Opinion
No. 2231 C.D. 2011
05-21-2012
William Donald May, III, Petitioner v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Architects Licensure Board, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON
William Donald May, III (Petitioner) petitions for review of the order of the State Architects Licensure Board (Board) denying his application to sit for the Architect Registration Examination (ARE). Taking the ARE is a prerequisite for becoming a licensed architect under the Architects Licensure Law (Law). Petitioner contends the Board erred in denying his application because he has sufficient relevant experience in lieu of education. We affirm the Board.
Act of December 14, 1982, P.L. 1227, as amended, 63 P.S. §§34.1-34.22.
Petitioner submitted his ARE Approval Application (Application) in June 2008 in order to sit for the exam. Petitioner does not hold a five-year professional degree from a National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) accredited institution. As he does not hold an architecture degree, Petitioner must complete the Intern Development Program (IDP) with the National Council of Architectural Registrations Board (NCARB), and demonstrate an additional six years of verifiable architectural experience under direct supervision of a licensed architect. Petitioner claimed close to 34 years of experience in his Application.
Initially, the Board provisionally denied Petitioner's Application. Petitioner appealed the provisional denial and requested a hearing. Petitioner updated his Application in October 2010 to show completion of the IDP. Petitioner submitted evidence regarding his experience at the hearing, where he represented himself and testified on his own behalf.
Petitioner submitted two binders (a blue booklet and a white booklet) showing his work product that the Board marked as exhibits but did not include in the certified record. Petitioner filed a motion to include evidence, which was denied. On reconsideration, the undersigned agrees the blue booklet should have been included in the record. However, since the evidence consisted of works from his verifiable experience, and did not reflect additional works under direct supervision, its inclusion does not affect our disposition.
The Board issued a final determination denying his Application without prejudice. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Board granted. The Board conducted a second hearing allowing Petitioner to present evidence of his architecture experience on May 19, 2011. The Board limited the scope of evidence that Petitioner could present at the second hearing to:
(1) documentary verification that he completed the IDP;
(2) testimony or any other additional evidence concerning the relevance of Petitioner's coursework for which he received credit in the field of architecture; and
(3) no more than five examples of architectural projects that he may have completed within the five years prior to the
hearing for which he was responsible while in the employ of, or under the direct supervision of a registered architect.Bd. Op., 9/16/11, at 2. After conducting the hearing, the Board allowed the record to remain open for another 30 days.
The Board issued a second final determination, again denying Petitioner's Application without prejudice. The Board concluded Petitioner did not submit satisfactory evidence of at least six years of practical experience under direct supervision of a registered architect in lieu of a degree.
The Board made the following findings of fact. Petitioner does not have a professional degree in architecture from a program accredited by the NAAB. Bd. Op., 9/16/11, Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 5. The Board advised Petitioner that since he does not hold a degree, he "must complete the IDP with NCARB before the Board will review the candidate's experience in lieu of a professional degree." F.F. No. 6.
With regard to verifiable work experience, the Board found:
• From 2009 to the present, Petitioner acquired 12 months of full-time experience and three months of part-time experience under the direct supervision of Robert T. Stevens. F.F. No. 7.
• From June of 2008 through February 2009, Petitioner worked under the direct supervision of Richard N. Manns, R.A., rendering architecture services and acquiring eight months of full-time experience. F.F. No. 22.
• From January 2008 through March 2008, Petitioner worked under direct supervision of Susan E. Lockwood, A.I.A., as an architectural draftsman, producing drawings, and acquiring in
Petitioner's estimation three months of part-time experience. F.F. No. 20.
• From January 2006 through November 2006, Petitioner worked under the direct supervision of Douglas Devlin, R.A., rendering architecture services and planning services, and acquiring 11 months of full-time experience. F.F. No. 18.
• From October 2000 through June 2001, Petitioner worked under the direct supervision of Gary C. Habedank, RA at Wallover, Mitchell, Bontempo and Associates rendering architecture services and planning services, and acquiring eight months of full-time experience. F.F. No. 16.
Based upon the verifiable facts, Petitioner acquired only 39 months of full-time and six months of part-time experience under direct supervision of an architect. Thus, his total experience fell short of the six years (72 months) required to be accepted in lieu of a professional degree. The Board explained that Petitioner could not substantiate that he worked under the supervision of licensed architects at many of the firms he listed in his employment history from 1977 to the present. The Board noted: "In fact, of the twenty-two firms or companies listed in [Petitioner's] employment chart, he was only able to verify employment for five firms under which he practiced for a licensed architect." Bd. Op. at 18. Of the remaining firms he noted simply "no longer in business" or "can't remember." Id.
