The character of the Forum changed following November 2008. The crash screwed up a lot of the fun, and made those who were inclined to bitch do so louder, myself included. <sigh>
sooo you think the worldwide recession and mass layoffs in our profession were caused by a few people in colorado who think it's too hard to get a license?
this is why your efforts have no chance of success. if ever faced with the opportunity to defend your stance on the current law, you're going to come across as a complete nutcase. if you really believe things went to shit in 2008 because of difficult licensing standards or a hypocrisy in colorado law, you probably are a nutcase.
i wish i could help you out more. how you present yourself is ultimately going to be more important than whether you're right or wrong. aside from that, whether you think you're right or wrong is absolutely irrelevant. nobody cares. you're going to need to temper your emotions and approach the problem from an outside perspective. possibly lay off the weed if it's making you too paranoid.
So, Colorado's rules are exactly the same as most of the other states. You don't want to follow the rules and believe that it's too difficult because you've found it too difficult to follow the rules, thusly the world is out to get you? And, you've found what you think is a loophole between what is on the books vs what is in practice?
I <3 the archinect nutjobs. When real architecture gets boring, I can always count on you guys.
NewRoark -- somewhere along the line you're going to have to holster your rocket launcher. Everyone who asks a question or disagrees is a moron. You've blogo-sphered yourself into a frenzy, and I feel like you're one Red Bull's separation from "shots fired" out of the bell tower.
Assuming I'm slow and a moron -- which, isn't so far off -- what's the best-case outcome you're looking for in all this?
if you ever get to appear before the colorado state legislature to address the grievance you have, do you plan to throw temper tantrums the way you do here? how do you think they're going to respond to that? do you really think people are going to listen to what you have to say, and think to themselves 'oh, i didn't realize i'm a moron that should be playing in a sandbox. thanks for pointing that out to me. i will now change the colorado licensing requirements to suit your needs, because you are obviously much more aware of colorado legislation than me.'
FYI, your behavior in here is a good example of why nobody takes objectilibertardians seriously. Save it for your Seasteading meetups and get off our backs. I'm sure they'll be happy to let you design their Temples to Social Atomization aboard the S.S. Ragnar Danneskjold, with or without a license.
Everyone that asks a question that has been answered 3 times and to them and they still don't understand is a very good definition of a moron. The fact they display such a poor reading comprehension is a very good definition of a moron. The fact that you're blind enough not to see that they are morons by the definitions listed is a very good definition of a moron. The fact that another idiot made the foolish assumption that I am an objectilibertardians would prove that he is a moron.
The fact that the conservatives are acting like buffoons is great sign of success.
to be fair newroark, i asked if there was any verification of possible legal proceedings against the governor. you answered by saying i was slow and then reaffirmed your claim that you don't care for the legislation recently passed. i'm not interested in your opinion of the law, or of DORA meeting minutes, or whatever else. i was just interested in how your actions were received by the governor and legislature.
you still have not provided verification of any potential legal action against the governor, however you did clarify in your Feb 8 (10:57 pm) post that it was you who created the notice of claim. your original posts said that they were given a notice of claim, not that you were the one who gave it to them. you also clarified that it would likely be months before this grew to the point where the media might draw attention to it. the last 3 lines of that post were an adequate answer to the question i asked 6 times.
i will again reiterate my previous point, that the tone you are taking will not be received well by the governor, legislator, court, or even an administrative assistant should you choose to pursue this course of action further.
cockram, You have no point. I was given a "you mother fucker" stare when I gave the Notice of Claim to his aide. The Governor was not in at the time. I stated quite clearly that I served the Governor. Its in the title of the thread. I have received a letter back from the Governor's counsel. It was as comedic as if was written by the circular file. It stated that I could correspond to the Attorney General. No, I won't and I'm 3 steps ahead of them on that. It also stated that I have a disagreement with DORA. I don't. They admit to their torts. DORA has a disagreement with the law. I don't care how crooks receive me. btw. I have talked with a few legislators. They know they have done wrong as well. 4 of them have been served their Notice of Claim so far, many more to go. The evidence is pretty deep. They know it too. You can't figure out the basics.
OP - I'm really confused by what you're asking for (and spare me the name calling). But, because I'm about to go through my second complete shutdown of a city in 2 weeks and am a fan of practice acts, it's an excuse to look at Colorado's and after reading it online (including the amendments), I'm going to return to your three original assertions:
1.) "no more than 3 years of practical experience" can be demanded by the board if an applicant has a professional degree.
I believe you're quoting the following passage:
"12-25-314. Qualifications for architect licensure. (1) The board shall set minimum educational and experience requirements for applicants within the following guidelines: (a) The board may require: (I) No more than three years of practical experience under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or an architect exempt under the provisions of section 12-25-303 (4) and either: (A) A professional degree from a program accredited by the national architectural accrediting board or its successor; or (B) Substantially equivalent education or experience approved by the board, with the board requiring no more than five years of such education and experience; or (II) No more than ten years of practical experience under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or an architect exempt under the provisions of section 12-25-303 (4); or (III) A combination of such practical experience and education, which combination shall not exceed ten years. "
So, that's the law itself. I don't see anything that says or references IDP specifically. In fact, if you look on the DORA website, it clearly states:
"Please note that the experience necessary for licensure in Colorado as required in Board Rule 4.5 may be gained directly OR through the NCARB Intern Development Program (IDP). The Colorado Board recognizes, but currently does not require, successful completion of NCARB's IDP as meeting the requirements to take the ARE. However, effective January 1, 2011, the Colorado experience requirements mirror the NCARB IDP training requirements (refer to Board Rule 4.4.1). Please be aware that, unlike Colorado, many states require completion of IDP for licensure and may not award endorsement or reciprocity licensure without it." (emphasis mine).
