MINUTES FOR BOARD MEETING OF THE NEVADA STATE BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURE, INTERIOR DESIGN AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Board Conference Room, 2080 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite
120, Las Vegas, NV 89119
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Chairman George Garlock called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
Roll
Call: Greg Erny, Judith Fermoile,
George Garlock, John Klai, JoAnn Oppenheimer Gore and Derrell Parker, Bill
Snyder and Larry Tindall. Larry Henry
was absent.
Also in
attendance: Gina Spaulding, Executive
Director; Betty Ruark, Chief Investigator; Dianna Hegeduis, Legal Counsel;
Monica Harrison and Stacey Hatfield, staff.
AGENDA ITEM 1 Approval of consent
agenda
Consent agenda included
the following:
Architects
– Registration by Reciprocity
|
6051 |
Melvyn YK Choy |
6073 |
Elliott C. Elder |
6093 |
Richard E. Byfield |
|
6052 |
James T. Hillier |
6074 |
Randall A. Bohl |
6094 |
Karen A. Cook |
|
6053 |
Kenneth Linehan |
6075 |
Donald J. Rorschach |
6095 |
John S. Delacy |
|
6054 |
Michael D. Prindle |
6076 |
Patrick Lenaham |
6096 |
Warren J. Hedgpeth |
|
6055 |
Michael Spitzer |
6077 |
Troy A. McOmber |
6097 |
Bradley S. Kaul |
|
6057 |
James S. Bershof |
6078 |
Richard H. Benson |
6098 |
William J. Liese |
|
6058 |
Peter Blitstein |
6079 |
John E. Davidson |
6099 |
David J. Lind |
|
6059 |
Thomas E. Gerster |
6080 |
David T. Decker |
6100 |
Ted R. Locke |
|
6060 |
A. Joseph Johnson, Jr. |
6081 |
Matthew A. Holleb |
6101 |
Robert K. Morris |
|
6061 |
Michael J. Luberto |
6082 |
Neil R. Seierup |
6102 |
Adam J. Rohrbaugh |
|
6062 |
Lee J. Mamola |
6083 |
Robert D. Barrentine |
6103 |
Michael L. Schrock |
|
6063 |
Gabriel J. Massa |
6084 |
William E. Chegwidden |
6104 |
Robert L. Thompson |
|
6064 |
Howard L. Anderson |
6085 |
William E. Cox |
6105 |
Martin L. Tovrea |
|
6065 |
Lenord G. Cubellis |
6086 |
Todd C. Degarmo |
6106 |
Jack M. Wilbern |
|
6066 |
Lawrence E. McLaughlin |
6087 |
Kurt Franzen |
6107 |
Joseph P. Wilfong |
|
6067 |
David M. Murphy |
6088 |
Marcos F. Ibarguen |
6108 |
Ronald D. Baker |
|
6068 |
Douglas Pancake |
6089 |
Carlos J. Jahen |
6109 |
Deborah L. Berke |
|
6069 |
Brian R. Poliquin |
6090 |
Michael J. Konsko |
6113 |
John W. Greenlee |
|
6070 |
John C. Schneider |
6091 |
Dan J. Roszkowski |
6114 |
Michael Brennan |
|
6071 |
Christopher T. Stumm |
6092 |
Peter J. Lagomarsino |
6115 |
Daryl Bray |
|
6072 |
Jonathan Tsao |
|
|
|
|
Residential Designers –
Registration by Reciprocity
|
269-P |
James E. Jensen |
273-P |
Brian L. Fink |
|
|
Board members requested
agenda items 1E-2, 1E-6, 1E-8, 1F-4, 1F-5 and 1F-7 be pulled from the consent
agenda.
Motion: Parker
moved to approve the consent agenda, items 1A through 1E-1, 1E-3 through 1E-5,
1E-7, 1E-9 through 1F-3, 1F-6 and 1F-8 through 1F-13. Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 1E-2 Firm name approval
request: Studios
Architecture, VA Inc.
Motion: Erny moved
to approve the firm name “Studios Architecture, VA
Inc.”
Motion seconded by Klai.
Klai asked why the board
would approve a firm name with the abbreviation for “Virginia” in the
name. Spaulding said that when a
foreign corporation registers with the Nevada Secretary of State to do business
in Nevada, the firm is required to use the same name it uses in its home
state.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 1E-6 Firm name approval
request: Yihong Liu & Associates,
LTD
Motion: Klai moved to approve the
firm name “Yihong
Liu & Associates, LTD.” Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Klai said that it appeared
that one of the managing members of the firm is not a Nevada registrant. Spaulding said that Mr. Liu is 100 percent
owner and is licensed. Klai asked that
staff call Mr. Liu to clarify.
Vote: All in
favor pending clarification. Motion
passes.
AGENDA ITEM 1E-8 Firm name approval
request: MCG Architecture
Motion: Klai moved to approve the firm name “MCG
Architecture.” Motion seconded by Erny.
Board
members said that he must close the office until a resident registrant is
hired.
Vote: None in favor; all
opposed. Motion fails.
Motion:
Klai moved to deny the firm name approval request and to send a letter
saying the office must close until it is in compliance with NRS 623.350. Motion seconded by Erny.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 1F-4 Firm registration approval
request: ULTRYX Design Group
Motion: Klai moved to approve the firm registration
“ULTRYX Design
Group.” Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Klai asked what “ULTRYX”
means. Firm owner, Brandon Hall, was in
the audience and said it did not mean anything as it was a made-up word.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 1F-5 Firm registration approval
request: TFO Architecture, Inc.
Motion: Klai moved to approve the firm registration
“TFO
Architecture, Inc.” Motion seconded by Parker.
Klai said that there are
nonregistrants using the title “principal” in the application. Spaulding said that she has educated the
firm owners, but did not catch these titles in the paperwork. Board memembers said that the paperwork must
be changed and completed correctly.
Motion:
Klai amended his previous motion to conditionally approve the firm
registration “TFO Architecture, Inc.” based on the supposition that corrected,
amended paperwork is submitted. Motion
seconded by Parker.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 1F-7 Firm registration approval
request: Hannafin Design Associates,
LLP
Motion: Klai moved to approve the firm registration
“Hannafin
Design Associates, LLP.” Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Klai said that the
letterhead lists the name of a non-registrant as a senior associate. This is misleading and may lead people to
believe that the senior associate is in fact registered.
Motion: Klai amended his previous motion to
conditionally approve the firm registration “Hannafin Design Associates, LLP” based on the supposition that corrected
letterhead is submitted. Motion
seconded by Fermoile.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 2A Deliberations/Action on applications for registration: Architectural
Snyder swore in the
following individuals as architects:
1. Ponn P. Virulrak.............................. 6110
2. Theresa M. Labus........ .................. 6111
3. Deepika Padam............ .................. 6112
4. Brian M. Gardner......... .................. 6117
5. Molly M. Olson............ .................. 6116
Motion: Fermoile moved to approve the
registration of the above referenced individuals as architects. Motion seconded by Snyder.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 2B Deliberations/Action on applications for registration: Registered interior
design
Snyder swore in the
following individual as a registered interior designer:
1. H.
Danielle Rios.............................. 139-ID
Motion: Parker moved to approve the
registration of the above referenced individual as a registered interior
designer. Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 2C Deliberations/Action on applications for registration: Residential design
Snyder swore in the following
individuals as residential designers:
1. Richard M. Quezada........................ 270-P
2. Joshua K. Warner........ .................. 271-P
Motion: Erny moved to approve the
registration of the above referenced individuals as residential designers. Motion seconded by Parker.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
Garlock
asked if the new registrants had any comments about the registration
process. New registrants thanked staff
for help with the registration process.
New residential designers said that plotting the solutions from the graphic
exam makes a long testing day even longer.
Spaulding said that this has been changed; exam takers now print on
11x17 paper and the solutions are plotted off-site later.
AGENDA ITEM 3 Discussion and possible decision regarding the application
of Thomas A.
Heinz for architectural
reciprocal registration
Spaulding said this is a
case where there is negative information in the applicant’s NCARB file. She said that in 1999 the Illinois board
found that Mr. Heinz practiced architecture on an expired license. His license is now in good standing.
Motion: Erny moved
to approve the reciprocal registration for Thomas A. Heinz. Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 4A-1 Case
No. 08-003N – In the matter of Steven Andrews
The respondent
is alleged to have three violations of NRS 623.360.1(c) by engaging in the
practice of architecture for three restaurants, without having a certificate of
registration issued by the board.
During the
investigation of case 07-099N, it was discovered that Stephen Andrews of
Andrews Chapman (respondent) entered into three proposals for architectural
services and prepared preliminary drawings for three restaurants to be located
in the Southern Highland Casino in Las Vegas, without being licensed in the
state of Nevada, which constitutes a violation of NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c).
The Respondent
was sent a Notice of Investigation concerning this project and a letter of
response was received. The respondent's
case was discussed with Chief Investigator Ruark and the decision was made to
offer the respondent an opportunity to settle this issue informally rather than
face a disciplinary hearing before the board.
A settlement agreement was negotiated incorporating a No Contest Clause,
an Effect On Licensure Clause, an administrative penalty of $9,000 and
investigative costs in the amount of $3,000.
Staff recommends approval of the settlement agreement.
Motion: Snyder moved to approve the settlement
agreement. Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 4A-2 Case
No. 08-012N – In the matter of Ron Trombly
The respondent
is alleged to have violated NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c) when he submitted a set of
construction documents for plan check and permitting to the Washoe County
Building Department. The documents were
not prepared by him or by an individual holding a certificate of registration
from the board.
This enforcement
case is in follow-up to case 06-001N in which the board found a draftsman to be
in violation of NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c) when he prepared construction documents
for a custom home to be built in Reno, Nevada.
The drawings were then submitted to the building department on the
respondent’s title block. A review of
the drawings revealed that the respondent had signed the attestation on the
Contractor’s Exemption stamp on the plans that states, “These Plans are
Prepared and Submitted by the Contractor as an Exception to NRS 623.330 for
Work Under the Contractor’s License Category Authorized under NRS 624.” The
stamp states that the plans were prepared by Ron Trombly Construction, Inc.
The respondent
was sent a Notice of Investigation concerning this project and a letter of
response was received. The respondent's
case was discussed with Chief Investigator Ruark and the decision was made to
offer the respondent an opportunity to settle this issue informally rather than
face a disciplinary hearing before the board.
A settlement agreement was negotiated incorporating a Guilt Clause, an
administrative penalty of $4,800 and investigative costs in the amount of
$1,000. Staff recommends approval of
the settlement agreement.
Motion: Tindall moved to approve the settlement
agreement. Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 4A-3 Case
No. 08-013N – In the matter of James Flick and Matt Mars
The respondents
are alleged to have committed two violations of NRS 623.360.1(a)(b) and one
violation of NRS 623.360.1(c) by holding themselves out as being qualified to
practice registered interior design and by engaging in the practice of
registered interior design for two commercial projects, without having a
certificate of registration issued by the board.