With regard to the type and caliber of work, the Board concluded that the evidence Petitioner presented did not show his collaboration "under the direct supervision of a licensed architect on architectural work. Rather, the evidence presented by Applicant was more akin to work produced by an architectural draftsman." Bd. Op. 9/14/11, at 10. The Board determined Petitioner did not provide satisfactory evidence regarding the type of work he performed to develop the skills, knowledge and judgments needed in the practice of architecture.
Petitioner appeals to this Court. Petitioner contends the Board agreed to use his 34 years of claimed experience in lieu of its educational requirements. He argues his work met the caliber required for experience because it met International Building Codes and local building codes. He also asserts he completed all requirements for the IDP and meets the experience requirements.
This Court's review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial competent evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Rosen v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, State Architects Licensure Bd., 763 A.2d 962 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). --------
The Board does not dispute that Petitioner completed his IDP. The Board disputes that Petitioner has at least six years of verifiable practical experience in the employ or under the direct supervision of a registered architect in lieu of a professional degree. This appeal is limited to whether Petitioner's experience met the requirements set by the Law to be accepted in lieu of education.
"The primary purpose of the [Law] is to protect 'the health, safety and property of the people of the Commonwealth ...' and this goal is to be accomplished by allowing no one to practice architecture unless that person has the qualifications and competency required by the statute." Rosen v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, State Architects Licensure Bd., 763 A.2d 962, 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (quoting Section 2 of the Law, 63 P.S. §34.2). A licensure applicant bears the burden of proving that he meets all the necessary qualifications for obtaining a professional license. Barran v. State Bd. of Med., 670 A.2d 765 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Licensure as an architect requires education, experience and examination— the ARE. To qualify to sit for the ARE, an applicant must meet both requirements stated in Section 9.46 of the Board's regulations:
(1) A professional degree in architecture from an accredited program.49 Pa. Code §9.46.
(2) Three years of diversified experience demonstrated by training requirements of the IDP.
Pursuant to the Law, the Board may consider experience in lieu of an accredited professional degree in architecture. Section 8(b) of the Law provides, in pertinent part, "[i]n lieu of a professional degree in architecture, the board may accept evidence of at least six years' practical experience obtained in the employ of or under the direct supervision of a registered architect 63 P.S. §34.8(b). Accordingly, the Board allowed Petitioner to prove that his claimed 34 years of experience satisfies the requirement for verifiable experience.
The Board is the ultimate fact-finder and may accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Gleeson v. State Bd. of Med., 900 A.2d 430, 435 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). In reviewing a licensure decision, this Court may not reweigh the evidence presented, nor may we substitute our judgment for that of the Board. See Bethea-Tumani v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, 993 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
The evidence of record reflects that Petitioner had only 39 months of full-time verifiable experience, plus six months of part-time verifiable experience, under the direct supervision of a registered architect. Bd. Op., 9/16/11, at 13. Petitioner also listed on his Application 20 months of full-time employment with Obenchain Corporation and 54 months of full-time employment with Eichleay/Peter F. Loftus. However, Petitioner did not present any evidence verifying the dates of employment, whether it was full-time or part-time work, and the specific professional duties he performed. Petitioner also listed four months of part-time employment with Heritage Architects, again, without verifying details of professional employment.
The Board did not consider either the combined 74 months of full-time employment or the four months of part-time employment because they were not verified. Petitioner admitted that from 1977 to 1990, he could not substantiate when he worked under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or worked with engineers. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 11/17/10, at 32. The Board likewise did not consider Petitioner's four years of verified employment at Globe Residential Design Studio because Petitioner did not perform work under direct supervision of a registered architect.
The Law is clear that an applicant who does not hold an accredited degree must complete six years of professional experience under direct supervision of a registered architect in addition to satisfying the IDP requirement. Experience that is acquired without supervision of a licensed architect does not count toward the required six years of professional experience. The Board did not abuse its discretion when it did not include unverified employment or experience for which direct supervision could not be verified. Ultimately, Petitioner could not substantiate that his considerable experience qualified under the statute.
From the work experience evidence admitted and considered, we hold the Board had substantial evidence to find Petitioner failed to establish the six years of verifiable work experience under the direct supervision of a licensed architect required by the Law. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 2012, the September 16, 2011 order of the State Architects Licensure Board is AFFIRMED.
Further, Petitioner's request for reconsideration of Paragraph 3 of this Court's Order of March 27, 2012 is GRANTED. Upon reconsideration, that portion of this Court's March 27 Order denying Petitioner's Motion to File Evidence is VACATED IN PART, so that the Original Record is SUPPLEMENTED with inclusion of the "Blue Booklet." In all other respects, the March 27 Order remains in full effect. The State Architects Licensure Board shall certify that exhibit for inclusion in the Original Record within 10 days of the date of this Order.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge