I have a question that has been tread upon a more than a few times here, but there is some specific information that is missing (in NCARB's documentation as well).
1. What are the *actual* requirements for the employer-relationship an IDP supervisor? The NCARB handbook has a lot of allusions to scenarios "within your firm" or "when changing employer," but at no point (that I have found) are there any written specifics about what the legal/professional relationship *can* or *can not* be.
2. Is this simply an administrative judgement issue? I.e. if the only specific, repeated language describing the relationship of a supervisor to intern is "direct, daily supervision," can a supervisor be *any* licensed architect with whom an intern has such a relationship?
Let me describe two scenarios: the latter of which is mine:
A) An intern works at a nationally respected and recognized firm on payroll. This firm is known for being a great place to work, and fair to its employees, old and young. She works on a large-scale planning project where she needs to look hard for hours under which her IDP hours can fall. Her IDP supervisor is another employee of the firm who supervises multiple interns at the firm, but does not ever work on the same project as this intern. Their work is entirely mutually exclusive, and there is no direct supervision on the intern's work (other architects at the firm are directly supervising her work.)
B) Another intern lands a contract with a private client for a small-ish house project. The local authorities require no architect's stamp on drawings (only structural). This intern finds a local colleague who is a licensed professional to act as IDP supervisor. The supervisor has no legal or formal involvement with the project, but supervises and advises the work on a 3-meetings-per week routine, guiding the intern through the proposal process, contractor interviews, and providing consistent and advanced design feedback (this supervisor is also an academic). The supervisor does everything for the intern from explaining the history of contemporary residential architecture, to redlining details.
I have found these two sentiments in equal proportion here:
"You're fine, as long as the person is registered and supervising you, it shouldn't matter"
"Probably can't get IDP here, people have gotten screwed (especially in NY)"
So, does anybody actually know?
Thanks!
PS. "neither of those interns should get credit" has occurred to me, so you won't be providing anything new with that response. One clearly does get hours. The other probably could. Just looking for facts.
For reference, this is the block of language that refers to supervisor requirements directly:
“Direct supervision” of interns shall occur either through personal contact or through a mix of personal contact and remote communication (e.g. e-mail, online markups, webinars, internet) such that the IDP supervisor has control over the work of the intern and has sufficient professional knowledge of the supervised work so that the IDP supervisor can determine that the intern understands and is performing his or her work experience within the professional standard of care. To earn experience hours in workplace settings described in this document, the intern must work under the direct supervision of an IDP supervisor. The supervisor shall verify the experience of the intern and foster a professional relationship that is grounded in a direct professional association between the intern and the supervisor."
None of this speaks to my question, which seems to suggest it's a judgement call from NCARB. In that case, it would seem like there should be some addendum somewhere about the nature of supervisor-intern professional relationships, and how to appropriately document the relationship and "in-person or electronic" correspondences that demonstrate "direct supervision," for those situations which might fall outside the typical employee-firm-payroll situation. Right?
OK thanks for the feedback. The state-by-state requirements seem to be the x-factor here?
I guess the question then is-- does this begin to matter while logging IDP hours, or at the end when the state reviews your IDP file? As in, will your experiences be rejected as you go, or as one lump sum at the end (which is where I assume the "getting screwed" sentiment comes from)?
And in either case (especially the latter), why aren't there huge caveats all over MY NCARB warning "some professional relationships may not qualify for IDP hours with your individual state board, please confirm with your accrediting locality that your supervisor relationship qualifies with your state's requirements." ??
Or that information is hiding in plain sight, and I'm just missing it.
Sivad: "why aren't there huge caveats all over MY NCARB warning "some professional relationships may not qualify for IDP hours with your individual state board..."
Probably because NCARB assumes a certain amount of intelligence and professionalism among those choosing to pursue IDP. The information is clearly out there for anyone to see - you can't pretend to be a professional and still expect NCARB to constantly spoon-feed you every tiny little scrap of information that you might need.
See http://www.ncarb.org/Experience-Through-Internships/IDP2-Experience-Categories-Areas.aspx - which clearly provides the following statement: "It is an intern’s responsibility to understand the requirements of any jurisdiction where they may seek either initial or reciprocal registration." They then go on to provide you a link to your state board website.
As far as NCARB is concerned, there is only one version of IDP. For IDP purposes, your experience will usually be accepted or rejected as you submit it to NCARB, though it is subject to a final review as well.
For NCARB purposes you don't generally need to submit any evidence regarding the exact nature of the intern-supervisor professional relationship. As long as you and your supervisor certify that the situation meets the rules, and your supervisor is licensed, and your dates of various work situations don't conflict with each other, you're very unlikely to be asked for any additional information. Both of the situations you described fulfill NCARB's current rules (though until fairly recently the 2nd one did not.)
Some states have more stringent requirements than IDP. For example some require that supervisors have been licensed for a certain minimum number of years, or that experience can only be earned as a documented employee in a legally registered firm, or that all of the experience be earned after graduation.
NY has the latter two rules - with certain exceptions. If you complete IDP and some of it does not satisfy NY's requirements and you do not also submit additional experience that does satisfy NY's requirements, then you'll hear about it when you apply for your license.
It's your responsibility to learn NCARB's requirements, as well as the requirements of your state. In many cases your IDP experience will also satisfy the state's requirements - but in some cases, such as the 2nd that you described, you may need to gain separate or additional experience in order to satisfy your state's requirements.
Bloopox - Thanks for your thorough reply. Those who have previously spoken up on the topic here tend to be convinced it's one or the other-- evidence that they have only read NCARB's language on the issue, and not spoken with their state boards.
distant - thanks for pointing me to that text. I concede that ncarb does remind us that states have requirements, they just don't ever mention that they may involve the actual relationship of your IDP supervisor. Seems to me like a slightly bigger-than-little "scrap" of information that they would like to clarify.... especially somewhere in their 18-page PDF called "Supervisor Guidelines" with headings like "What is an IDP Supervisor?"
...So I thought I would ask those around me, like I would if I were in a firm. Since I'm not in a firm, I asked here. And I got my answer! I got called "unprofessional" and "unintelligent" but hey, that's like the Archinect handshake, right?
Jun 9, 15 6:14 pm ·
·
Sivad,
First scenario #2 is not "practice of Architecture" and in which case, this scenario would not qualify as Experience Setting A and likely fail also in Experience Setting O.
To attain IDP training hours, the fundamental premise is the LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL (Architect - for experience setting A and O, Engineer - Experience Setting O ) **** MUST **** have direct supervision (which implied direct supervision and control) over the work you have prepared and ULTIMATELY if bearing the stamp of the LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL then he/she MUST comply with the laws of the state.
NCARB policy is that to attain IDP credit, ALL parties (IDP Supervisor and IDP Intern) is legally compliant with the laws and regulation of the jurisdiction where the project is located. NCARB policy is NOT to reward IDP Interns or condoning UNLAWFUL practice.
By your scenario #2, the project is exempt from license requirement. In that scenario, the licensed design professional has no contractual involvement to the project and therefore is not in legal charge of the project. The intern is party to contract to the client. The Licensed Design professional is not a part to contract with the client. However, there is a possibility that the Licensed Design Professional is in a de facto contract (verbal agreement) with the IDP intern.
The moment an architect or engineer engages in the role of IDP Supervisor by NCARB definition, the licensed design professional would trigger the legal requirement of the licensing law to stamp and seal the drawing. In the licensing laws, an architect or engineer will need to have "direct supervision and control" over the drawings, specifications and other documents prepared and exercise restraining powers including control over directing and assigning what tasks are assigned to those working under his/her supervision and which tasks are prepared directly by him/her. Therefore, in your scenario, that licensed design professional would be A) effectively assuming control over the project within the scope of his/her services and the intern is becoming effectively the CLIENT of the licensed design professional from whom that intern is required to PAY per agreement while although the intern has his or her CLIENT whom commissioned him/her to perform the services in the first place. Based on the scenario, the licensed design professional also have a reciprocal agreement where the IDP intern is basically in contract to the LICENSED design professional for drafting and other services. Basically, a TWO way contractual service commission between the unlicensed Intern and the Licensed Design Professional where the IDP intern is getting paid. So the pay maybe effective a wash.
I did something like this some years ago, it is technically dubious legally. It was before I could actually be enrolled in IDP so I never attained IDP but I did use it to technically get my IDP enrollment date when IDP 2.0 policies were implemented. Now, that is more or less a moot point as per the subsequent policy changes, my IDP enrollment effective date would be moved all the way back to 2000 instead of 2005 or 2006 with my GED however, these hours are so old that the date of these hours would have zero IDP training hours assignable to them.
In any instance, the licensed design professional would have to assume control and have direct supervision over architectural or engineering drawings, specifications and other documents being prepared for this project.
If the project was a non-exempt building, it would be legally dubious and potentially could become aiding and abetting unlawful practice of architecture for an architect to contract with an unlicensed designer to conduct architectural services IF the unlicensed designer is in contract with the client. In such a case, the architect or engineer would require the unlicensed designer to no longer be in legal contract with the client because on a non-exempt building, the licensed design professional in general, needs to be in direct contract with client not an unlicensed designer who is not a licensed construction contractor. One of those, don't touch with a 10 foot pole thing.
On an exempt building, the issue is still touchy because the architect needs to contractually assume full and legal control over all architectural services and similarly for an engineer involving engineering services to the project.
This is necessary for IDP training hours for Experience Setting A and O in this sense. There are individual instance where certain hours can be attained as an exception to this basic rule.
There IS a general correlation between the IDP policy and that of the licensing laws. Part of that stems from adoption of NCARB Model law as amended and incorporated into the licensing laws aside from those laws already established before NCARB model laws were instituted. Virtually all states have aligned the architectural licensing laws to such model laws to varying degree but substantially.
