in too many law books and know speak in legalese in lieu of English. They make sense. The corporation committed to racketeering is NCARB. It is their sole purpose. The law states that NCARB must comply with the law. DORA constantly refers to NCARB's rules that are completely contradictory to Colorado law. Government doing what a corporation tells it what to do in lieu of its on laws must be brought to justice.
Colorado is one of the few states that wrote its laws to contain corruption of its professional boards. Yet, the architects board thought they could get away with it. Not any more. Hiring NCARB to protect them by stifling superior competition was a bad move that is now going to come to an end. Everything that NCARB does is in violation of Colorado law.
you seem to be using fairly strong language that would indicate a possible bias.
i hate ncarb as much as the next person that had to pay them fairly exorbitant fees to hold on to a file, but i find you're tirade still leaves much to be desired. can you offer a link to cross-reference what you're talking about? have the subpoenas become public record yet, or the meeting minutes? can you at least corroborate your interpretation of colorado law? i looked on the colorado DORA website under 'architects' and it doesn't seem to say they're breaking the law.
if the governor of colorado was actually going to face trial for racketeering, i think that would make the news. is it possible you made this all up?
Say what you want about this case, at least its "hero" is doing something more than mere complaining about what it takes to get a license. He's complaining AND suing, in the best American tradition.
I'm interested to see how this plays out for you. And um... your aggressive tones won't get far at all. Make a case, don't attack people personally.
Interesting fact. Legalese is specific. One word combo is going to haunt you; "practical experience". The rest of our profession has defined what that looks like; NCARB and the IDP.
Sorry you don't agree that can be reasonably inferred by the state law. Good luck seeing it go to court and fighting government. Hope you are well financed because the state has attorneys on salary that have nothing better to do than drag this out. And not in just one jurisdiction; You have fun fighting multiple lawsuits against entities with unlimited time and legal representation! You don't even have community support: It's not news, the professional organization (AIA) isn't fighting, every State recognizes the NCARB as well as pretty much all your peers.
Sounds like a hoot! At least you are smart enough to recognize the monopoly (NCARB) and attack there. Thing is, there's nothing stopping someone else from creating a competitor. Oh, except they'd have to market each and every state with lobbyist to get their accreditation as an acceptable alternative and get it passed into law which makes it cost prohibitive. And you have a point (I'm guessing) that if you are required by law to have a NCARB certificate for licensure, the government is forcing to pay a 'for profit' corporation to pursue your chosen livelihood.
It could be interesting... just learn to present it in ways your peers won't find offensive.
ncarb is a non-profit. of course they hide that with their focus on making lots of profit. i hope they reform. if there really is a lawsuit, and it's big enough to get them to fix what a horrible institution they are, then great. this story sounds pretty weird though.
Summary dismissal in 10...9...8...7...
NCARB admits that they are breaking Colorado law. I told you to look it up, but you would rather spew drivel.btw. The State's attorneys will be taken out quite easily. I won't tell anyone nor the Governor that thinks he's protected with taxpayer funds, how I will do this. Its all legal and I'm a few steps ahead of them.
I don't need community support. I have the law and its very clear. Name a reformer that had community support. Quit being a zombie.Curtkram, There is only one way to remove NCARB. Peel them off the State and hold the politicians accountable for allowing them here. A racketeering suit automatically demands an investigation by the US Attorney General. NCARB cannot survive an investigation done anywhere near right.I have always had a bias against people that intentionally break laws particularly when they are meant to contain corruption. Why don't you have this "bias".file, roll over and play dead. Good dog.
With your attitude I expect we will be reading about your being held for contempt of court, provided anyone actually looks for the article buried on page 6. I'm not fan of NCARB, and I wish your endeavor success, but you could be less of a dick.
I wondering if I wouldn't have enjoyed Old Roark more.
no imitation of ayn rand is worthwhile, new or old.
"I told you to look it up, but you would rather spew drivel."
i looked it up. it's not on the DORA website. some information about 2013 legislation, but i didn't see anything about racketeering. lots of bits of information on the front page of ncarb.org, but no information on colorado law that i could find. help me out here. what am i missing?
i bet ncarb would survive an investigation. the reports of collusion between banks, DoJ, and SEC, suggest that there isn't much oversight or accountability. the best you can hope for is the head of NCARB to get a golden parachute, then someone identical to step in and keep doing the same things. greed is good. you should know that, taking howard roark's name. there won't be reform until we get rid of rampant greed.
NewRoark - I don't need to "roll over and play dead" -- I'm already licensed (in multiple jurisdictions) and it wasn't hard at all to accomplish.
Hey Bud, this one's for you ....
Justafile, So your NCARB's little tool that give you protection from competition. The facts state so. Being someone's bitch is no way to go through life, son.
No Curtkram, Its on this site, scridb, and google docs. You're missing a lot. I point you in the direction of Concerning Licensure and NCARB's By the Numbers and you go to DORA. Colorado's laws are called Colorado Revised Statues, CRS. They are in CRS Title 12, Article 25SneakyCheat, With your attitude we could have a corrupt corporaion telling the government to protect the weakest and most incompetent like justafile as admitted to and terribly submissive. I noticed that you did say anything about file or mightymouse being little penises. Comply! Do as you're told!
here you go
didn't see anything about racketeering. or people being served. nothing about any violations occurring. or anything else you were going on about. they should add a provision to require potential architects to know how to post a link.
Handsum ... is that you ?
Missed you, man ! You working on getting banned again ?
I have the law and its very clear.
if the above were ever true, we'd have no need for lawyers.
Geez... it took some digging. According to DORA, effective Jan 1, '14, CO requires the completion of the NCARB IDP for new license applications versus prior to that, there were several other ways to become licensed such as the CU "environmental Design" degree and 5 years, or 10 years, or 3-year documented internship and accredited arch degree.
So his argument is valid as far as DORA doesn't meet State Law curkam linked.
Question about Point 1: If IDP requires 5600 hours of documented experience (although highly regimented in which experience is acceptable for inclusion), how is the average time it takes a person to complete IDP relevant, from a law perspective? 5600 is less than 3 years experience, so it would seem that using the IDP model, strictly speaking, would be in compliance with the law in point 1. What am I missing?
Add to that jitter is that not all of those hours need to be on office time. Do something like Habitat for Humanity, and you can get even more credits on your own time. I volunteered and was appointed to a local City Board (reviewing and approving/declining applications). Lots of ways.
The main argument should be DORA's adoption of policies inconsistent with State Law. Not only that, but because they made it impossible for a CU Boulder degree in their "architecture school" (Environmental Design is that degree) to get a license by any means. Students only have the option of continuing at CU Denver (which is expensive) to get a masters. That means a minimum of 6 years of college plus the IDP upon graduation.
As it's all State run, you could theoretically approach the College Board (who has lobbyist, and influential alumni and money and attorneys) as well as the Architectural Board and make a case that Dora's new policies are a undue burden and create a monopoly that only cost perspective students wanting to become architects massive burdens.... or force them, and their tuition, to out-of-state educations; Bad for the state economy.
I don't understand the Racketering, nor why this has much to do with the revised statues since those did not change the older language as far as I can tell. Local authorities adopt policy all the time that is inconsistent with laws passed (like the Building Codes). There are ways, non-abrasive, to open discussion and get new policy reforms or changes in laws.
So I think this nutjob has a point, but is going about it in a totally nonsensical abrasive way that will get it laughed right out the door.
Who he should be talking to is Micheal Barber. I think his big firm died in the downturn (or his webpage is dead... not a good sign), however he is a professor at CU-Denver in that architecture program. If I remember right, he's one of those "X" license guys who sued the State, so he can give sound advice on how to take on this particular system and fight Dora and the licensing requirements.
So, the OP found a couple of CO laws that disagree with each other? At best OP will succeed in getting the old law nullified. Racketeering? Good luck with that.
OP isn't an architect. Says he's smarter than an architect. Hmmm...
jitter12, IDP has only one purpose and that is to give the power of the employer to slow down his/her employees from being competition. Employers are allowed to not sign forms (A former AIA crook that I tolerated filled out all the other forms, but refused to sign IDP), keep employees from working in certain areas to get hours (I had 2 AIA crooks intentionally keep from drawing requirements that I had been doing since I was in 8th grade, and keep their pay down since they can control their interment to get a license.mightymouse, I finished IDP by lapping it 3-1/2 times that did not include any work from my first 14 years due to NCARB's lies.gruen, You're not bright and you're reading comprehension is quite low. The laws don't disagree with each other. They are nearly 100 years old. They were followed until 1983 when NCARB rolled out the ARE and has been lying increasingly ever since to increasingly break the law. DORA's use of NCARB's law breaking abilities have not been challenged until now. Matthew Arnold's 'Concerning Licensure' study does proven that law is being shattered by a matter of 4 fold. Keeping out people from getting their license that are qualified via fraud as his study and NCARB's own study has proven is racketeering.Increasingly those with an MARCH are not getting licensed. Now more than 50% do not ever get licensed.
that's a pretty narrow view on the intent of IDP. i sincerely don't think someone sat down and said 'let's create a system where an employer can slow down and employee and prevent them from becoming competition.' that might have been a side effect, but i doubt that's really the sole purpose.
so i guess this is the core of what you're trying to say:
"Hickenlooper failed to respond in anyway to those letters."
i googled for news articles related to this event again. it seems nobody cares, not even hickenlooper, who has much more pressing issues now that people are smoking pot in his state and the broncos are going to be playing in the super bowl. he doesn't care because, if it was you sent that letter, he doesn't think you're a threat. he's not taking you serious. there's a good reason for that.
maybe you should try to consider other perspectives and possibilities. maybe you're misunderstanding the aia crooks in your life, and they have other less nefarious motivations. they may not even be crooks at all. maybe there are people at NCARB who really are trying to do the right thing and make sure architects are competent enough to protect public health and safety, even if they are failing at reaching that objective.