So, if the law doesn't require IDP, how can it (or the time it takes people to become licensed, which is what that study documented - not the time to complete IDP, which can clearly be done within 3 years) be part of a racketeering claim? If you have the properly documented experience, it pretty clearly states they will accept it. If you want to use IDP, that's fine. But it's not required. So, the time between graduation and licensure is irrelevant since it depends on the individual and outside circumstances.
2.) The board must have a "set passing score" for its exams or those it purchases. No DORA has admitted to not having a set passing score.
I couldn't find the exact phrase quoted above in the practice act itself. Nor could I find any supporting documentation as to whether or how DORA "admitted" to your claim. Sorry. I did see a reference to passing an exam, outlined below:
3.) The board must have a "minimum competency" exam. DORA freely admits that they have no definition of "minimum competency."
So, I think the part of the law you're quoting is this:
"(2) (a) An applicant shall pass an examination or examinations developed or adopted by the board. The board shall ensure that the passing score for any examination is set to measure the level of minimum competency. (b) The examination shall be given at least twice a year. The board shall designate a time and location for examinations and shall notify applicants of this time and location in a timely fashion and, as necessary, may contract for assistance in administering the examination."
Again, the Board is charged to either develop or adopt an examination, to measure the minimum competency of an applicant. I can't find where they formally adopted the NCARB exam as 'their' exam (meaning, it's being used in lieu of a self-developed test) but if they were to use an 'adopted' test, DORA wouldn't be establishing either the minimum passing score nor the content it tests. Now, in practice, this may (may) create the conundrum you think you're describing: how does one prepare oneself to achieve 'minimum competency' if it's not clearly defined? Even with that said, I don't personally see how that would be tantamount to 'racketeering' since NCARB is going to be widely accepted as an accrediting body. And, the law clearly states that the Board's responsibility is not develop the test but to "ensure that the passing score...is set to measure the level of minimum competency." The Board's professionals are that arbiter - certainly not the Governor or other legislators. Finally, I don't see any supporting documentation anywhere that's publicly accessible to support the claim that DORA "freely admits" to anything. Were those phone calls you had with a DORA employee?
Finally, I think you've missed one key point in the law, which to me is evidenced by the absolutist language you've been using. Which is:
"12-25-314. Qualifications for architect licensure. (1) The board shall set minimum educational and experience requirements for applicants within the following guidelines: (a) The board may require:" (emphasis mine)
The whole laundry list after that? It's part of a "may require"... it clearly gives the Board some room to adjust those requirements.
So, I think you have a very long road ahead to prove conspiracy and racketeering...
1.) The board has stated in its meeting minutes of 7/12 that IDP demands 5 years. You have stated the law of "no more than 3 years." Thus IDP is illegal in Colorado. 2.) I have asked DORA by Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) for the document of what the "set passing score(s)" are. I have in an email that DORA has stated that they have no such document. Law broken.
3.) If you read those requirements, they all say "no more than." Meaning they can require up to 3 years. But they cannot demand more. If you have read Matthew Arnold's 'Concerning Licensure' or even NCARB's 'By the Numbers', you know they are increasingly requiring more. NCARB admits to violating the law by a matter of 3 fold. If the demand for time is more than the uneducated clause, they have a huge problem.
Conspiracy is quite easy to prove. It has a name, the NCARB family. The obstruction of commerce is pretty easy to prove by Concerning Licensure. Fraud is rampant in my email conversations with DORA. They still owe multiple documents per CORA including exams and NCARB's contract. They did give me the ARE portion. It violates Colorado's CORA act multiple times. Anybody reading it would have to call it grotesque. Its sole goal is to make governments submit to NCARB's crimes.
What could they possibly have to hide? I have some other tricks planned for the trial. I'm a few steps ahead of them. The problem with proving the racketeering will be stating it accurately.
Please don't forget that Colorado was the last state to implement IDP and many of NCARB's dirty deeds done very expensively for a reason. It has laws to stop NCARB's corruption. They just need to be enforced. Not enforcing them when they intentionally obstruct commerce is racketeering.
The filed lawsuit will demand a Federal DOJ investigation. How is NCARB going to answer to the increasing years of obstruction?
As Gregory points out, there is so much wiggle room in those requirements. Let me write it your way, roark: S O M U C H W I G G L E R O O M
The assertion that they can demand "no more than 3 years" actually means they can't require less than 3 years, if you read it in the way it's intended, I believe.
I'm curious exactly what the statement in the meeting minutes is where they reference demanding 5 years? Does it say something like "even though we only require 3 years we are finding that most applicants require 5 years to get their required experience done"? That's not the same thing as requiring, legally, 5 years.
Also, I want to reference this IMO hilarious story of a person who fought the law and ultimately DID win...but not without risk. Remember that typically the State Licensing Board is allowed to make determinations as to whether someone is fit to practice based on characteristics other than just technical competence. From the article, quoting the Illinois Department of Registration's letter to the applicant:
`Dear Mr. Hicks: Enclosed is your registration certificate to practice Architecture. . . . It is issued with grave misgivings. We recognize that you have demonstrated technical competence by passing the examination, but your actions indicate an alarming degree of emotional and social immaturity, and a fundamental lack of understanding of the practice of architecture and the general fitness required of an individual to assume a responsible professional role. . . .
``We strongly disapprove of your appearance at the (examination). . . . dressed, as you were, in the bizarre costume of Batman, with the acknowledged purpose of disrupting the examination at the expense of your fellow candidates. Fortunately, the maturity of the 200 candidates was evidenced in their complete lack of interest in your caper. . . .