What you described in that scenario #2 can work to attain IDP training hours but this is a dubious gray area which will likely trigger NCARB 'audit' and requiring documentation. In which case, it is best that the agreements between the architect/engineer and the intern is in writing and legally there must be a contractual requirement of payment of the parties to each other. Is it legally possible where there is a legal net zero dollar difference or just about... yes. As long as the intern is paid. Minimum wage does not apply to independent contractor relationship. You better be sharp as a tack.
The intent and envisioned idea for independent contractor relationship is where the architect has a project with a client but they need external drafting or like services to expand their human resource capacity so they contract an intern/building designer or project manager or someone of the sort to aid but this person reports to under the direction and oversight/supervision of the architect/engineer but the intern/PM or building designer/drafter-IDP Intern has more degree of independence like scheduling his/her own hours, conduct work using his/her own equipment and has his/her own place of business, etc. and therefore meets state and federal independent contractor relationship.
Most of the time, the principle of the rule on the IDP Guidelines is with CONTRACT EMPLOYEE relationship not independent contractor relationship. Contract employees are often those who don't work regularly in the office of their employer. Getting that correct, is important as that pertains to tax and other such implications but that is irrelevant to IDP guidelines. The principle was so to aid people who do not work regularly inside the office of an architect/engineer to get IDP training hours.
In scenario #2, as described is a tricky area. Bottom line: Intern needs to be paid. Nothing says how much an intern has to be paid. But applicable labor laws may or may not apply. That becomes a legal question for a labor attorney to say whether or not minimum wage applies and whether the relationship is "employment" (contractual employment) or an independent contractor relationship. Those facts will weigh in NCARB decision making if they had to audit the training hours. NCARB can retroactively remove IDP training hours and even license revoked/suspended if you fail to do such correctly and they had to remove hours in the future because of facts coming to light just as if someone fraudulently submitted hours and have them approved.
What you are asking for is a fringe issue and is not typical. If all else fails, take a more conservative approach and work a job in a manner of a more typical or clear contractual employment relationship.
Getting IDP hours in an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR relationship is rare and dubious, Historically, you can NEVER get IDP training hours that way. It is better and more reliable to get hours as a contract employment relationship than independent contractor relationship. In most states, architects stamping drawings not prepared by an EMPLOYEE (be it traditional or contractual) would violate stamping rules as the architect would have to have legal control over the person who they are supervising that is preparing the work and have power to exercise control. Independent contractors are not exactly under control by other people.
My suggestion is working as a CONTRACT EMPLOYEE not necessarily as an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Also, the other part is NCARB's intent on IDP policies regarding Experience Setting A and O is that the architect/engineer is in contract with the project's client and the intern is not.
ALTERNATIVELY, you can make a partnership with an Architect or two and maybe an engineer and as co-principals, neither party can fire each other. NCARB looks dimly on experience where the architect or engineer is an employee or otherwise in a position where he or she can be fired or contractually terminated by the intern under supervision where as as co-owners.... everyone is equal and parties in the firm assigned charge over architectural services of the firm has charge over the project and those that are not such as the unlicensed partner may then aid by serving in a sort of subservient role of doing the 'dirty work' of drafting, and what not and get the sh-t done because the incentive is you all get paid sooner. So in that sense, you are getting paid on the revenue. You are not a slave to your partner but you don't get necessarily a wage or salary but say a draw, dividend or otherwise.
You get paid in overall big picture.
You can do it that way but in that case, you wouldn't get IDP training hours if the architect/engineer was an employee and you were the boss. They must be equal or higher rank to ease NCARB's concerns on the matter.
In your #2 scenario, it is a tad messy and can raise apprehension on the administrative staff of NCARB to approving the IDP training hours.
Jun 11, 15 3:28 am ·
·
Bloopox makes a good point but NCARB reserves the right to take a closer look and any of the experience. This is more likely to occur when you are looking to start ARE or otherwise when you are finalizing IDP and they catch notice of some flags. Licensing board looking at your NCARB record maybe a cause of a trigger for an audit by NCARB to dig deeper.
#2 scenario can comply IF you have thins set up correctly. NCARB at any point in time may elect to look at these types of submissions closer and reverse any approvals they may have initially assigned. That type of experience is a grey area.
Bloopox is right, detail proof and documentations isn't likely to be requested but NCARB reserves that right so to cover your ass in case of it, it is best to have clear written contractual agreement that is clear the architect/engineer is in charge of architectural services and that the intern is not in an defacto supervisory position over the architect/engineer. Being partners in a business or true independent relationship would satisfy that apprehension NCARB would have. I have asked such questions with NCARB. They take a dim view if the intern was the architect/engineer's employer.
I am aware that this is possible a dubious area--my task is simply to arm myself with as much information as possible. My point is-- as read, the documentation that NCARB has available online is worded vaguely enough that I would probably be proceeding as described in the scenario if I weren't checking here first. Nothing in my state's licensure documentation has specific language excluding this scenario either. Like you say, it's all about "intent." Which to me means "administrative discretion," which I guess can really only be judged anecdotally.
So, I guess my question for you is: where is your information/interpretation coming from? It seems like NCARB goes out of their way to exclude specific languages about the supervisor being contractually bound, or in any way at risk regarding the assessment of an intern's IDP hours. I assume this is to encourage architects to become supervisors, knowing that they personally will have no actual obligation or oversight, other than that to and of the intern. And there are plenty of scenarios where a supervisor is not contractually bound to the work of an intern, other than by virtue of that supervisor's employment at the same firm as the intern. I'd be interested in reading what you have read, just so I don't have to play quite as dumb when NCARB comes knocking.
The bottom line is, if I have to make the choice between:
1) being intimately involved with a house project from start to finish that thoroughly covers the full IDP spectrum, with no reward of IDP hours, or...
2) working in a firm cleaning up AIA award submission drawings in illustrator (and racking up IDP in the process)...
then it's not much of a decision. IDP gets a lot of flak but it does seem to be, at least in part, crafted to bring fringe scenarios into the tent. I'm actually looking quite forward to the opportunity to get involved with NCARB as an Architect, if I don't get blacklisted before then...
There are unfortunately few ways to become involved with NCARB. It doesn't have individual members. The members are the state boards - each board designates one or two delegates to NCARB meetings - and that's basically the only regular interaction anyone has with them. Occasionally there are opportunities to serve as a pre-tester of ARE content, and once in awhile they've held a summit where they've invited some representative sample of interns, emerging professionals, or whatever their target audience of the moment happens to be.
Be wary of Richard's information. He's a self-styled expert on architectural licensing regulations - but most of his information comes from his interactions related to his own situation in Oregon. It sounds like you may be in NY, and NY's regulations differ substantially on things like what constitutes "responsible control", and even on allowed entry points to start accumulating experience that will count toward their requirements.
Richard has not yet submitted any experience reports to NCARB. He was able to open an NCARB record based on having completed a for-credit unpaid internship with an architect, through his CAD certificate program at a community college. He has never been an employee of an architecture firm, nor admitted to an architecture degree program. His situation is unique, and not relevant to the path that you're describing.
Both of the work situations you're describing can satisfy NCARB requirements. But if this is for NY I agree with others that the second situation won't satisfy the state. This doesn't mean you shouldn't submit it to NCARB, but just because they accept it doesn't mean NY will later when you apply to test through NY, or when you apply for a license there if you test through a different state - and that's what other interns meant about getting screwed at the end by the state.
Jun 11, 15 11:05 am ·
·
Spontaneous,
You don't know what I have in terms of submitted hours. You don't need to submit training hours to NCARB to read the IDP Guidelines pdf file OR even call them and talk to them. I have talked directly with the staff on IDP.
NCARB's policy is clear in that the architect MUST have a role of supervisory level. IF you read the OP's question in the first post, there is NO SPECIFIC STATE. 75% of the 50 states have licensing laws on this matter that are substantially the same as Oregon. There is only a few not a majority of the states that allows an architect or engineer to review work prepared by others that are not licensed simply by reviewing the work. Most states, that would be grounds for fines or other disciplinary action to the architect aside from the unlicensed designer facing fines.
I'm not talking about New York which has its own idiosyncratic licensing laws and such.
In the other 45+ states, architects needs to have supervision over any work not prepared by them but prepared by an unlicensed person from beginning to end. You may NOT under any of those states simply review and stamp drawings prepared by a non-Architect. That is violation and those who do deserves to have their licensed REVOKED because when you get your license, you have signed a legally binding contractual oath to comply with ALL the laws and regulations pertaining to architecture.
In addition, the architect MUST exercise responsible control and direct supervision over all work that they stamp. NCARB IDP policy requires that the IDP internship is lawful. If either or both parties (IDP intern or IDP supervisor) violate the laws or rules of the state where the project is located regarding a project where the Intern's are earning their IDP training hours those hours is invalid by rule. Bottom line: Internship and supervision needs to be lawfully compliant OR it is invalid. Sure, people sneak and lied on hours that would not comply with IDP but those persons doing so are doing so at grave risk that can result in revocation of any licensure they may have at time of such being exposed.
Regarding my employment with architects, they are short term contract based arrangements. You claim I was able to open an NCARB record based on completing a for-credit unpaid internship. First off, the cooperative work experience maybe a paid or unpaid position. Since you could not legally access such without severe violation of FERPA, let me enlighten you. Since it was more an independent contractor relationship between me and the architect, MINIMUM WAGE laws do not apply. Therefore, how much I get paid is irrelevant as long as it is legal and more than $0.00. Technically a dual way flat fee of $5.00 would work (NOTE: Do not assume that $5 is the amount in the agreement as that amount is between me and the architect and unless you can talk to the dead, it is going to be meaningless). In a legal court of law, I would still be deemed being paid even if the amount was 1 cent payment transaction each way. Note: How much I am paid and the architect is paid and the net difference is not being disclosed with any confirmation or denial. You just have to guess. The bottom line is the amount of pay I receive contractually is above $0.00 to be legally defined as being paid. In an independent contractor relationship, there is no minimum wage requirement.