During a
reciprocity interview with Respondent James Flick, he revealed that Flick Mars
entered into an agreement to provide registered interior design services for a
project located in Lake Tahoe, Nevada called The 323 Residences. Flick Mars provided the FF&E and space
planning for the common areas, including but not limited to, the lobby,
elevator cabs, corridors, foyer, lounge and vestibule. During the investigation Mr. Flick disclosed
that Flick Mars had prepared drawings and a proposal for an additional project,
the Hilton Grand Vacation Club Lobby Study, located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The respondents
were sent a Notice of Charges concerning these projects and a letter of
response was received. The respondents’
case was discussed with Chief Investigator Ruark and the decision was made to
offer the respondents an opportunity to settle this issue informally rather
than face a disciplinary hearing before the board. A settlement agreement was negotiated incorporating a Guilt
Clause, an Effect On Licensure Clause, an administrative penalty of $15,000 and
investigative costs in the amount of $1,500.
Staff recommends approval of the settlement agreement.
Motion: Klai moved to approve the settlement
agreement. Motion seconded by Parker.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 4A-4 Case
No. 08-029N – In the matter of Paul Ruffing
The respondent
is alleged to have violated NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c) by holding himself out as
being qualified to practice architecture, and by engaging in the practice of
architecture for a commercial tenant improvement while his certificate of
registration issued by the board had lapsed.
Staff received a
call from the respondent requesting information on reinstating his license,
which had lapsed December 31, 2006.
Bach spoke to Mr. Ruffing and discovered through his own admission that he
had entered into an agreement for architectural services for a tenant
improvement project at the Grand Canal Shops in the Venetian Hotel and Casino
and had collaborated on drawings prepared by an unlicensed firm.
The respondent
was sent a Notice of Charges concerning this project and a letter of response
was received. The respondent's case was
discussed with Chief Investigator Ruark and the decision was made to offer the
respondent an opportunity to settle this issue informally rather than face a
disciplinary hearing before the board.
A settlement agreement was negotiated incorporating a No Contest Clause,
an order to complete and pass the Registration Quiz, an administrative penalty
of $5,000 and investigative costs in the amount of $1,200. Staff recommends approval of the settlement
agreement.
Motion: Erny moved to approve the settlement
agreement. Motion seconded by Parker.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 4B Discussion and possible decision regarding closure of
enforcement cases
Ruark recommended the following cases, which were
investigated, for closure without disciplinary action:
|
04-010R |
06-010N |
06-020N |
07-081N |
|
05-047R |
06-011N |
07-005R |
07-092N |
Motion: Erny moved to close the above-referenced
cases. Motion seconded by Snyder.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 4C Enforcement report
Ruark said she had nothing further to report.
Board members asked if the respondents who entered
into settlement agreements that included payment plans were keeping up with
their payments. Ruark said that
generally it has been successful.
Spaulding asked if board members would like registrants who come out of
compliance with their settlement agreements, such as for continued late
payments, to appear before the board.
Board members said those registrants should appear before the board to
explain why they are not in compliance.
AGENDA ITEM 5 Discussion and possible decision regarding Andres Escobar’s
request that the
board approve his interior
design degree pursuant to NRS 623.192(1)(d)(2)
Spaulding said that Andres Escobar was appearing
before the board to ask if the board would find his interior design degree from
Dawson College equivalent to a degree from a CIDA-accredited (formerly FIDER)
program, per NRS 623.191(1)(d)(2). Mr.
Escobar graduated in 1984, and the program received FIDER accreditation in
1985. His schoolwork was part of the
body of work the FIDER team considered when granting accreditation.
Mr. Escobar presented evidence to support his
request.
Board members said that they would continue to look
at applicants on a case-by-case basis.
They said that they were comfortable reviewing Mr. Escobar’s credentials
because his degree was granted one year before the program received FIDER
accreditation. They said that based on
the evidence presented, his education is equivalent to a degree from a
CIDA-accredited program.
Motion: Erny moved
that Andres Escobar’s interior design degree from Dawson College was equivalent
to a degree from a CIDA-accredited program.
Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 6 Discussion and possible approval of the draft continuing
education regulation
Erny explained that the Continuing Education
Committee drafted the proposed regulation before the board. He said that the committee is presenting it
to the board for consideration, with the hopes that it can soon go forward for
public comment.