``Your general attitude evidences a lack of respect for your peers and the great traditions of the architectural profession. . . . We trust that with maturity you will come to have respect for authority and a higher esteem and consideration for your profession and its members.``
Granted it's not the 1970s and the "great traditions of the architectural profession" have become significantly less stodgy old white male. But people on Licensing Boards do hold a certain amount of authority over individuals who want what the Board grants. I don't want to say just be quiet and do what they ask - often it's ME who's agitating to fight the power - but you might ask yourself what is the most important battle: to get the license, or to change a law? And is it possible that you, and the world, would be better served if you just got the license and THEN tried to change things from within the system?
OP - here's the quote from the meeting minutes you're citing as part of claim 1:
"NCARB has done some recent research to determine that on average it takes five years to complete IDP, whereas previously it was thought to take much longer."
I'm sorry, but that's not an admission at all that IDP "demands" 5 years of experience. At all. It's going to take 5 seconds for a judge to look at the actual time required for the successful completion of IDP, conclude it's less than 3 years, and dismiss the claim. You're grossly confusing the two issues - IDP can be done in 3 years. Period. I have interns that are getting it done. It can certainly take longer, for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with the structure of IDP or the law itself. None of which you seem willing to acknowledge. Moving on...
#2 - No, DORA doesn't seem to have broken the law by not producing a letter of a 'set passing score'. Legally, they're allowed to "adopt" an outside testing agency and/or test. You could, in theory, request that NCARB produce what a 'passing score' is for the various sections of the test. I'm 99% sure they're going to say something like "80% for all multiple choice sections" or even give you the breakdown (it's been so long since I've taken the test - do they give you the % of what you passed on the test report?). Again, read the law carefully. DORA would need to have a 'passing score' for their own test, not necessarily for an outside agency.
#3 - you're still confusing the two issues in #1 - put NCARB out to the side since IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR LICENSURE. You can't use anything related to IDP in this suit. IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR LICENSURE. So, DORA can very easily claim they're upholding the law with their list of requirements, which can be completed in "no more than 3 years". How would you prove them wrong otherwise?
So, by the way, where do you have standing (legally) in this suit? Were you denied or deprived of the ability to become an architect by DORA because of a valid claim? Because, honestly, if your end goal is to go after NCARB, then you really should pick another state. One that mandates the use of IDP. At least then, you'd have a marginally better chance of trying to use their stats against them.
and, just to put a fine point on this whole discussion:
IDP requires 5,600 hours of 'experience'.
A person employed full time (40 hours a week) would work 2,080 hours per year.
Deduct time for holidays and vacation (80 hours for 2 weeks vacation; 10 federal holidays - another 80 hours. So...
-160 hours of non-practice related time.
That leaves us 1,920 hours per working year.
x3 = 5,760 hours of working experience available over a 3 year span.
5,760 > 5,600
So, the claim that IDP 'experience' can't LEGALLY be completed within 3 years of 'normal working conditions' is, independently, invalid. LEGALLY, it is consistent with the stated time requirements.
There are a LOT of problems with IDP. There are a LOT of reasons people don't complete IDP in a timely manner or get licensed as quickly as they used to. I've listed out a ton myself elsewhere, as have others. But the math works, despite whatever 'proof' you have otherwise.
Saint - you'd have to ask them. i don't know the person, have no beef with them either way, and am trying to just argue through the merits of the claims as stated. my real interest is solely in the fact that this involves a state practice act. ours has gone through some changes in recent years, none of which i'm a fan of. so, it's a good excuse to really read through theirs and see it how it compares.
I think many on this forum would likely attempt to assist this person -- but given their approach, I'm going to guess that they've come up against a done deal / brick wall in their case and they've resigned themselves to the practical futility. Now the game is proving why everyone is a hapless M O R O N .
"I am better and more educated, have better range of knowledge, and better experienced than the architects on the DORA board. All I get is lies from DORA and NCARB. They're even dumb enough to put the lies in writing."
so, i assume since he believes he's better than other people, perhaps that equivalent to being licensed?
as i recall from when i was taking the ARE, which was also a long time ago, they do not have a set cut-off for passing. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think there is a big pool of questions and each test has a certain number of randomly selected questions pulled from that pool. some questions are more difficult than others, so they are essentially weighted as more difficult. you could get a test with all the hard questions or all the easy questions, so saying there is an 80% cut-off wouldn't work. you can get a lower passing score if the questions on your test are more difficult. the difficulty of the questions is based more or less off how many other people get it correct, so that also creates a sliding scale as to what each question might be worth. that's why we can't get the score as we walk out of the room the way other professional examinations work.
this was before they changed it to 7 tests, so it may have changed. also, from the little bit i read many years ago, it appears there are actually fairly complicated theories in test scoring. i might be pretty far off in my explanation. either way, the way that it's scored takes into account how everyone else does, so the scoring isn't arbitrary. i'm pretty sure it's a good system.
Anyone know if the movie rights to this tread have been bought?
For what it's worth, All Canadian provinces (minus BC) have dropped NCARB and ARE tests from their licensing departments in lieu of their own exams and IDP... AREs are still accepted for now (minus QC). The new testing and licensing method is just as stringent as the past one but it's no longer linked to the NCARB.
What DORA and the Governor have going for them is poor reading comprehension and an emotional attachment of some to think that authorities are good people. The AIA never has been.
Donna, The law is very clear. "NO MORE THAN 3 YEARS CAN BE DEMANDED BY THE BOARD." What is getting in your way of your reading comprehension problem? Emotional attachment to what is wrong?
Gregory Walker, All you did is put conservative spin on your drivel. As of 1/1/14, IDP is a necessity for licensure in Colorado.
Gee, what could this possibly mean, "board shall ensure that the passing score." Since their isn't any. I'm 100% sure that NCARB does NOT have a set passing score. They have a sliding scale. Also please note it does not state that its vendors have a set passing score either. It states that the "board shall ensure a set passing score." NCARB IS NOT AN OUTSIDE AGENCY. DUH! They are a vendor. They must conform to the laws of the state, period. They try to act like they are the privatized bureaucracy that is above the state, telling it exactly what to do.
What is so difficult about any of this? Oh yeah, you're governmentally protected from competition with a lie and you like your lies.
Its not my study cockram. Its NCARB's. The sole purpose of IDP is to give you and your most corrupt friends the authority to slow down competition by lying and obstruction of not allowing applicants to perform work. I can't type slow enough for you.
In other words, what the statue says is that three years may be sufficient. But it may not be. That word "may" has a lot of power; wield it wisely, especially when you're writing specifications (or statues).
what difference would how slow you type make? are you thinking there is some sort of relationship between typing slow and talking slow? it's written. i have all the time in the world to sound out words and re-read what i don't understand.
the ncarb study was the average time it takes to finish, not the time required to finish right? the time required to finish is still 5,600 hours, which is still under 3 years.
Yep, cockram. IDP violates Colorado law quite clearly. If both your median and your mean are greater than 3 years and you are corrupt enough to want this is as a requirement, you absolutely have committed racketeering by violating Colorado law and using out of state NCARB to administer the protection. Bada boom bada bing! You fail to understand. It must be your emotional attachment to corruption via government protection.
The very definition of SUCK = Waaaah! Government protect me from superior competition.
If I'm reading this correctly, Colorado law states you can do IDP OR you can do three years (with a professional degree). it appears that in Colorado - IDP is optional. The main reason you'd want to do IDP is that there are other states that require IDP for ease of gaining reciprocity - i.e. you don't have to wait several years before you can get licensed in other states. it appears IDP is completely independent of the three year requirement in CO - you could probably sit for the exam and get licensed in CO before you even complete IDP.
everyone - i've concluded we're getting punk'd. there's no point in continuing this 'conversation'. all this is is a rant against IDP. which is just fine, but there's no 'there' here.
OP claims MArch and 25 years of experience. OP has not managed to get licensed in this time. OP is probably angry that he missed the news about the 6 month rule & now has to do IDP if he wants to be licensed.
NCARB gave more than ample warning about the 6 month rule change. Yet the OP eithe feels that rules do not apply to him or OP has poor reading comprehension regarding the rule change.
My diagnosis: OP is lazy. Cannot get licensed in 25 years, now does not want to do IDP. OP believes he is better than other people. OP believes rules should apply to other people but not to himself. OP probably is high functioning.
OP will be disappointed if he continues this crusade. OPshould suck it up and do IDP, because in 3 years OP can either be called "architect" or can continue to be angry.
Gruel, I've already told you I completed IDP 3 times. What is your joy in preventing competition and lying to do it? You're a conservative complicit to the racketeering.
So, obviously that's false. Either you've never done IDP, are part way through, or have done more hours than necessary. There's no "doing IDP 3 times".
Why aren't you an architect then?
Or are you just angry that you have to pay money to NCARB?
Please talk to your therapist about this. I'm sure that living with aspergers is challenging, but you aren't going to solve any problems this way.
Just stop responding. Plenty here have tried to give him solid advice. But the troll wants to bash. He's been banned on other forums for this hostility.
Nope, Haven't been banned anywhere. Why do you constantly stoop to lies? How come you have such trouble facing facts? Oh yeah, you crave the government protection. Waaaah!
Here's Donna, 3 years ago when the research was brought forward. "First off: I strongly applaud your effort in questioning the structures in place through which our profession is regulated. I think these kinds of questions are long overdue, and our profession would be stronger if we all felt these kinds of challenges/call to action could achieve results. Perhaps the only reason we all feel powerless is that no one has taken the time to simply challenge the power structure, and again, for that effort I congratulate you."
When the research is used to actually challenge the corruption, heads go in the sand and reading comprehension of a kindergartener and extreme arrogance. So corrupt and complicit.
CO Governor Served with Conspiracy for Racketeering & APA Violations
The character of the Forum changed following November 2008. The crash screwed up a lot of the fun, and made those who were inclined to bitch do so louder, myself included. <sigh>
And a few corrupt truths were exposed that gave credence and proof to the bitching. Yet, the crimes continue so the bitching will get louder.
sooo you think the worldwide recession and mass layoffs in our profession were caused by a few people in colorado who think it's too hard to get a license?
this is why your efforts have no chance of success. if ever faced with the opportunity to defend your stance on the current law, you're going to come across as a complete nutcase. if you really believe things went to shit in 2008 because of difficult licensing standards or a hypocrisy in colorado law, you probably are a nutcase.
i wish i could help you out more. how you present yourself is ultimately going to be more important than whether you're right or wrong. aside from that, whether you think you're right or wrong is absolutely irrelevant. nobody cares. you're going to need to temper your emotions and approach the problem from an outside perspective. possibly lay off the weed if it's making you too paranoid.
So, Colorado's rules are exactly the same as most of the other states. You don't want to follow the rules and believe that it's too difficult because you've found it too difficult to follow the rules, thusly the world is out to get you? And, you've found what you think is a loophole between what is on the books vs what is in practice?
I <3 the archinect nutjobs. When real architecture gets boring, I can always count on you guys.
T O O S L O W T O D E S E R V E A N S W E R S.
GRUEN = COMPLETE MORON. Wow are you stupid.
Dear Morons,
Your heroes are breaking Colorado laws. Nuf said. Go play in the sandbox where your mental abilities lie.
NewRoark -- somewhere along the line you're going to have to holster your rocket launcher. Everyone who asks a question or disagrees is a moron. You've blogo-sphered yourself into a frenzy, and I feel like you're one Red Bull's separation from "shots fired" out of the bell tower.
Assuming I'm slow and a moron -- which, isn't so far off -- what's the best-case outcome you're looking for in all this?
if you ever get to appear before the colorado state legislature to address the grievance you have, do you plan to throw temper tantrums the way you do here? how do you think they're going to respond to that? do you really think people are going to listen to what you have to say, and think to themselves 'oh, i didn't realize i'm a moron that should be playing in a sandbox. thanks for pointing that out to me. i will now change the colorado licensing requirements to suit your needs, because you are obviously much more aware of colorado legislation than me.'
Klaxon
So many descriptions seem to fit, hard to pick the best one.
LOL at this thread.
"NewRoark":
FYI, your behavior in here is a good example of why nobody takes objectilibertardians seriously. Save it for your Seasteading meetups and get off our backs. I'm sure they'll be happy to let you design their Temples to Social Atomization aboard the S.S. Ragnar Danneskjold, with or without a license.
Methinks this one is more appropriate for NewRoark:
http://flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/enfantprovocateur.htm
Notso SaintintheCity,
Everyone that asks a question that has been answered 3 times and to them and they still don't understand is a very good definition of a moron.
The fact they display such a poor reading comprehension is a very good definition of a moron.
The fact that you're blind enough not to see that they are morons by the definitions listed is a very good definition of a moron.
The fact that another idiot made the foolish assumption that I am an objectilibertardians would prove that he is a moron.
The fact that the conservatives are acting like buffoons is great sign of success.
This doofus really seems to think there's something in his ramblings that we ought to take seriously. What an self-deceiving ass!
to be fair newroark, i asked if there was any verification of possible legal proceedings against the governor. you answered by saying i was slow and then reaffirmed your claim that you don't care for the legislation recently passed. i'm not interested in your opinion of the law, or of DORA meeting minutes, or whatever else. i was just interested in how your actions were received by the governor and legislature.
you still have not provided verification of any potential legal action against the governor, however you did clarify in your Feb 8 (10:57 pm) post that it was you who created the notice of claim. your original posts said that they were given a notice of claim, not that you were the one who gave it to them. you also clarified that it would likely be months before this grew to the point where the media might draw attention to it. the last 3 lines of that post were an adequate answer to the question i asked 6 times.
i will again reiterate my previous point, that the tone you are taking will not be received well by the governor, legislator, court, or even an administrative assistant should you choose to pursue this course of action further.
cockram, You have no point.
I was given a "you mother fucker" stare when I gave the Notice of Claim to his aide. The Governor was not in at the time. I stated quite clearly that I served the Governor. Its in the title of the thread.
I have received a letter back from the Governor's counsel. It was as comedic as if was written by the circular file. It stated that I could correspond to the Attorney General. No, I won't and I'm 3 steps ahead of them on that. It also stated that I have a disagreement with DORA. I don't. They admit to their torts. DORA has a disagreement with the law.
I don't care how crooks receive me.
btw. I have talked with a few legislators. They know they have done wrong as well. 4 of them have been served their Notice of Claim so far, many more to go.
The evidence is pretty deep. They know it too. You can't figure out the basics.
roark r'O'-r K adjective Etymology: Late Latin roarkillis, from Latin in- + ignoramus, oblivious -- more at 'asshat'
(from Urban Dictionary)
OP - I'm really confused by what you're asking for (and spare me the name calling). But, because I'm about to go through my second complete shutdown of a city in 2 weeks and am a fan of practice acts, it's an excuse to look at Colorado's and after reading it online (including the amendments), I'm going to return to your three original assertions:
1.) "no more than 3 years of practical experience" can be demanded by the board if an applicant has a professional degree.
I believe you're quoting the following passage:
"12-25-314. Qualifications for architect licensure.
(1) The board shall set minimum educational and experience requirements for applicants
within the following guidelines:
(a) The board may require:
(I) No more than three years of practical experience under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or an architect exempt under the provisions of section 12-25-303 (4) and either:
(A) A professional degree from a program accredited by the national architectural accrediting board or its successor; or
(B) Substantially equivalent education or experience approved by the board, with the board
requiring no more than five years of such education and experience; or
(II) No more than ten years of practical experience under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or an architect exempt under the provisions of section 12-25-303 (4); or
(III) A combination of such practical experience and education, which combination shall not
exceed ten years. "
So, that's the law itself. I don't see anything that says or references IDP specifically. In fact, if you look on the DORA website, it clearly states:
"Please note that the experience necessary for licensure in Colorado as required in Board Rule 4.5 may be gained directly OR through the NCARB Intern Development Program (IDP). The Colorado Board recognizes, but currently does not require,
successful completion of NCARB's IDP as meeting the requirements to take the ARE. However, effective January 1, 2011, the Colorado experience requirements mirror the NCARB IDP training requirements (refer to Board Rule 4.4.1). Please be aware that, unlike Colorado, many states require completion of IDP for licensure and may not award endorsement or reciprocity licensure without it." (emphasis mine).
So, if the law doesn't require IDP, how can it (or the time it takes people to become licensed, which is what that study documented - not the time to complete IDP, which can clearly be done within 3 years) be part of a racketeering claim? If you have the properly documented experience, it pretty clearly states they will accept it. If you want to use IDP, that's fine. But it's not required. So, the time between graduation and licensure is irrelevant since it depends on the individual and outside circumstances.
2.) The board must have a "set passing score" for its exams or those it purchases. No DORA has admitted to not having a set passing score.
I couldn't find the exact phrase quoted above in the practice act itself. Nor could I find any supporting documentation as to whether or how DORA "admitted" to your claim. Sorry. I did see a reference to passing an exam, outlined below:
3.) The board must have a "minimum competency" exam. DORA freely admits that they have no definition of "minimum competency."
So, I think the part of the law you're quoting is this:
"(2) (a) An applicant shall pass an examination or examinations developed or adopted by the board. The board shall ensure that the passing score for any examination is set to measure the level of minimum competency.
(b) The examination shall be given at least twice a year. The board shall designate a time and location for examinations and shall notify applicants of this time and location in a timely fashion and, as necessary, may contract for assistance in administering the examination."
Again, the Board is charged to either develop or adopt an examination, to measure the minimum competency of an applicant. I can't find where they formally adopted the NCARB exam as 'their' exam (meaning, it's being used in lieu of a self-developed test) but if they were to use an 'adopted' test, DORA wouldn't be establishing either the minimum passing score nor the content it tests. Now, in practice, this may (may) create the conundrum you think you're describing: how does one prepare oneself to achieve 'minimum competency' if it's not clearly defined? Even with that said, I don't personally see how that would be tantamount to 'racketeering' since NCARB is going to be widely accepted as an accrediting body. And, the law clearly states that the Board's responsibility is not develop the test but to "ensure that the passing score...is set to measure the level of minimum competency." The Board's professionals are that arbiter - certainly not the Governor or other legislators. Finally, I don't see any supporting documentation anywhere that's publicly accessible to support the claim that DORA "freely admits" to anything. Were those phone calls you had with a DORA employee?
Finally, I think you've missed one key point in the law, which to me is evidenced by the absolutist language you've been using. Which is:
"12-25-314. Qualifications for architect licensure.
(1) The board shall set minimum educational and experience requirements for applicants
within the following guidelines:
(a) The board may require:" (emphasis mine)
The whole laundry list after that? It's part of a "may require"... it clearly gives the Board some room to adjust those requirements.
So, I think you have a very long road ahead to prove conspiracy and racketeering...
1.) The board has stated in its meeting minutes of 7/12 that IDP demands 5 years. You have stated the law of "no more than 3 years." Thus IDP is illegal in Colorado.
2.) I have asked DORA by Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) for the document of what the "set passing score(s)" are. I have in an email that DORA has stated that they have no such document. Law broken.
3.) If you read those requirements, they all say "no more than." Meaning they can require up to 3 years. But they cannot demand more. If you have read Matthew Arnold's 'Concerning Licensure' or even NCARB's 'By the Numbers', you know they are increasingly requiring more. NCARB admits to violating the law by a matter of 3 fold. If the demand for time is more than the uneducated clause, they have a huge problem.
Conspiracy is quite easy to prove. It has a name, the NCARB family. The obstruction of commerce is pretty easy to prove by Concerning Licensure. Fraud is rampant in my email conversations with DORA. They still owe multiple documents per CORA including exams and NCARB's contract. They did give me the ARE portion. It violates Colorado's CORA act multiple times. Anybody reading it would have to call it grotesque. Its sole goal is to make governments submit to NCARB's crimes.
What could they possibly have to hide? I have some other tricks planned for the trial. I'm a few steps ahead of them. The problem with proving the racketeering will be stating it accurately.
Please don't forget that Colorado was the last state to implement IDP and many of NCARB's dirty deeds done very expensively for a reason. It has laws to stop NCARB's corruption. They just need to be enforced. Not enforcing them when they intentionally obstruct commerce is racketeering.
The filed lawsuit will demand a Federal DOJ investigation. How is NCARB going to answer to the increasing years of obstruction?
As Gregory points out, there is so much wiggle room in those requirements. Let me write it your way, roark: S O M U C H W I G G L E R O O M
The assertion that they can demand "no more than 3 years" actually means they can't require less than 3 years, if you read it in the way it's intended, I believe.
I'm curious exactly what the statement in the meeting minutes is where they reference demanding 5 years? Does it say something like "even though we only require 3 years we are finding that most applicants require 5 years to get their required experience done"? That's not the same thing as requiring, legally, 5 years.
Also, I want to reference this IMO hilarious story of a person who fought the law and ultimately DID win...but not without risk. Remember that typically the State Licensing Board is allowed to make determinations as to whether someone is fit to practice based on characteristics other than just technical competence. From the article, quoting the Illinois Department of Registration's letter to the applicant:
`Dear Mr. Hicks: Enclosed is your registration certificate to practice Architecture. . . . It is issued with grave misgivings. We recognize that you have demonstrated technical competence by passing the examination, but your actions indicate an alarming degree of emotional and social immaturity, and a fundamental lack of understanding of the practice of architecture and the general fitness required of an individual to assume a responsible professional role. . . .
``We strongly disapprove of your appearance at the (examination). . . . dressed, as you were, in the bizarre costume of Batman, with the acknowledged purpose of disrupting the examination at the expense of your fellow candidates. Fortunately, the maturity of the 200 candidates was evidenced in their complete lack of interest in your caper. . . .
``Your general attitude evidences a lack of respect for your peers and the great traditions of the architectural profession. . . . We trust that with maturity you will come to have respect for authority and a higher esteem and consideration for your profession and its members.``
Granted it's not the 1970s and the "great traditions of the architectural profession" have become significantly less stodgy old white male. But people on Licensing Boards do hold a certain amount of authority over individuals who want what the Board grants. I don't want to say just be quiet and do what they ask - often it's ME who's agitating to fight the power - but you might ask yourself what is the most important battle: to get the license, or to change a law? And is it possible that you, and the world, would be better served if you just got the license and THEN tried to change things from within the system?
He can't get a license, which explains the rest.
OP - here's the quote from the meeting minutes you're citing as part of claim 1:
"NCARB has done some recent research to determine that on average it takes five years to complete IDP, whereas previously it was thought to take much longer."
I'm sorry, but that's not an admission at all that IDP "demands" 5 years of experience. At all. It's going to take 5 seconds for a judge to look at the actual time required for the successful completion of IDP, conclude it's less than 3 years, and dismiss the claim. You're grossly confusing the two issues - IDP can be done in 3 years. Period. I have interns that are getting it done. It can certainly take longer, for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with the structure of IDP or the law itself. None of which you seem willing to acknowledge. Moving on...
#2 - No, DORA doesn't seem to have broken the law by not producing a letter of a 'set passing score'. Legally, they're allowed to "adopt" an outside testing agency and/or test. You could, in theory, request that NCARB produce what a 'passing score' is for the various sections of the test. I'm 99% sure they're going to say something like "80% for all multiple choice sections" or even give you the breakdown (it's been so long since I've taken the test - do they give you the % of what you passed on the test report?). Again, read the law carefully. DORA would need to have a 'passing score' for their own test, not necessarily for an outside agency.
#3 - you're still confusing the two issues in #1 - put NCARB out to the side since IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR LICENSURE. You can't use anything related to IDP in this suit. IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR LICENSURE. So, DORA can very easily claim they're upholding the law with their list of requirements, which can be completed in "no more than 3 years". How would you prove them wrong otherwise?
So, by the way, where do you have standing (legally) in this suit? Were you denied or deprived of the ability to become an architect by DORA because of a valid claim? Because, honestly, if your end goal is to go after NCARB, then you really should pick another state. One that mandates the use of IDP. At least then, you'd have a marginally better chance of trying to use their stats against them.
OP: best of luck buddy, you're gonna need it.
and, just to put a fine point on this whole discussion:
IDP requires 5,600 hours of 'experience'.
A person employed full time (40 hours a week) would work 2,080 hours per year.
Deduct time for holidays and vacation (80 hours for 2 weeks vacation; 10 federal holidays - another 80 hours. So...
-160 hours of non-practice related time.
That leaves us 1,920 hours per working year.
x3 = 5,760 hours of working experience available over a 3 year span.
5,760 > 5,600
So, the claim that IDP 'experience' can't LEGALLY be completed within 3 years of 'normal working conditions' is, independently, invalid. LEGALLY, it is consistent with the stated time requirements.
There are a LOT of problems with IDP. There are a LOT of reasons people don't complete IDP in a timely manner or get licensed as quickly as they used to. I've listed out a ton myself elsewhere, as have others. But the math works, despite whatever 'proof' you have otherwise.
Gregory -- help me out here -- is this guy unable to get licensed and that's the root cause of the angst?
Saint - you'd have to ask them. i don't know the person, have no beef with them either way, and am trying to just argue through the merits of the claims as stated. my real interest is solely in the fact that this involves a state practice act. ours has gone through some changes in recent years, none of which i'm a fan of. so, it's a good excuse to really read through theirs and see it how it compares.
Gotcha.
Well, I tried asking but got the standard shtick.
I think many on this forum would likely attempt to assist this person -- but given their approach, I'm going to guess that they've come up against a done deal / brick wall in their case and they've resigned themselves to the practical futility. Now the game is proving why everyone is a hapless M O R O N .
saint, he said earlier:
"I am better and more educated, have better range of knowledge, and better experienced than the architects on the DORA board. All I get is lies from DORA and NCARB. They're even dumb enough to put the lies in writing."
so, i assume since he believes he's better than other people, perhaps that equivalent to being licensed?
as i recall from when i was taking the ARE, which was also a long time ago, they do not have a set cut-off for passing. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think there is a big pool of questions and each test has a certain number of randomly selected questions pulled from that pool. some questions are more difficult than others, so they are essentially weighted as more difficult. you could get a test with all the hard questions or all the easy questions, so saying there is an 80% cut-off wouldn't work. you can get a lower passing score if the questions on your test are more difficult. the difficulty of the questions is based more or less off how many other people get it correct, so that also creates a sliding scale as to what each question might be worth. that's why we can't get the score as we walk out of the room the way other professional examinations work.
this was before they changed it to 7 tests, so it may have changed. also, from the little bit i read many years ago, it appears there are actually fairly complicated theories in test scoring. i might be pretty far off in my explanation. either way, the way that it's scored takes into account how everyone else does, so the scoring isn't arbitrary. i'm pretty sure it's a good system.
Anyone know if the movie rights to this tread have been bought?
For what it's worth, All Canadian provinces (minus BC) have dropped NCARB and ARE tests from their licensing departments in lieu of their own exams and IDP... AREs are still accepted for now (minus QC). The new testing and licensing method is just as stringent as the past one but it's no longer linked to the NCARB.
Desperately needs architects to construct anti government bunkers.
What DORA and the Governor have going for them is poor reading comprehension and an emotional attachment of some to think that authorities are good people. The AIA never has been.
Donna, The law is very clear. "NO MORE THAN 3 YEARS CAN BE DEMANDED BY THE BOARD." What is getting in your way of your reading comprehension problem? Emotional attachment to what is wrong?
Gregory Walker, All you did is put conservative spin on your drivel. As of 1/1/14, IDP is a necessity for licensure in Colorado.
Gee, what could this possibly mean, "board shall ensure that the passing score." Since their isn't any. I'm 100% sure that NCARB does NOT have a set passing score. They have a sliding scale.
Also please note it does not state that its vendors have a set passing score either. It states that the "board shall ensure a set passing score."
NCARB IS NOT AN OUTSIDE AGENCY. DUH! They are a vendor. They must conform to the laws of the state, period. They try to act like they are the privatized bureaucracy that is above the state, telling it exactly what to do.
What is so difficult about any of this? Oh yeah, you're governmentally protected from competition with a lie and you like your lies.
(s)he said idp requires 5,600 documented hours.
that means idp can be completed in 3 years, without even working overtime.
your study suggests that a lot of people choose not to complete idp in 3 years, even though it is an available option.
idp requirements aren't even set in terms of years, it's set in terms of hours. there is no 5 year requirement in idp.
Its not my study cockram. Its NCARB's. The sole purpose of IDP is to give you and your most corrupt friends the authority to slow down competition by lying and obstruction of not allowing applicants to perform work. I can't type slow enough for you.
I may be wrong, but I seriously don't think I'm the one with reading comprehension issues. I'm quoting from what Gregory posted, which says this:
…(a) The board may require:
(I) No more than three years of practical experience….
Which is not the same meaning as this (reformatting the same words):
The board may require no more than three years of practical experience.
And is definitely not the same meaning as this (quoting from you)
"NO MORE THAN 3 YEARS CAN BE DEMANDED BY THE BOARD."
Punctuation matters.
In other words, what the statue says is that three years may be sufficient. But it may not be. That word "may" has a lot of power; wield it wisely, especially when you're writing specifications (or statues).
If I'm wrong, someone please tell me (besides roark, I already know he thinks I'm wrong). I Am Not A Lawyer (I'm an architect).
After reading through most of this tread... comments like NewRoark's make me think we need much more strict examinations and intern reqs.
what difference would how slow you type make? are you thinking there is some sort of relationship between typing slow and talking slow? it's written. i have all the time in the world to sound out words and re-read what i don't understand.
the ncarb study was the average time it takes to finish, not the time required to finish right? the time required to finish is still 5,600 hours, which is still under 3 years.
here's a link
and here's a picture showing the average length of time to complete idp is decreasing since they implemented the 6 month rule
the point of idp is to document experience gained before sitting for the test.
Donna,
They may require no more than 3 years
or
they make not require experience.
Yep, cockram. IDP violates Colorado law quite clearly. If both your median and your mean are greater than 3 years and you are corrupt enough to want this is as a requirement, you absolutely have committed racketeering by violating Colorado law and using out of state NCARB to administer the protection. Bada boom bada bing!
You fail to understand. It must be your emotional attachment to corruption via government protection.
The very definition of SUCK = Waaaah! Government protect me from superior competition.
NewRoark: "...superior competition."
Like, you, I presume?
Post up some of your superior work, smart guy.
If I'm reading this correctly, Colorado law states you can do IDP OR you can do three years (with a professional degree). it appears that in Colorado - IDP is optional. The main reason you'd want to do IDP is that there are other states that require IDP for ease of gaining reciprocity - i.e. you don't have to wait several years before you can get licensed in other states. it appears IDP is completely independent of the three year requirement in CO - you could probably sit for the exam and get licensed in CO before you even complete IDP.
Yeah, I'm editing this comment to remove it. Agree with Gregory (below), there's no point.
everyone - i've concluded we're getting punk'd. there's no point in continuing this 'conversation'. all this is is a rant against IDP. which is just fine, but there's no 'there' here.
i'm out.
bada boom, bada bing!
you did not explain how you though typing slower would help.
gregory, you're absolutely right. tint has not joined this conversation. she's probably too smart.
lastly, for the record, i do not like ncarb. there is much that they do which i do not like. feel free to review my (Jan 28, 14 4:15) pm post.
NCARB gave more than ample warning about the 6 month rule change. Yet the OP eithe feels that rules do not apply to him or OP has poor reading comprehension regarding the rule change.
My diagnosis: OP is lazy. Cannot get licensed in 25 years, now does not want to do IDP. OP believes he is better than other people. OP believes rules should apply to other people but not to himself. OP probably is high functioning.
OP will be disappointed if he continues this crusade. OPshould suck it up and do IDP, because in 3 years OP can either be called "architect" or can continue to be angry.
i kind of assumed the recent legislation in colorado regarding recreational use of marijuana was somehow related.
Gruel, I've already told you I completed IDP 3 times. What is your joy in preventing competition and lying to do it? You're a conservative complicit to the racketeering.
You people can't even read.
Why aren't you an architect then?
Or are you just angry that you have to pay money to NCARB?
Please talk to your therapist about this. I'm sure that living with aspergers is challenging, but you aren't going to solve any problems this way.
Just stop responding. Plenty here have tried to give him solid advice. But the troll wants to bash. He's been banned on other forums for this hostility.
Nope, Haven't been banned anywhere. Why do you constantly stoop to lies? How come you have such trouble facing facts? Oh yeah, you crave the government protection. Waaaah!
Here's Donna, 3 years ago when the research was brought forward.
"First off: I strongly applaud your effort in questioning the structures in place through which our profession is regulated. I think these kinds of questions are long overdue, and our profession would be stronger if we all felt these kinds of challenges/call to action could achieve results. Perhaps the only reason we all feel powerless is that no one has taken the time to simply challenge the power structure, and again, for that effort I congratulate you."
When the research is used to actually challenge the corruption, heads go in the sand and reading comprehension of a kindergartener and extreme arrogance. So corrupt and complicit.
Way to stalk, Captain Creepy.
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.