NCARB policy since then completely neutralize the requirement of any work experience to open an NCARB record. Now, all you have to do is show is a high school diploma or equivalent. Which means, now my NCARB effective record date could be recalibrated to June 2000 when my GED was conferred. However, what difference does it make anyway. That part with the CWE experience is a wash.
However, I was stretching the rule as it was but now it is unneccessary since IDP policy amendments changes since the initial establishing of the IDP 2.0 phase 1 and 2.
Simplifying IDP administration, they simply just require proof of high school diploma or equivalent of which I already have so regardless my IDP record still holds.
Again, this is irrelevent to the OP's situation or the OP's question. I wasn't talking so much about my own experience in my response. I have done something similar to scenario #2, regarding NCARB policy, it may be acceptable if done right. Now, remember this, New York's rules regarding internship is only applicable if you make New York your state of initial licensure and it may matter when it comes to reciprocity (I don't know). However, just because you intern in New York doesn't mean the intern is undergoing initial licensure in that state. Keep that in mind before you get too spontaneous.
Jun 11, 15 3:00 pm ·
·
Sivad,
When you get into these 'gray' areas, this is going to be administratively discerned. This is something NCARB at its choice may request more information.
Bottom line:Regarding scenario #2: In an independent contractor relationship to be approved for IDP training hours in Experience Setting A and O ( with an architect/engineer as IDP supervisor) ---- You need to be paid per contractual agreement. Also the architect or engineer needs to be legally in charge of the drawings, specifications and other documents prepared in relation to his/her Architectural or Engineering services in regards to project with client. In general, the architect/engineer would need to be in contractual relationship with each other but not always but there needs to be clear record of who is in charge.
NCARB's IDP policy is closer to Oregon and the national normative regarding stamping and supervision than some exceptional states. However, if the experience arrangement is legal and the architect is in fact engaging practice of architecture services to the project, he/she must be in charge of the project as architect of responsible charge or another licensed design professional (another architect) is in charge. Like you see in a firm where you may have be working under the supervision of a project architect but that architect is not the architect of record for the project who maybe another person higher up in the firm whom your IDP supervisor (a project architect and licensed) works reports to.
So in scenario #2, you can be an independent contractor or contract employee.
An example that could qualify for IDP training hours if it was happening today is my experience with SRG Partnership where I do certain tasks assigned to me by a project team member who is licensed even though he/she might not be the one stamping the construction documents. NCARB's intent is that the architect/engineer is in the contract relationship with the project client.
In your #2 scenario as you explained it in the original post is a stretch but you really need to have documentation to prove the architect is in responsible charge to the project or NCARB may elect/choose to not accept those hours.
Yes, some states have their own idiosyncrasies. For example of New York, unless you intend to get licensed in New York, the IDP standards you need to keep in mind is that of the state of your intended state of initial licensure and NCARB's policy. Of course, the laws that matters in experience in New York is if the architect supervisor (IDP supervisor) can lawfully engage in such a manner as you described and stamp the drawings. It might be unlawful for him/her to stamp the drawings in that fashion but then it might not qualify as IDP training hours by NCARB standard.
Hence: Dubious. I would raise caution on trying to get IDP training hours in such a gray area because it might not count and cause more headache down the road if not already.
You're losing track of your own stories Rick. You recently wrote yourself that you haven't submitted any experience yet. You are also the one who wrote on another forum that your coop experience was completely unpaid - but then you started dancing around that, claiming that you "forgot it was paid a very small amount."
Since the rules have changed to allow you to start a record with a GED and no experience, maybe you should withdraw that original coop experience and re-start your NCARB record. If you leave that in there as the basis of your eligibility, you'll be risking NCARB or the state discrediting it - and even barring you - if they get hold of your own past posts stating that the coop was unpaid, unless you can back up with bank records or pay stubs that you were actually paid. It doesn't matter that the rules have changed since - other interns have tried that argument and still been banned and fined by states in similar situations.
"Also the architect or engineer needs to be legally in charge of the drawings."
Thanks, but again, this is per what? Your direct correspondence with NCARB? An interpretation of the information contained in IDP documents available on NCARB's site? Verbatim from something?
For clarification, I am not in NY. I am using NY as a benchmark for stringent standards. And these questions are over whether to attempt submitting these hours as IDP experiences.
The consensus (or spread of opinions, rather) so far seems to be:
"it might technically not be acceptable for IDP hours... but also might be (at least not in NY)... they most likely aren't going to check... if they do it will help to have some documentation... can't hurt to try."
Richard, out of curiosity (which I'll probably regret): You've been trying to find a route to getting licensed as an architect for many years now, and ranting about it... Is your goal to be able to call yourself an architect? Or is it to be able to design non-exempt buildings? If the latter, why don't you just become a licensed engineer instead? Surely you must know that your beloved rules of the State of Oregon allow a licensed engineer to DO everything an architect is allowed to do. Except call themselves architects. You can get licensed as an engineer in Oregon with a 2-year technical degree, a couple years of work experience, and a couple exams. No IDP, no professional degree requirement, no 7 closed-book exams. Why not get off the forums and go do that?
Sivad Bop: he's interpreting the requirements in the IDP documents about the supervisor being "engaged in the lawful practice of architecture", and that the intern be an employee to mean that that architect would need to be the person stamping the drawings on which the intern is working. True in some states. Not true in several.
I'm an NCARB supervisor. The online forms on which I approve the interns' experience just ask me to click the box attesting that I'm engaged in the lawful practice of architecture as defined by the jurisdiction. It's my responsibility - and the interns - to make sure that we're following the rules of our state. If we are then we click the respective boxes. That's really as complicated as it gets.
Jun 11, 15 4:03 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
I wouldn't say it is simply that Engineers are allowed to do anything an architect may do. At least, not as clear cut like that.
I'll explain this a little bit about engineer's doing "Architecture". It is a contentious issue. Since this comes down to licensing boards and how they administrate the laws and rules a little bit. In recent years, an engineer may only engage aspects of architectural services incidental to their engineering services offered. So a mechanical engineer (for example) may not practice all aspects of architect, only where it is incidental to mechanical engineering or any other discipline of engineering that the engineer is competent to practice.
A highly multidisciplinary engineer or perhaps even an "Architectural Engineer" could possibly engage and effective be the 'Architect' of the project. (without using that title of course).
I can engage initial licensure in engineering either through WA or OR. In Oregon, the experience path, if I recall would be 8 years + 4. WA is 4+4 and reciprocity within a year or two.
Note: The +4 is EIT.
Its 4 to 8 years pre-EIT experience (degrees can reduce the number of years of experience down) then you take the FE exam and you undergo EIT and once the 4 years are complete... you take the PE exams in the disciplines of engineering you want to engage or document.
Bloopox: right. I've logged about 1500 hours as an intern, all as an independent contractor so my de-facto employer could skimp on payroll taxes, and NCARB has not blinked yet.
My understanding was that the rules of my state allowed for this arrangement. The arrangement regarding a self-employed project in which the supervisor was not contractually involved was a little more ambiguous, and it seems by this thread that there is some confusion over it.
Jun 11, 15 4:22 pm ·
·
Sivad,
It is a bit of direct dialog from communicating with NCARB, reading the licensing laws as they are including the licensing boards meeting minutes, etc. So it is a culmination from many sources.
NCARB isn't going to reward you for being a building designer just because you have an architect friend being an informal mentor and guide. If they did, I would have a bit more IDP training hours. It doesn't work that way. Sure, some people may have successfully got fraudulent hours approved and they got licensed at some point because no one at NCARB was informed of such fraudulent information to get them to begin an investigation on the matter and look deeper. The day to day staff don't look that closely but remember, it is a risk the intern and supervisor takes in doing so.
IDP is expected to be done in compliance with the laws and regulations. As long as you and your supervisor is not violating the laws and rules where the project in which your work is being associated with and you and your supervisor complies with NCARB's rules, you're fine.
HYPOTHETICAL POINT FOLLOWS:
If you or your supervisor don't, and fraudulent hours are discovered and the fraud is exposed, NCARB not only can retract those hours which may also mean your ARE tests also be invalidated and your license (if you got licensed by the time that was exposed), the supervisor could very well face disciplinary action by his/her licensing board(s).
The penalty can be significant and in turn could put you into severe penalty because if you were never properly qualified, every single project you ever done when licensed can be deemed a count of violation and penalty can be to the maximum penalty per case of violation. So if you had 100 projects when post-licensure when NCARB discovered fraudulent hours and all, your licensing board(s) can discipline you for upto the limit (in Oregon... a violation fine of up to $5,000). So if it was Oregon you got licensed, you could face up to $500,000+ in fines for 100 projects. In theory, you can be charged not only for practice but also for title usage for each project and you can see the horrible nightmare of such if they took you to town. However, I doubt they will issue fines to that extreme but the minimum fine in Oregon (for example) is like $500. So, it is not small matter to shirk. It is serious and can have potentially serious ramifications.
DISCLAIMER: IT IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPLY SIVAD OR HIS/HER SUPERVISOR HAS OR IS OR IS PLANNING TO COMMIT FRAUD IN IDP TRAINING HOURS.
NOTE: IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, IT IS BEST PRACTICE TO CONSULT NCARB ABOUT THEM.
Jun 11, 15 4:36 pm ·
·
Sivad,
Exactly... Confusion over the matters is EXACTLY what would trigger NCARB to look closer. They have the power and authorization to get more information.
It is always best if you have a clear written contractual agreement but the nature and point for your 'internship' agreement is that you are getting paid not you paying the architect.
I agree with you about getting hours in an independent contractor relationship. It is permitted by NCARB rules but it is valid ULTIMATELY if it is legal. If there is illegality, it is legally invalid but it would be awfully dumb of you to speak about such especially if they accepted the hours. (Hint)
However, I believe things so far is likely lawfully compliant. Just you want to have clear record because NCARB or any licensing board looking at your records during licensing phase could ask for more information if they get suspicious.