Erny summarized the draft regulation for board
members and they discussed details and implications of the regulation. Board members made small changes to the
proposed regulation.
Board members said that town hall
meetings should be scheduled for March or April so that the board will have
feedback by the June board meeting.
This will allow the board to forward a draft regulation to LCB before
the legislative deadline.
The board adjourned for
lunch.
AGENDA ITEM 7 Discussion and possible approval of draft amendments to NAC
623.900 and
NAC 623.905. Set workshop date.
Spaulding told board members that the draft
amendments to NAC 623.900, regarding architect and residential designer rules
of conduct, were in their board books.
Board members approved a draft at a previous board meeting, but LCB had
to make some changes to that draft.
Spaulding said the intent is the same.
Spaulding said that the proposed amendments to NAC
623.905, specifying what must be included in a complaint, is from the planning
session. She added that people would
still be able to submit complaints anonymously, but all complaints must be in
writing.
Motion: Erny moved
to approve the proposed draft amendments to NAC 623.900 and NAC 623.905 and to
set the workshop and public hearing dates for the next board meeting. Motion seconded by Tindall.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 8 Discussion and possible approval of draft amendment to NAC
623.0185 –
responsible control
Spaulding said that the
proposed amendments to NAC 623.0185, defining responsible control, are from the
planning session. She said if the
language is acceptable, she will send it to LCB so that it may be ready for
workshop and public hearing at the next board meeting.
Motion: Parker
moved to approve the proposed draft amendments to NAC 623.0185 and to set the
workshop and public hearing dates for the next board meeting. Motion seconded by Klai.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
AGENDA
ITEM 9 Discussion and possible decision
regarding amending the March 3, 2005 board notice regarding working with
unlicensed individuals.
Spaulding said this is on
the agenda because it is tied to the responsible control issue. However, she said it might be premature to
amend the notice, prior to changing the definition of responsible control. She wanted board members to be aware that it
may have to be changed if the definition of responsible control is
changed. Board members said they should
wait until after LCB has had a chance to look at the proposed regulation
change.
AGENDA
ITEM 10A and 10B Discussion and possible
decision regarding Howard Perlman’s
request
for approval of the firm name Perlman Architects of
Arizona,
Inc. and Perlman Architects Inc of California
Richard Peele, Howard
Perlman’s attorney, spoke to the board on Mr. Perlman’s behalf, who was not
able to attend the board meeting.
Motion: Erny moved to approve the firm names “Perlman Architects of
Arizona, Inc.” and “Perlman Architects Inc of California.” Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Spaulding said that she did
not believe that the two firm names complied with the board’s firm name
guidelines. She said that both
applications ask for use of the plural term, “architects,” but Mr. Perlman is
the only Nevada licensed architect affiliated with Perlman Architects of
Arizona, Inc. Additionally, Spaulding
said that she was unsure about approving a firm name for use in another
state. She said that Mr. Peele had an
explanation as to why Mr. Perlman wished to use these names, so she told him he
could appear before the board to make his case.
Mr. Peele said that when Mr.
Perlman decided he wanted to do business in California, he created an entity
separate from his Nevada firm to conduct the California business. He said that same case applies to the
Arizona firm. Each entity has been
operating primarily in its own state. He
said that clients from these firms now wish to do business in Nevada, and since
they have a relationship with Perlman Architects of Arizona or Perlman
Architects of California, and not Perlman Design Group (in Las Vegas), they
wish to conduct their Nevada business through the entity they already have a
business relationship with.
Mr. Peele said that there
are three Nevada licensed architects who would be doing any work that is in
Nevada. He said he believed that this
allowed them to use the plural term, architects.
Board members asked why the
clients couldn’t do business with the Nevada entity. Mr. Peele said that they wished to continue their relationship
with the people that they are already working with. He added that the work for any Nevada projects would be done in
the Nevada office by Nevada licensed architects, not in the California
office. Board members said that would
be misleading because the client would likely think that the work was being
done by the California firm, when in fact it would not be. Board members added they were uncomfortable
approving a firm name with another state’s name in the title and that the
request did not comply with the provisions of NAC 623.740(8).