IDP is a failed system. Don't think its a racketeering offense, as I understand, racketeering is about bribes and such...Bottom line is the intent of IDP may not be to slow down competition, but the effect sure does. HSW is a BS scapegoat. Reminds me of the way govt justifies unjust policy like the NSA wiretapping in the name of "national security.' While the makers and supporters of IDP may have a less than evil intent, the reality is worse. The acceptance of a shit system, the complacency, etc...I sometimes wonder whether the G.W Bushes of the world are "evil" or just don't give a shit. Don't know what's worse.
Anyway, it seems to be more of a due process violation than racketeering.
Due process violation. Yeah sure.Racketeering is the obstruction of commerce by using coercion, threats, fraud, violating state laws, etc. The Colorado APA is quite clear to contain the board's behavior from being corrupt as I have mentioned. This is exactly what racketeering is.Curtkram, I have bit my tongue every time you made a fool of yourself. I told you what to look up multiple times. You are still flipping over the cushions looking for loose change. smh You are a lost cause.
This guy has been hanging out with that cat from kufu's counterweights.
On the bright side, this is the most the words "Colorado" and "architecture" have been used together since a museum was built.
instead of biting your tongue, why not provide a link that supports your assertion that some sort of charges will be filed against the governor? it would be nice to see some outside verification of your assertion, rather than the ravings of a lunatic.
in related news, justin bieber is a reptilian alien.
Too funny Patrick and too true. This state needs to stop its blockade and bring in better talent.Curtkram scram. No coddling for you. I'm not going down to your level. If you can't figure it out by now with all the spoon feeding, you're not going to figure it out.
And the evidence is just piling up ....
Filed away as too lazy.
let me help you out here mr. roark
it's just you. you seem to be the only person accusing the governor of conspiring to commit racketeering over the state of colorado's licensing requirements. your comparison of the previously passed legislation to ncarb's requirements is understandable, but that doesn't make you less of a crazy person.
you haven't "spoonfed" anything. you haven't provided any links or any other sort of verification of the claims you're making. all you have is one crazy person ranting. my 'level' is building an opinion based on facts rather than conjecture. you should come down to my level. despite what you may think, you're not too good to base your crazy opinions on things that happen in real life. stoop down to my level and show me you're not a crazy person ranting with no grip on reality. show me there are verifiable, unbiased third party sources you used to form your opinion, and it's not just a crazy guy thinking the courts are going to support him in being crazy.
in related news, a recent study by MIT suggests tin foil hats may actually help the government more than it interferes in their attempts to control people through radio waves. perhaps copper, to create a faraday cage of sorts, would be more effective.
^-- verifiable third party source.
Y o u ' r e t o o s l o w.
my being slow doesn't explain why you refuse to provide some sort of evidence to support the claims you're making. you still haven't provided a single link that supports your assertion that there will be some sort of legal related consequence to this law you disagree with. are you using this well respected forum to spread rumors and lies?
This is a well-respected forum?
S L O W E R
I already told you to look up Matthew Arnold's Concerning Licensure at least twice. I also told to look up NCARB's answering research By the Numbers. Mr. Arnold proves that NCARB violates Colorado law by a matter of 4 fold. Span from degree to licensure is now 11 years. This research is on this forum from '11. NCARB admits that they only destroy Colorado law by a matter of 3 fold.
IDP - July 2012 Board Meeting Minutes (DORA website) admit that IDP adds 5 years to slow applicants down. Law (Title 12 Article 25) = "no more than 3 years practical experience"
Law = "board must have set passing score" There is none. Its one of the ways how NCARB flunks those who have passed. DORA admits guilt.
Law = "board must test for minimum competency" Earthquakes in Colorado? Nope No statics or anything on how a building stands up. My practice test for Building Layout includes circulation up an elevator only to drop out at the top at "Open to Below" Protecting the public by giving them broken legs? Nice NCARB.
Guilt is admitted by DORA and their vendor on 3 major counts that are in place to prevent corruption. Violating these counts only has one purpose and that is to prevent others from participating in commerce, aka racketeering. Yet, the mindless butt kissing conservatives say I where a tin hat.
I have served Notice of Claim to the Gov & 4 legislators so far. Many more of these to be sent before I can do the actual filing. It will makes news in a few months. If we had a press corp worth calling journalists, it would be news now. We have bought off clowns instead.
Well it was until you showed up, MIles….
I kid, I kid. We love you here. Just couldn't resist the joke.
There are some really savvy people here, and a few who like to play, but the recent(?) spate of idiocy (Ayn Rand devotees) and sheer ignorance (self-described ancient Greek philosophers) has got me shaking my head. And this is after suri and the Attack of the Lizards.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?