This is a little nuts. No one is talking about fraudulent hours. We are talking about activities that fall appropriately within the IDP guidelines for experience categories, and a supervisor who will have de facto, but not contractual, control over said activities. Where this falls within the provisions of NCARB.
Many people who are working above board in every aspect of their careers as architects and IDP supervisors are telling me this is OK. One person who is not an architect but has seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of NCARB is telling me to be worried about being fined $500,000.
so let me ask you all something- when you apply for your license AFTER you've passed your exams and completed IDP, how do does the state Verify that what is on your NCARB record is truthful? Do you have to submit employment records?
Jun 11, 15 5:02 pm ·
·
Sivad,
I was merely covering all bases. Good. Lets not get too caught up on unlawful/fraud and fines and disciplinary actions one can face. That's covered and well to assume that it can be anywhere from the extreme to less extreme.
If it falls clearly within the IDP Guidelines then there is no questions to be answered that the IDP Guidelines should not be able to answer. Your example and question falls outside of being clearly within the guideline. In fact, to be clear within the IDP Guidelines, you would never be an independent contractor. You would be a traditional employee or contract employee.
However, NCARB indicated independent contractor relationship is accepted on their website not so clear in the IDP Guideline document.
The independent contractor relationship is one of those areas that can get problematic.
The intent is that the Architect is in contractual agreement with the client as being architect of responsible charge. Example of intent: Architect has a contract with a client to design houses and staff is already loaded so the architect contracts an unlicensed designer/intern to provide drafting services to the architect as a "back office support". Maybe, the architect is already loaded with projects and doesn't have the time to draft the construction documents or to do field measurements and other such tasks and report back to the architect. The designer/intern has his/her own 'office' and computer and the Architect has his or her own office but no room for an additional in-office employee. The designer-intern also has latitude to set his/her own hours to do the tasks within constraints of project timeline.
In that sense, the designer-intern maybe legally an independent contractor and is only commissioned for the project and tasks assigned. In that regard, the designer-intern may receive IDP training hours.
What doesn't get me IDP training hours is tasks like designing a house for a client just because I happen to informally converse with an architect friend about the project that I am making decisions on even if some of those decisions comes after bouncing off the ideas to the architect friend for feedback. If the architect is just a sounding board and is to such informal capacity, it doesn't count as IDP as the architect is not legally meeting supervisory standards of any state law. There is a key legal principle, DUTY OF CARE. Until the architect is of capacity to owe a duty of care to the project's client and the project itself, the architect would not be in a supervisory role. Its more informal mentoring than actual role of supervisor as would be in an employer-employee sense of things which IDP is founded on.
Jun 11, 15 5:28 pm ·
·
BulgarBlogger,
Employment records or contract agreements and all supporting documents and in cases, legally binding testimony of parties. Aside from your NCARB record transmittal, anything and everything to substantiate validity of the matters that satisfies their concerns within extent of the laws of the state.
Bulgar: Some states require work history info on their own forms when you apply to test. Most of the problems are from people whose experience started earlier than their particular state rules allow, or from people who interned for firms located within that state that aren't properly structured or registered.
New York is usually the example, because NY is well known for using architecture interns' work histories as a way to catch and fine New York architecture firms that are in violation of NY's rules. Usually all they're doing is googling the firm names and determining things like that the firm is an LLC (that's not a permitted architecture firm type in NY), or that the firm has a partner who is not a licensed architect. That sort of thing.
Richard Balkins is way off in left field with all this "anything and everything" substantiation nonsense - though if any of that ever really happens to anyone, he'd be a great candidate for close scrutiny.
Jun 11, 15 10:13 pm ·
·
kjdt....
Get some real reading comprehension skills higher than 3rd grade.
I said:
"Aside from your NCARB record transmittal, anything and everything to substantiate validity of the matters that satisfies their concerns within extent of the laws of the state."
Read the whole sentence. Aside from NCARB record transmittal, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to substantiate validity of the matters that satisfies their concerns within extent of the laws of the state.
Think. THINK!
What am I saying exactly?
Jun 11, 15 10:36 pm ·
·
"...though if any of that ever really happens to anyone, he'd be a great candidate for close scrutiny."
The most common way that most states get involved in verifying any experience info is that someone reports an applicant for some accused circumnavigating of regulations, which causes an investigation to be opened. For that reason I'd be careful about giving too much identifying information and specifics on this and other forums.
I'm surprised at Mr. Balkins' attitude of "who cares" about his self-admitted bending of the rules regarding establishing his NCARB record, on the basis that it's irrelevant because the rules have since changed. Being as obsessed as he is with rules and regulations, I'd imagine he'd know that the rules that apply are the ones in place at the time that he used that experience to open his record.
Here's an example from an architecture board's disciplinary actions, verbatim except for identifying info removed:
"On the application at issue, Respondent stated he was an Architectural Intern from [date] to [date], and from [date] through the date of application and submitted that [name of Architect] was his supervisor. [Name of Architect] is a licensed architect in the State of Washington and owns his own design business in [City], WA. Respondent was living in [name of location] during the times in question... Respondent maintains that NCARB credentialing allows for remote supervision but the rule he cites was not in effect at the time of his application. The State does not deny however that the rule has in fact changed to allow for some remote supervision. The Board of Architects hereby denies Respondent's application for license and furthermore bars Respondent from every applying for or receiving licensure in [state]. Respondent is required to pay an administrative penalty of $1000 (one thousand dollars). Said penalty must be paid within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order."
Jun 12, 15 1:27 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
Know the difference between stretching or bending the rule (it's more stretching the rule) from that of BREAKING the rule. There's a difference.
Maybe you need to learn how to read English.
Aside from that, regarding your example case:
It looks like the licensing board is violating their own laws and rules by misuse of disciplinary actions. They are not suppose to issue fines unless a law or rule is violated and they have to cite it and it would need to be so in public record. Like I said, it looks like it. Based on what you quoted, if it was me, I would have told them to stick their fine up where the sun doesn't shine, I am not paying it unless they can precisely cite what law or rule I violated and exactly how. The last I checked, it isn't necessarily a violation of law for me to work the direct supervision of an architect in a remote (ie. where I am not operating regularly in the office where the architect resides) manner in an independent contractor or contract employee relationship. Until they can cite what violation was made precisely, don't bother mailing me that fine notice because it will simply be returned to sender.
I would have held them to task and contest them unless they have a proper basis for levying a fine at an appropriate level.
Proper administration of law enforcement requires that the persons responsible for enforcing laws to cite the laws and rules and indicate how and what the violation is that they are issuing a fine.
State of Washingon's board of Architects seems to have some issues that needs to be looked at closer and more professionalism and proper procedures and consistency in how they rule.
NCARB administers IDP not WA board of architect. Either they create their own internship program or they accept in accordance with NCARB rules. If you are on that board or know any of the members of the board, they should be careful about issuing disciplinary actions. They have to be actually violating a law or rule of the state of Washington that the board of architects is tasked to administer the enforcement of those laws and rules.
It can come back to bite them in the butt.
Jun 12, 15 2:46 pm ·
·
Technically, I already had an NCARB record for at least a year or two or more (forget exactly) before I actually was enrolled in IDP. When I was enrolling in IDP, I had to submit a form to establish an eligibility date. I also had to show a HS diploma or equivalent. Since the rules for enrolling has changed and administration of such an eligibility date is no longer used nor is it anymore indicated or shown on my "myNCARB" account. However, I am enrolled in IDP and based on the fact that I already have proof of my GED submitted to them, it already indicates sufficient proof of my Eligibility to the IDP program under the new rule.
So they drop the old IDP Eligibility date to base IDP eligibility on the basis of having a high school diploma and also being 18 years old. So our eligibility date in essence had been readjusted with the change in the rules when they simplified IDP Eligibility to being at least 18 years old and having a HS diploma or equivalent (eg. GED).
Technically my IDP Eligibility Date is now basically 6/1/2000.
The Board of Architects hereby denies Respondent's application for license and furthermore bars Respondent from every applying for or receiving licensure in [state]. Respondent is required to pay an administrative penalty of $1000 (one thousand dollars). Said penalty must be paid within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order."
Lovely- putting myself in the applicants shoes; I've been barred from EVER applying again. Why would I ever pay? due process and all...
That example is not from Washington's board. The supervisor was located in WA, the intern was not.
The statutes cited were one pertaining to deceptive or fraudulent use or procurement of a license, and one for willfully filing false reports (for attesting that his experience met all requirements.)
Remote supervision was not permitted at the time that the intern was remotely supervised, The fraud was that he reported experience that did not meet the requirements at the time that he reported it.
Jun 12, 15 3:24 pm ·
·
As a matter of fact, I talked to NCARB a few minutes ago. They no longer use the "IDP Eligibility date" that they used to and IDP eligiblity is based on the date in which you are A) eligible by age and B) eligible by having a high school diploma or equivalent. Therefore, they no longer retained the eligibility date from the older IDP policy. Therefore, my effective IDP eligibility date under the new rule would be when I am 18 years of age AND when I have 'graduated' from high school (received my GED... date of passing the GED, etc.). So basically, it is June 1, 2000 as I was already 18 years old prior to that date and June 1, 2000 was date in which the GED was conferred at the GED graduation ceremony in Fertig Hall.
Some of you, it will be moved back to 80s or 90s or even earlier.
Hence why my so called "careless" attitude about the IDP Eligibility date that was initially established but that changed about a year or so after I initially enrolled in IDP.
As I said, it is more or less moot point regarding my prior initial IDP Eligibility or how I got enrolled, anyway. It doesn't matter as 1) never received any IDP training hours for it anyway.... and 2) rule changes effectively moves the eligibility date back to 2000 instead of 2006.
What about experience that's gained abroad, while being self-employed? I ran my own practice in India for 7 years, and was licensed in India. It would be a shame if I can't somehow log those hours into my NCARB account. Any advice would be appreciated.
Best,
Kiran
Oct 17, 18 8:57 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
IDP, supervisor definitions, self-employed, et. al.
Hi All,
I have a question that has been tread upon a more than a few times here, but there is some specific information that is missing (in NCARB's documentation as well).
1. What are the *actual* requirements for the employer-relationship an IDP supervisor? The NCARB handbook has a lot of allusions to scenarios "within your firm" or "when changing employer," but at no point (that I have found) are there any written specifics about what the legal/professional relationship *can* or *can not* be.
2. Is this simply an administrative judgement issue? I.e. if the only specific, repeated language describing the relationship of a supervisor to intern is "direct, daily supervision," can a supervisor be *any* licensed architect with whom an intern has such a relationship?
Let me describe two scenarios: the latter of which is mine:
A) An intern works at a nationally respected and recognized firm on payroll. This firm is known for being a great place to work, and fair to its employees, old and young. She works on a large-scale planning project where she needs to look hard for hours under which her IDP hours can fall. Her IDP supervisor is another employee of the firm who supervises multiple interns at the firm, but does not ever work on the same project as this intern. Their work is entirely mutually exclusive, and there is no direct supervision on the intern's work (other architects at the firm are directly supervising her work.)
B) Another intern lands a contract with a private client for a small-ish house project. The local authorities require no architect's stamp on drawings (only structural). This intern finds a local colleague who is a licensed professional to act as IDP supervisor. The supervisor has no legal or formal involvement with the project, but supervises and advises the work on a 3-meetings-per week routine, guiding the intern through the proposal process, contractor interviews, and providing consistent and advanced design feedback (this supervisor is also an academic). The supervisor does everything for the intern from explaining the history of contemporary residential architecture, to redlining details.
I have found these two sentiments in equal proportion here:
"You're fine, as long as the person is registered and supervising you, it shouldn't matter"
"Probably can't get IDP here, people have gotten screwed (especially in NY)"
So, does anybody actually know?
Thanks!
PS. "neither of those interns should get credit" has occurred to me, so you won't be providing anything new with that response. One clearly does get hours. The other probably could. Just looking for facts.
I thought he has to be a IDP supervisor and he has to sign off on your hours so it can't be just anybody he has to be registered with ncarb.
For reference, this is the block of language that refers to supervisor requirements directly:
“Direct supervision” of interns shall occur either through personal contact or through a mix of personal contact and remote communication (e.g. e-mail, online markups, webinars, internet) such that the IDP supervisor has control over the work of the intern and has sufficient professional knowledge of the supervised work so that the IDP supervisor can determine that the intern understands and is performing his or her work experience within the professional standard of care. To earn experience hours in workplace settings described in this document, the intern must work under the direct supervision of an IDP supervisor. The supervisor shall verify the experience of the intern and foster a professional relationship that is grounded in a direct professional association between the intern and the supervisor."
None of this speaks to my question, which seems to suggest it's a judgement call from NCARB. In that case, it would seem like there should be some addendum somewhere about the nature of supervisor-intern professional relationships, and how to appropriately document the relationship and "in-person or electronic" correspondences that demonstrate "direct supervision," for those situations which might fall outside the typical employee-firm-payroll situation. Right?
Any licensed architect can register as an IDP supervisor.
For NCARB purposes either of the scenarios you describe should work.
For NY state purposes the 2nd scenario won't satisfy the state's requirements, which specifically require that the intern be an employee.
OK thanks for the feedback. The state-by-state requirements seem to be the x-factor here?
I guess the question then is-- does this begin to matter while logging IDP hours, or at the end when the state reviews your IDP file? As in, will your experiences be rejected as you go, or as one lump sum at the end (which is where I assume the "getting screwed" sentiment comes from)?
And in either case (especially the latter), why aren't there huge caveats all over MY NCARB warning "some professional relationships may not qualify for IDP hours with your individual state board, please confirm with your accrediting locality that your supervisor relationship qualifies with your state's requirements." ??
Or that information is hiding in plain sight, and I'm just missing it.
^ because ncarb sucks
Sivad: "why aren't there huge caveats all over MY NCARB warning "some professional relationships may not qualify for IDP hours with your individual state board..."
Probably because NCARB assumes a certain amount of intelligence and professionalism among those choosing to pursue IDP. The information is clearly out there for anyone to see - you can't pretend to be a professional and still expect NCARB to constantly spoon-feed you every tiny little scrap of information that you might need.
See http://www.ncarb.org/Experience-Through-Internships/IDP2-Experience-Categories-Areas.aspx - which clearly provides the following statement: "It is an intern’s responsibility to understand the requirements of any jurisdiction where they may seek either initial or reciprocal registration." They then go on to provide you a link to your state board website.
As far as NCARB is concerned, there is only one version of IDP. For IDP purposes, your experience will usually be accepted or rejected as you submit it to NCARB, though it is subject to a final review as well.
For NCARB purposes you don't generally need to submit any evidence regarding the exact nature of the intern-supervisor professional relationship. As long as you and your supervisor certify that the situation meets the rules, and your supervisor is licensed, and your dates of various work situations don't conflict with each other, you're very unlikely to be asked for any additional information. Both of the situations you described fulfill NCARB's current rules (though until fairly recently the 2nd one did not.)
Some states have more stringent requirements than IDP. For example some require that supervisors have been licensed for a certain minimum number of years, or that experience can only be earned as a documented employee in a legally registered firm, or that all of the experience be earned after graduation.
NY has the latter two rules - with certain exceptions. If you complete IDP and some of it does not satisfy NY's requirements and you do not also submit additional experience that does satisfy NY's requirements, then you'll hear about it when you apply for your license.
It's your responsibility to learn NCARB's requirements, as well as the requirements of your state. In many cases your IDP experience will also satisfy the state's requirements - but in some cases, such as the 2nd that you described, you may need to gain separate or additional experience in order to satisfy your state's requirements.
Bloopox - Thanks for your thorough reply. Those who have previously spoken up on the topic here tend to be convinced it's one or the other-- evidence that they have only read NCARB's language on the issue, and not spoken with their state boards.
distant - thanks for pointing me to that text. I concede that ncarb does remind us that states have requirements, they just don't ever mention that they may involve the actual relationship of your IDP supervisor. Seems to me like a slightly bigger-than-little "scrap" of information that they would like to clarify.... especially somewhere in their 18-page PDF called "Supervisor Guidelines" with headings like "What is an IDP Supervisor?"
...So I thought I would ask those around me, like I would if I were in a firm. Since I'm not in a firm, I asked here. And I got my answer! I got called "unprofessional" and "unintelligent" but hey, that's like the Archinect handshake, right?
Sivad,
First scenario #2 is not "practice of Architecture" and in which case, this scenario would not qualify as Experience Setting A and likely fail also in Experience Setting O.
To attain IDP training hours, the fundamental premise is the LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL (Architect - for experience setting A and O, Engineer - Experience Setting O ) **** MUST **** have direct supervision (which implied direct supervision and control) over the work you have prepared and ULTIMATELY if bearing the stamp of the LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL then he/she MUST comply with the laws of the state.
NCARB policy is that to attain IDP credit, ALL parties (IDP Supervisor and IDP Intern) is legally compliant with the laws and regulation of the jurisdiction where the project is located. NCARB policy is NOT to reward IDP Interns or condoning UNLAWFUL practice.
By your scenario #2, the project is exempt from license requirement. In that scenario, the licensed design professional has no contractual involvement to the project and therefore is not in legal charge of the project. The intern is party to contract to the client. The Licensed Design professional is not a part to contract with the client. However, there is a possibility that the Licensed Design Professional is in a de facto contract (verbal agreement) with the IDP intern.
The moment an architect or engineer engages in the role of IDP Supervisor by NCARB definition, the licensed design professional would trigger the legal requirement of the licensing law to stamp and seal the drawing. In the licensing laws, an architect or engineer will need to have "direct supervision and control" over the drawings, specifications and other documents prepared and exercise restraining powers including control over directing and assigning what tasks are assigned to those working under his/her supervision and which tasks are prepared directly by him/her. Therefore, in your scenario, that licensed design professional would be A) effectively assuming control over the project within the scope of his/her services and the intern is becoming effectively the CLIENT of the licensed design professional from whom that intern is required to PAY per agreement while although the intern has his or her CLIENT whom commissioned him/her to perform the services in the first place. Based on the scenario, the licensed design professional also have a reciprocal agreement where the IDP intern is basically in contract to the LICENSED design professional for drafting and other services. Basically, a TWO way contractual service commission between the unlicensed Intern and the Licensed Design Professional where the IDP intern is getting paid. So the pay maybe effective a wash.
I did something like this some years ago, it is technically dubious legally. It was before I could actually be enrolled in IDP so I never attained IDP but I did use it to technically get my IDP enrollment date when IDP 2.0 policies were implemented. Now, that is more or less a moot point as per the subsequent policy changes, my IDP enrollment effective date would be moved all the way back to 2000 instead of 2005 or 2006 with my GED however, these hours are so old that the date of these hours would have zero IDP training hours assignable to them.
In any instance, the licensed design professional would have to assume control and have direct supervision over architectural or engineering drawings, specifications and other documents being prepared for this project.
If the project was a non-exempt building, it would be legally dubious and potentially could become aiding and abetting unlawful practice of architecture for an architect to contract with an unlicensed designer to conduct architectural services IF the unlicensed designer is in contract with the client. In such a case, the architect or engineer would require the unlicensed designer to no longer be in legal contract with the client because on a non-exempt building, the licensed design professional in general, needs to be in direct contract with client not an unlicensed designer who is not a licensed construction contractor. One of those, don't touch with a 10 foot pole thing.
On an exempt building, the issue is still touchy because the architect needs to contractually assume full and legal control over all architectural services and similarly for an engineer involving engineering services to the project.
This is necessary for IDP training hours for Experience Setting A and O in this sense. There are individual instance where certain hours can be attained as an exception to this basic rule.