Vote: None in
favor. All opposed. Motion fails.
AGENDA
ITEM 11 Discussion and possible decision
regarding whether to send a letter to the Contractors Board regarding an
architect’s authority under NRS 623 to provide construction management services
– Barry Tedesco, Architect
Barry Tedesco and Rhonda Rush addressed the board
regarding a letter that is circulating in their market which says that
architects cannot perform construction management services. The State Contractors Board issued a firm
letter that stated that architects and engineers cannot perform construction
management services unless they are also licensed contractors. Mr. Tedesco said that this letter was
circulated to some of his clients and was also reprinted in a newsletter that
goes to HOAs (his firm’s market). He
said that he only performs construction management services on projects where
he is also the architect of record.
Mr. Tedesco said that he requested and received a
letter from the board office stating that construction management is within the
scope of practice of an architect. The
letter cited the 2002 Attorney General’s Opinion on the topic. Mr. Tedesco added that the contractors’
board later issued a very tepid letter retracting the original letter; however,
the public perception is that only licensed contractors can perform construction
management services.
Spaulding told the board that she asked Mr. Tedesco
to appear and explain his situation.
She then asked if the board still interpreted the architect’s scope of
practice (NRS 623.023) to include construction management services. She also said that she spoke to the Chief
Investigator at the contractors’ board and he did not agree that architects
could perform construction management services.
Board members said that architects can perform
construction management services. They
directed Spaulding to contact Margi Grein, the contractors’ board executive
officer, to find out that board’s stance on the issue. They added that the contractors’ board staff
needs to made aware of the law so they do not spread false information. Board members also suggested placing an item
in this board’s newsletter and posting a notice on the web site if this issue
cannot be mutually resolved between this board and the contractors’ board.
AGENDA ITEM 12: Formal Hearing – In the matter of Nili Neu, Case No. 05-053N,
alleging
violations
of NRS 623.0225, NRS 623.023, NRS 623.350(2)(3) and NRS 623.365. Deliberations will be conducted after the
administrative hearing an a decision will be rendered.
A formal hearing was held in the matter of Nili Neu,
Case #05-053N. Ms. Neu does not have a
certificate of registration issued by this board. The respondent was alleged to have violated NRS 623.360.1(a) by
holding herself out to the public or soliciting business as an architect or
registered interior designer in Nevada, and NRS 623.360.1(b) by advertising or
putting out a device to the public that she was an architect or registered
interior designer, or that she was otherwise qualified to engage in the
practice of architecture or registered interior design.
In attendance:
David Newton, Counsel to the Board
Dianna Hegeduis, Prosecuting Attorney
Sigal Chattah, Defending Attorney
Witnesses for the prosecution:
Betty Ruark, NSBAIDRD Chief Investigator
Witnesses for the defense:
Nili Neu, Defendant
The counts brought against Nili Neu are as follows:
Count One
By holding herself out to the general public as if
she is qualified to practice as a registered interior designer and/or
architect, and soliciting business through advertisement, respondent has
violated NRS 623.360(1).
Testimony was heard and evidence was introduced into
the record, which substantiated the allegations against Respondent Nili Neu.
Motion: Snyder moved
that the State had proven allegations 9 through 13 of the complaint. Motion seconded by Parker.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
Count Two
By advertising as the respondent has done, the
respondent is holding herself out to the general public and soliciting business
as a registered interior design and/or architect when in fact she has not
received a certificate of registration from the board, respondent has violated
NRS 623.360(1). Each occurrence is a
violation of NRS 623.0225, NRS 623.023 and NRS 623.360(1).
Testimony was heard and evidence was introduced into
the record, which substantiated the allegations against Respondent Nili Neu.
Motion: Erny moved
that the State had proven allegations 16 through 31, exclusive of 29, of the
complaint. Motion seconded by Klai.
Vote: All in
favor. Motion passes.
Motion: Klai moved
to:
Motion seconded by Fermoile.
Vote: Five in
favor: Erny, Fermoile, Klai, Oppenheimer Gore and Snyder. Three opposed: Garlock, Parker and
Tindall. Motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM 18A Public information report:
Discussion and possible decision regarding the
RFP responses received to update the visual component of the board’s
website and its written communications
Hatfield said that the last issue of Focus is in board books and
the next issue will go out in early February.
The next issue will be the new, HTML version of the newsletter. Hatfield said that she spoke to the interns
at Tate Snyder Kimsey and Welles Pugsley, as well as to the UNLV Introduction
to Design class, IADT Professional Practice class and the UNR ASID Student
Chapter.
Hatfield said that she has spoken to the AIA contact for the High
School Design Awards and the board will have a 10-15 minute slot at the awards
ceremony to talk about licensing and choosing a properly accredited
program. She said the audience would
include student and parents.
Hatfield said the board’s first article in Builder/Architect is
in the board books. She said the
publication goes out every two months.
She said that the editor is launching a sister publication, Commercial
Builder/Architect, and the board will have a column in that publication as
well.
Hatfield said the board has five responses to the RFP for the board’s
update to the visual component of the board communications. Board members chose the firm, Robertson
Wood.
AGENDA ITEM 13 Discussion and possible
decision regarding how long registrants should
disclose disciplinary action on their annual registration renewal form
Spaulding said that the questions under the “Professional Statistics
Report” on the registration renewal form have been the same for a long
time. She asked board members if they
thought registrants should continue to disclose any disciplinary action,
regardless of when it took place and regardless of it had been previously
disclosed. She added that she is seeing
disciplinary action as far back as 1980.
Board members said registrants should continue to disclose disciplinary action
on their registration renewal forms for 10 years. They should disclose actions further back if they have not been
previously disclosed.
AGENDA ITEM 14A Discussion and decision regarding which board members will attend the
combined WCARB Region 6 and
Region 3 meeting in Englewood, Colorado on March 26-30, 2008
Erny,
Fermoile, Klai and Tindall indicated they would attend the WCARB meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 14B FYI: Letter from Jeffery Huberman, NCARB Secretary, regarding
NCARB
mid-term
letter
Spaulding
said this item was included for board member’s information.
AGENDA ITEM 15A FYI: Press release regarding NCIDQ adding six new member boards
in 2007
Spaulding
said this item was included for board member’s information.
AGENDA ITEM 16A Update on the revised residential design exam
Spaulding
said the exam has been updated and a new study guide is posted on the
website. She said the first
administration will be in February.
AGENDA ITEM 17A Request to change the June 2008 board meeting date from June 11
to June 4
Spaulding
requested the June board meeting be changed from June 11, 2008 to June 4. Some board members said they would have to
check their calendars and get back to her.
AGENDA ITEM 17B Discussion and possible response regarding which board members
will
volunteer to assist with
updating the Registered Interior Design Nevada Supplemental Exam
Spaulding
said that at the last board meeting board members decided that the supplemental
exam would be updated in-house in order to keep costs down and have an updated
exam sooner. She asked which board
members would assist in updating the supplemental exam. Erny, Fermoile, Garlock, Parker and Snyder
volunteered.
AGENDA ITEM 19 Items for future agenda
·
Future implementation of
IDEP
·
Discussion on how to best
protect the public against unlicensed individuals doing residential design and
regulated areas of residential interior design.
AGENDA ITEM 20 Public comment
There was no public comment.
Chairman Garlock adjourned
the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
|
______________________________ William Snyder,
Secretary/Treasurer |
_________________________________ Gina Spaulding, Executive
Director |