There IS a general correlation between the IDP policy and that of the licensing laws. Part of that stems from adoption of NCARB Model law as amended and incorporated into the licensing laws aside from those laws already established before NCARB model laws were instituted. Virtually all states have aligned the architectural licensing laws to such model laws to varying degree but substantially.
What you described in that scenario #2 can work to attain IDP training hours but this is a dubious gray area which will likely trigger NCARB 'audit' and requiring documentation. In which case, it is best that the agreements between the architect/engineer and the intern is in writing and legally there must be a contractual requirement of payment of the parties to each other. Is it legally possible where there is a legal net zero dollar difference or just about... yes. As long as the intern is paid. Minimum wage does not apply to independent contractor relationship. You better be sharp as a tack.
The intent and envisioned idea for independent contractor relationship is where the architect has a project with a client but they need external drafting or like services to expand their human resource capacity so they contract an intern/building designer or project manager or someone of the sort to aid but this person reports to under the direction and oversight/supervision of the architect/engineer but the intern/PM or building designer/drafter-IDP Intern has more degree of independence like scheduling his/her own hours, conduct work using his/her own equipment and has his/her own place of business, etc. and therefore meets state and federal independent contractor relationship.
Most of the time, the principle of the rule on the IDP Guidelines is with CONTRACT EMPLOYEE relationship not independent contractor relationship. Contract employees are often those who don't work regularly in the office of their employer. Getting that correct, is important as that pertains to tax and other such implications but that is irrelevant to IDP guidelines. The principle was so to aid people who do not work regularly inside the office of an architect/engineer to get IDP training hours.
In scenario #2, as described is a tricky area. Bottom line: Intern needs to be paid. Nothing says how much an intern has to be paid. But applicable labor laws may or may not apply. That becomes a legal question for a labor attorney to say whether or not minimum wage applies and whether the relationship is "employment" (contractual employment) or an independent contractor relationship. Those facts will weigh in NCARB decision making if they had to audit the training hours. NCARB can retroactively remove IDP training hours and even license revoked/suspended if you fail to do such correctly and they had to remove hours in the future because of facts coming to light just as if someone fraudulently submitted hours and have them approved.
What you are asking for is a fringe issue and is not typical. If all else fails, take a more conservative approach and work a job in a manner of a more typical or clear contractual employment relationship.
Getting IDP hours in an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR relationship is rare and dubious, Historically, you can NEVER get IDP training hours that way. It is better and more reliable to get hours as a contract employment relationship than independent contractor relationship. In most states, architects stamping drawings not prepared by an EMPLOYEE (be it traditional or contractual) would violate stamping rules as the architect would have to have legal control over the person who they are supervising that is preparing the work and have power to exercise control. Independent contractors are not exactly under control by other people.
My suggestion is working as a CONTRACT EMPLOYEE not necessarily as an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Also, the other part is NCARB's intent on IDP policies regarding Experience Setting A and O is that the architect/engineer is in contract with the project's client and the intern is not.
ALTERNATIVELY, you can make a partnership with an Architect or two and maybe an engineer and as co-principals, neither party can fire each other. NCARB looks dimly on experience where the architect or engineer is an employee or otherwise in a position where he or she can be fired or contractually terminated by the intern under supervision where as as co-owners.... everyone is equal and parties in the firm assigned charge over architectural services of the firm has charge over the project and those that are not such as the unlicensed partner may then aid by serving in a sort of subservient role of doing the 'dirty work' of drafting, and what not and get the sh-t done because the incentive is you all get paid sooner. So in that sense, you are getting paid on the revenue. You are not a slave to your partner but you don't get necessarily a wage or salary but say a draw, dividend or otherwise.
You get paid in overall big picture.
You can do it that way but in that case, you wouldn't get IDP training hours if the architect/engineer was an employee and you were the boss. They must be equal or higher rank to ease NCARB's concerns on the matter.
In your #2 scenario, it is a tad messy and can raise apprehension on the administrative staff of NCARB to approving the IDP training hours.
Bloopox makes a good point but NCARB reserves the right to take a closer look and any of the experience. This is more likely to occur when you are looking to start ARE or otherwise when you are finalizing IDP and they catch notice of some flags. Licensing board looking at your NCARB record maybe a cause of a trigger for an audit by NCARB to dig deeper.
#2 scenario can comply IF you have thins set up correctly. NCARB at any point in time may elect to look at these types of submissions closer and reverse any approvals they may have initially assigned. That type of experience is a grey area.
Bloopox is right, detail proof and documentations isn't likely to be requested but NCARB reserves that right so to cover your ass in case of it, it is best to have clear written contractual agreement that is clear the architect/engineer is in charge of architectural services and that the intern is not in an defacto supervisory position over the architect/engineer. Being partners in a business or true independent relationship would satisfy that apprehension NCARB would have. I have asked such questions with NCARB. They take a dim view if the intern was the architect/engineer's employer.
Wow thanks Richard.
I am aware that this is possible a dubious area--my task is simply to arm myself with as much information as possible. My point is-- as read, the documentation that NCARB has available online is worded vaguely enough that I would probably be proceeding as described in the scenario if I weren't checking here first. Nothing in my state's licensure documentation has specific language excluding this scenario either. Like you say, it's all about "intent." Which to me means "administrative discretion," which I guess can really only be judged anecdotally.
So, I guess my question for you is: where is your information/interpretation coming from? It seems like NCARB goes out of their way to exclude specific languages about the supervisor being contractually bound, or in any way at risk regarding the assessment of an intern's IDP hours. I assume this is to encourage architects to become supervisors, knowing that they personally will have no actual obligation or oversight, other than that to and of the intern. And there are plenty of scenarios where a supervisor is not contractually bound to the work of an intern, other than by virtue of that supervisor's employment at the same firm as the intern. I'd be interested in reading what you have read, just so I don't have to play quite as dumb when NCARB comes knocking.
The bottom line is, if I have to make the choice between:
1) being intimately involved with a house project from start to finish that thoroughly covers the full IDP spectrum, with no reward of IDP hours, or...
2) working in a firm cleaning up AIA award submission drawings in illustrator (and racking up IDP in the process)...
then it's not much of a decision. IDP gets a lot of flak but it does seem to be, at least in part, crafted to bring fringe scenarios into the tent. I'm actually looking quite forward to the opportunity to get involved with NCARB as an Architect, if I don't get blacklisted before then...
Sivad Bop:
There are unfortunately few ways to become involved with NCARB. It doesn't have individual members. The members are the state boards - each board designates one or two delegates to NCARB meetings - and that's basically the only regular interaction anyone has with them. Occasionally there are opportunities to serve as a pre-tester of ARE content, and once in awhile they've held a summit where they've invited some representative sample of interns, emerging professionals, or whatever their target audience of the moment happens to be.
Be wary of Richard's information. He's a self-styled expert on architectural licensing regulations - but most of his information comes from his interactions related to his own situation in Oregon. It sounds like you may be in NY, and NY's regulations differ substantially on things like what constitutes "responsible control", and even on allowed entry points to start accumulating experience that will count toward their requirements.
Richard has not yet submitted any experience reports to NCARB. He was able to open an NCARB record based on having completed a for-credit unpaid internship with an architect, through his CAD certificate program at a community college. He has never been an employee of an architecture firm, nor admitted to an architecture degree program. His situation is unique, and not relevant to the path that you're describing.
Both of the work situations you're describing can satisfy NCARB requirements. But if this is for NY I agree with others that the second situation won't satisfy the state. This doesn't mean you shouldn't submit it to NCARB, but just because they accept it doesn't mean NY will later when you apply to test through NY, or when you apply for a license there if you test through a different state - and that's what other interns meant about getting screwed at the end by the state.
Spontaneous,
You don't know what I have in terms of submitted hours. You don't need to submit training hours to NCARB to read the IDP Guidelines pdf file OR even call them and talk to them. I have talked directly with the staff on IDP.
NCARB's policy is clear in that the architect MUST have a role of supervisory level. IF you read the OP's question in the first post, there is NO SPECIFIC STATE. 75% of the 50 states have licensing laws on this matter that are substantially the same as Oregon. There is only a few not a majority of the states that allows an architect or engineer to review work prepared by others that are not licensed simply by reviewing the work. Most states, that would be grounds for fines or other disciplinary action to the architect aside from the unlicensed designer facing fines.
I'm not talking about New York which has its own idiosyncratic licensing laws and such.
In the other 45+ states, architects needs to have supervision over any work not prepared by them but prepared by an unlicensed person from beginning to end. You may NOT under any of those states simply review and stamp drawings prepared by a non-Architect. That is violation and those who do deserves to have their licensed REVOKED because when you get your license, you have signed a legally binding contractual oath to comply with ALL the laws and regulations pertaining to architecture.
In addition, the architect MUST exercise responsible control and direct supervision over all work that they stamp. NCARB IDP policy requires that the IDP internship is lawful. If either or both parties (IDP intern or IDP supervisor) violate the laws or rules of the state where the project is located regarding a project where the Intern's are earning their IDP training hours those hours is invalid by rule. Bottom line: Internship and supervision needs to be lawfully compliant OR it is invalid. Sure, people sneak and lied on hours that would not comply with IDP but those persons doing so are doing so at grave risk that can result in revocation of any licensure they may have at time of such being exposed.
Regarding my employment with architects, they are short term contract based arrangements. You claim I was able to open an NCARB record based on completing a for-credit unpaid internship. First off, the cooperative work experience maybe a paid or unpaid position. Since you could not legally access such without severe violation of FERPA, let me enlighten you. Since it was more an independent contractor relationship between me and the architect, MINIMUM WAGE laws do not apply. Therefore, how much I get paid is irrelevant as long as it is legal and more than $0.00. Technically a dual way flat fee of $5.00 would work (NOTE: Do not assume that $5 is the amount in the agreement as that amount is between me and the architect and unless you can talk to the dead, it is going to be meaningless). In a legal court of law, I would still be deemed being paid even if the amount was 1 cent payment transaction each way. Note: How much I am paid and the architect is paid and the net difference is not being disclosed with any confirmation or denial. You just have to guess. The bottom line is the amount of pay I receive contractually is above $0.00 to be legally defined as being paid. In an independent contractor relationship, there is no minimum wage requirement.
NCARB policy since then completely neutralize the requirement of any work experience to open an NCARB record. Now, all you have to do is show is a high school diploma or equivalent. Which means, now my NCARB effective record date could be recalibrated to June 2000 when my GED was conferred. However, what difference does it make anyway. That part with the CWE experience is a wash.
However, I was stretching the rule as it was but now it is unneccessary since IDP policy amendments changes since the initial establishing of the IDP 2.0 phase 1 and 2.
Simplifying IDP administration, they simply just require proof of high school diploma or equivalent of which I already have so regardless my IDP record still holds.
Again, this is irrelevent to the OP's situation or the OP's question. I wasn't talking so much about my own experience in my response. I have done something similar to scenario #2, regarding NCARB policy, it may be acceptable if done right. Now, remember this, New York's rules regarding internship is only applicable if you make New York your state of initial licensure and it may matter when it comes to reciprocity (I don't know). However, just because you intern in New York doesn't mean the intern is undergoing initial licensure in that state. Keep that in mind before you get too spontaneous.
Sivad,
When you get into these 'gray' areas, this is going to be administratively discerned. This is something NCARB at its choice may request more information.
Bottom line:Regarding scenario #2: In an independent contractor relationship to be approved for IDP training hours in Experience Setting A and O ( with an architect/engineer as IDP supervisor) ---- You need to be paid per contractual agreement. Also the architect or engineer needs to be legally in charge of the drawings, specifications and other documents prepared in relation to his/her Architectural or Engineering services in regards to project with client. In general, the architect/engineer would need to be in contractual relationship with each other but not always but there needs to be clear record of who is in charge.
NCARB's IDP policy is closer to Oregon and the national normative regarding stamping and supervision than some exceptional states. However, if the experience arrangement is legal and the architect is in fact engaging practice of architecture services to the project, he/she must be in charge of the project as architect of responsible charge or another licensed design professional (another architect) is in charge. Like you see in a firm where you may have be working under the supervision of a project architect but that architect is not the architect of record for the project who maybe another person higher up in the firm whom your IDP supervisor (a project architect and licensed) works reports to.
So in scenario #2, you can be an independent contractor or contract employee.
An example that could qualify for IDP training hours if it was happening today is my experience with SRG Partnership where I do certain tasks assigned to me by a project team member who is licensed even though he/she might not be the one stamping the construction documents. NCARB's intent is that the architect/engineer is in the contract relationship with the project client.
In your #2 scenario as you explained it in the original post is a stretch but you really need to have documentation to prove the architect is in responsible charge to the project or NCARB may elect/choose to not accept those hours.
Yes, some states have their own idiosyncrasies. For example of New York, unless you intend to get licensed in New York, the IDP standards you need to keep in mind is that of the state of your intended state of initial licensure and NCARB's policy. Of course, the laws that matters in experience in New York is if the architect supervisor (IDP supervisor) can lawfully engage in such a manner as you described and stamp the drawings. It might be unlawful for him/her to stamp the drawings in that fashion but then it might not qualify as IDP training hours by NCARB standard.
Hence: Dubious. I would raise caution on trying to get IDP training hours in such a gray area because it might not count and cause more headache down the road if not already.
You're losing track of your own stories Rick. You recently wrote yourself that you haven't submitted any experience yet. You are also the one who wrote on another forum that your coop experience was completely unpaid - but then you started dancing around that, claiming that you "forgot it was paid a very small amount."
Since the rules have changed to allow you to start a record with a GED and no experience, maybe you should withdraw that original coop experience and re-start your NCARB record. If you leave that in there as the basis of your eligibility, you'll be risking NCARB or the state discrediting it - and even barring you - if they get hold of your own past posts stating that the coop was unpaid, unless you can back up with bank records or pay stubs that you were actually paid. It doesn't matter that the rules have changed since - other interns have tried that argument and still been banned and fined by states in similar situations.
"Also the architect or engineer needs to be legally in charge of the drawings."
Thanks, but again, this is per what? Your direct correspondence with NCARB? An interpretation of the information contained in IDP documents available on NCARB's site? Verbatim from something?
For clarification, I am not in NY. I am using NY as a benchmark for stringent standards. And these questions are over whether to attempt submitting these hours as IDP experiences.
The consensus (or spread of opinions, rather) so far seems to be:
"it might technically not be acceptable for IDP hours... but also might be (at least not in NY)... they most likely aren't going to check... if they do it will help to have some documentation... can't hurt to try."
Richard, out of curiosity (which I'll probably regret): You've been trying to find a route to getting licensed as an architect for many years now, and ranting about it... Is your goal to be able to call yourself an architect? Or is it to be able to design non-exempt buildings? If the latter, why don't you just become a licensed engineer instead? Surely you must know that your beloved rules of the State of Oregon allow a licensed engineer to DO everything an architect is allowed to do. Except call themselves architects. You can get licensed as an engineer in Oregon with a 2-year technical degree, a couple years of work experience, and a couple exams. No IDP, no professional degree requirement, no 7 closed-book exams. Why not get off the forums and go do that?
Sivad Bop: he's interpreting the requirements in the IDP documents about the supervisor being "engaged in the lawful practice of architecture", and that the intern be an employee to mean that that architect would need to be the person stamping the drawings on which the intern is working. True in some states. Not true in several.
I'm an NCARB supervisor. The online forms on which I approve the interns' experience just ask me to click the box attesting that I'm engaged in the lawful practice of architecture as defined by the jurisdiction. It's my responsibility - and the interns - to make sure that we're following the rules of our state. If we are then we click the respective boxes. That's really as complicated as it gets.
Bloopox,
I wouldn't say it is simply that Engineers are allowed to do anything an architect may do. At least, not as clear cut like that.
I'll explain this a little bit about engineer's doing "Architecture". It is a contentious issue. Since this comes down to licensing boards and how they administrate the laws and rules a little bit. In recent years, an engineer may only engage aspects of architectural services incidental to their engineering services offered. So a mechanical engineer (for example) may not practice all aspects of architect, only where it is incidental to mechanical engineering or any other discipline of engineering that the engineer is competent to practice.
A highly multidisciplinary engineer or perhaps even an "Architectural Engineer" could possibly engage and effective be the 'Architect' of the project. (without using that title of course).
I can engage initial licensure in engineering either through WA or OR. In Oregon, the experience path, if I recall would be 8 years + 4. WA is 4+4 and reciprocity within a year or two.
Note: The +4 is EIT.
Its 4 to 8 years pre-EIT experience (degrees can reduce the number of years of experience down) then you take the FE exam and you undergo EIT and once the 4 years are complete... you take the PE exams in the disciplines of engineering you want to engage or document.
Bloopox: right. I've logged about 1500 hours as an intern, all as an independent contractor so my de-facto employer could skimp on payroll taxes, and NCARB has not blinked yet.
My understanding was that the rules of my state allowed for this arrangement. The arrangement regarding a self-employed project in which the supervisor was not contractually involved was a little more ambiguous, and it seems by this thread that there is some confusion over it.
Sivad,
It is a bit of direct dialog from communicating with NCARB, reading the licensing laws as they are including the licensing boards meeting minutes, etc. So it is a culmination from many sources.
NCARB isn't going to reward you for being a building designer just because you have an architect friend being an informal mentor and guide. If they did, I would have a bit more IDP training hours. It doesn't work that way. Sure, some people may have successfully got fraudulent hours approved and they got licensed at some point because no one at NCARB was informed of such fraudulent information to get them to begin an investigation on the matter and look deeper. The day to day staff don't look that closely but remember, it is a risk the intern and supervisor takes in doing so.
IDP is expected to be done in compliance with the laws and regulations. As long as you and your supervisor is not violating the laws and rules where the project in which your work is being associated with and you and your supervisor complies with NCARB's rules, you're fine.
HYPOTHETICAL POINT FOLLOWS:
If you or your supervisor don't, and fraudulent hours are discovered and the fraud is exposed, NCARB not only can retract those hours which may also mean your ARE tests also be invalidated and your license (if you got licensed by the time that was exposed), the supervisor could very well face disciplinary action by his/her licensing board(s).
The penalty can be significant and in turn could put you into severe penalty because if you were never properly qualified, every single project you ever done when licensed can be deemed a count of violation and penalty can be to the maximum penalty per case of violation. So if you had 100 projects when post-licensure when NCARB discovered fraudulent hours and all, your licensing board(s) can discipline you for upto the limit (in Oregon... a violation fine of up to $5,000). So if it was Oregon you got licensed, you could face up to $500,000+ in fines for 100 projects. In theory, you can be charged not only for practice but also for title usage for each project and you can see the horrible nightmare of such if they took you to town. However, I doubt they will issue fines to that extreme but the minimum fine in Oregon (for example) is like $500. So, it is not small matter to shirk. It is serious and can have potentially serious ramifications.
DISCLAIMER: IT IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPLY SIVAD OR HIS/HER SUPERVISOR HAS OR IS OR IS PLANNING TO COMMIT FRAUD IN IDP TRAINING HOURS.
NOTE: IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, IT IS BEST PRACTICE TO CONSULT NCARB ABOUT THEM.
Sivad,
Exactly... Confusion over the matters is EXACTLY what would trigger NCARB to look closer. They have the power and authorization to get more information.
It is always best if you have a clear written contractual agreement but the nature and point for your 'internship' agreement is that you are getting paid not you paying the architect.
I agree with you about getting hours in an independent contractor relationship. It is permitted by NCARB rules but it is valid ULTIMATELY if it is legal. If there is illegality, it is legally invalid but it would be awfully dumb of you to speak about such especially if they accepted the hours. (Hint)
However, I believe things so far is likely lawfully compliant. Just you want to have clear record because NCARB or any licensing board looking at your records during licensing phase could ask for more information if they get suspicious.
This is a little nuts. No one is talking about fraudulent hours. We are talking about activities that fall appropriately within the IDP guidelines for experience categories, and a supervisor who will have de facto, but not contractual, control over said activities. Where this falls within the provisions of NCARB.
Many people who are working above board in every aspect of their careers as architects and IDP supervisors are telling me this is OK. One person who is not an architect but has seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of NCARB is telling me to be worried about being fined $500,000.
so let me ask you all something- when you apply for your license AFTER you've passed your exams and completed IDP, how do does the state Verify that what is on your NCARB record is truthful? Do you have to submit employment records?
Sivad,
I was merely covering all bases. Good. Lets not get too caught up on unlawful/fraud and fines and disciplinary actions one can face. That's covered and well to assume that it can be anywhere from the extreme to less extreme.
If it falls clearly within the IDP Guidelines then there is no questions to be answered that the IDP Guidelines should not be able to answer. Your example and question falls outside of being clearly within the guideline. In fact, to be clear within the IDP Guidelines, you would never be an independent contractor. You would be a traditional employee or contract employee.
However, NCARB indicated independent contractor relationship is accepted on their website not so clear in the IDP Guideline document.
The independent contractor relationship is one of those areas that can get problematic.
The intent is that the Architect is in contractual agreement with the client as being architect of responsible charge. Example of intent: Architect has a contract with a client to design houses and staff is already loaded so the architect contracts an unlicensed designer/intern to provide drafting services to the architect as a "back office support". Maybe, the architect is already loaded with projects and doesn't have the time to draft the construction documents or to do field measurements and other such tasks and report back to the architect. The designer/intern has his/her own 'office' and computer and the Architect has his or her own office but no room for an additional in-office employee. The designer-intern also has latitude to set his/her own hours to do the tasks within constraints of project timeline.
In that sense, the designer-intern maybe legally an independent contractor and is only commissioned for the project and tasks assigned. In that regard, the designer-intern may receive IDP training hours.
What doesn't get me IDP training hours is tasks like designing a house for a client just because I happen to informally converse with an architect friend about the project that I am making decisions on even if some of those decisions comes after bouncing off the ideas to the architect friend for feedback. If the architect is just a sounding board and is to such informal capacity, it doesn't count as IDP as the architect is not legally meeting supervisory standards of any state law. There is a key legal principle, DUTY OF CARE. Until the architect is of capacity to owe a duty of care to the project's client and the project itself, the architect would not be in a supervisory role. Its more informal mentoring than actual role of supervisor as would be in an employer-employee sense of things which IDP is founded on.
BulgarBlogger,
Employment records or contract agreements and all supporting documents and in cases, legally binding testimony of parties. Aside from your NCARB record transmittal, anything and everything to substantiate validity of the matters that satisfies their concerns within extent of the laws of the state.
Bulgar: Some states require work history info on their own forms when you apply to test. Most of the problems are from people whose experience started earlier than their particular state rules allow, or from people who interned for firms located within that state that aren't properly structured or registered.
New York is usually the example, because NY is well known for using architecture interns' work histories as a way to catch and fine New York architecture firms that are in violation of NY's rules. Usually all they're doing is googling the firm names and determining things like that the firm is an LLC (that's not a permitted architecture firm type in NY), or that the firm has a partner who is not a licensed architect. That sort of thing.
Richard Balkins is way off in left field with all this "anything and everything" substantiation nonsense - though if any of that ever really happens to anyone, he'd be a great candidate for close scrutiny.
kjdt....
Get some real reading comprehension skills higher than 3rd grade.
I said:
"Aside from your NCARB record transmittal, anything and everything to substantiate validity of the matters that satisfies their concerns within extent of the laws of the state."
Read the whole sentence. Aside from NCARB record transmittal, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to substantiate validity of the matters that satisfies their concerns within extent of the laws of the state.
Think. THINK!
What am I saying exactly?
"...though if any of that ever really happens to anyone, he'd be a great candidate for close scrutiny."
LOL... oh really and why would you say that?
The most common way that most states get involved in verifying any experience info is that someone reports an applicant for some accused circumnavigating of regulations, which causes an investigation to be opened. For that reason I'd be careful about giving too much identifying information and specifics on this and other forums.
I'm surprised at Mr. Balkins' attitude of "who cares" about his self-admitted bending of the rules regarding establishing his NCARB record, on the basis that it's irrelevant because the rules have since changed. Being as obsessed as he is with rules and regulations, I'd imagine he'd know that the rules that apply are the ones in place at the time that he used that experience to open his record.
Here's an example from an architecture board's disciplinary actions, verbatim except for identifying info removed:
"On the application at issue, Respondent stated he was an Architectural Intern from [date] to [date], and from [date] through the date of application and submitted that [name of Architect] was his supervisor. [Name of Architect] is a licensed architect in the State of Washington and owns his own design business in [City], WA.
Respondent was living in [name of location] during the times in question... Respondent maintains that NCARB credentialing allows for remote supervision but the rule he cites was not in effect at the time of his application. The State does not deny however that the rule has in fact changed to allow for some remote supervision.
The Board of Architects hereby denies Respondent's application for license and furthermore bars Respondent from every applying for or receiving licensure in [state].
Respondent is required to pay an administrative penalty of $1000 (one thousand dollars). Said penalty must be paid within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order."
Bloopox,
Know the difference between stretching or bending the rule (it's more stretching the rule) from that of BREAKING the rule. There's a difference.
Maybe you need to learn how to read English.
Aside from that, regarding your example case:
It looks like the licensing board is violating their own laws and rules by misuse of disciplinary actions. They are not suppose to issue fines unless a law or rule is violated and they have to cite it and it would need to be so in public record. Like I said, it looks like it. Based on what you quoted, if it was me, I would have told them to stick their fine up where the sun doesn't shine, I am not paying it unless they can precisely cite what law or rule I violated and exactly how. The last I checked, it isn't necessarily a violation of law for me to work the direct supervision of an architect in a remote (ie. where I am not operating regularly in the office where the architect resides) manner in an independent contractor or contract employee relationship. Until they can cite what violation was made precisely, don't bother mailing me that fine notice because it will simply be returned to sender.
I would have held them to task and contest them unless they have a proper basis for levying a fine at an appropriate level.
Proper administration of law enforcement requires that the persons responsible for enforcing laws to cite the laws and rules and indicate how and what the violation is that they are issuing a fine.
State of Washingon's board of Architects seems to have some issues that needs to be looked at closer and more professionalism and proper procedures and consistency in how they rule.
NCARB administers IDP not WA board of architect. Either they create their own internship program or they accept in accordance with NCARB rules. If you are on that board or know any of the members of the board, they should be careful about issuing disciplinary actions. They have to be actually violating a law or rule of the state of Washington that the board of architects is tasked to administer the enforcement of those laws and rules.
It can come back to bite them in the butt.
Technically, I already had an NCARB record for at least a year or two or more (forget exactly) before I actually was enrolled in IDP. When I was enrolling in IDP, I had to submit a form to establish an eligibility date. I also had to show a HS diploma or equivalent. Since the rules for enrolling has changed and administration of such an eligibility date is no longer used nor is it anymore indicated or shown on my "myNCARB" account. However, I am enrolled in IDP and based on the fact that I already have proof of my GED submitted to them, it already indicates sufficient proof of my Eligibility to the IDP program under the new rule.
So they drop the old IDP Eligibility date to base IDP eligibility on the basis of having a high school diploma and also being 18 years old. So our eligibility date in essence had been readjusted with the change in the rules when they simplified IDP Eligibility to being at least 18 years old and having a HS diploma or equivalent (eg. GED).
Technically my IDP Eligibility Date is now basically 6/1/2000.
The Board of Architects hereby denies Respondent's application for license and furthermore bars Respondent from every applying for or receiving licensure in [state].
Respondent is required to pay an administrative penalty of $1000 (one thousand dollars). Said penalty must be paid within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order."
Lovely- putting myself in the applicants shoes; I've been barred from EVER applying again. Why would I ever pay? due process and all...
That example is not from Washington's board. The supervisor was located in WA, the intern was not.
The statutes cited were one pertaining to deceptive or fraudulent use or procurement of a license, and one for willfully filing false reports (for attesting that his experience met all requirements.)
Remote supervision was not permitted at the time that the intern was remotely supervised, The fraud was that he reported experience that did not meet the requirements at the time that he reported it.
As a matter of fact, I talked to NCARB a few minutes ago. They no longer use the "IDP Eligibility date" that they used to and IDP eligiblity is based on the date in which you are A) eligible by age and B) eligible by having a high school diploma or equivalent. Therefore, they no longer retained the eligibility date from the older IDP policy. Therefore, my effective IDP eligibility date under the new rule would be when I am 18 years of age AND when I have 'graduated' from high school (received my GED... date of passing the GED, etc.). So basically, it is June 1, 2000 as I was already 18 years old prior to that date and June 1, 2000 was date in which the GED was conferred at the GED graduation ceremony in Fertig Hall.
Some of you, it will be moved back to 80s or 90s or even earlier.
Hence why my so called "careless" attitude about the IDP Eligibility date that was initially established but that changed about a year or so after I initially enrolled in IDP.
As I said, it is more or less moot point regarding my prior initial IDP Eligibility or how I got enrolled, anyway. It doesn't matter as 1) never received any IDP training hours for it anyway.... and 2) rule changes effectively moves the eligibility date back to 2000 instead of 2006.
That side topic is now concluded.
Hi,
What about experience that's gained abroad, while being self-employed? I ran my own practice in India for 7 years, and was licensed in India. It would be a shame if I can't somehow log those hours into my NCARB account. Any advice would be appreciated.
Best,
Kiran
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.