3.10 aiaVT Newsletter
Editor's unexpected filler material
There is an unforeseen vacancy in this issue, so rather than have my own personal filler hidden at the bottom of the newsletter it is right up front...mainly because I am too lazy to reformat the newsletter... More...
Sunsetting the '9 year rule'
I’m writing to you to let you know about a significant threat to architectural licensing in Vermont. I’m asking you to join with me in opposing this proposed legislation (H.562 Section #6 & #53). More...
Perspective on the '9 year rule'
A former coworker of mine is a very successful Architect practicing in Vermont, and he obtained his license through the provisions in the '9 year rule'. More...
Roots of grass
The AIA Grassroots Annual Leadership and Legislative Conference was held in the beginning of February 2010 this year in Washington DC. More...
Editor's unexpected filler material
By Shawn Brennan, AIA
I was born and raised in Vermont, so I think I have a little street cred, or dirt road cred as the case may be, when it comes to talking about local issues. I consider myself a typical Vermont independent (little “i”, no non-party party affiliation intended) in that I vote for the candidate that I disfavor the least. Despite the political paralysis and reactionary rhetoric at the national level, there is a general sense of pride here in Vermont for our truly citizen legislature. That is why I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt on issues that sometimes raise my eyebrows. In Vermont we try to mix our idealism with realism, which is why I take issue with a recent report I heard on the radio. Before I lose you in my web of discordant thoughts, I should start this article with a little background so you will see how it ties to architecture. That’s a prerequisite or else I don’t allow myself to rant…in this forum.
If you aren’t aware of the fact that Architecture is a business that depends upon other businesses being successful in order to flourish, then you really haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the economy lately. It’s simple in that if nobody has the money to build or remodel then we don’t have anyone to design for. This business aspect of the profession is something I’ve picked up in practice since we all know that it isn’t a major emphasis in design school (I think business is mentioned once late in the fourth year…). So for you business minded people out there, please forgive any unintentional mangling of the facts, but as they saying goes, I won’t let them get in the way of a good story, or at least this story.
Driving to work one recent morning I heard a report about jobs and how the Governor has been working with three companies to entice them to create hundreds of jobs in Vermont rather than in other states. It seems these efforts were successful because apparently the only thing standing in the way of us getting these jobs was the extension of a state program to provide monetary incentives (i.e. legal bribes) for companies that choose to invest in our state. How about that? Here is a government program that is actually working when we really need it to work. Fantastic! But wait, there’s more. It seems the program would exceed the spending cap if these incentives were granted by the legislature. That means we’re doing even better at getting jobs than they had anticipated when the program was set up. Extraordinary and perhaps even unprecedented! But wait, there’s even more. The Governor asked the legislature to approve raising the cap in order to grab these jobs, and the legislature’s initial reaction was…well let’s just say there wasn’t a stampede of support from the snippets I heard.
The basic premise of the legislator being interviewed seemed to be that in Vermont doesn’t need to compromise itself like other states in order to bring more jobs here. Excuse me? Haven’t we already conceded that this program is necessary because we already enacted it? His sentiment was that Vermont is such a special place that businesses will move here just for the pleasure of our quality of life. That’s great if you like the quality of living in a tent, because that’s all we’ll be able to afford if there aren’t any businesses in Vermont. While I think designing tensile structures would be interesting, there might be more challenge and money if they exceed 32 square feet. I agree that people do move here because of our way of life, but I think that may change if that way of life is abject poverty.
I liken this lack of realism to some aspects of the renewable energy movement. Everyone wants renewable power and extols its virtues, but nobody actually wants these sources built because the fish can’t swim through dams and wind turbines are scenic view terrorists. It’s politics as usual with a lot of talking about renewable energy, but not a lot of doing. Similarly, let’s talk about bringing high paying jobs to the state, but we shouldn’t actively engage in achieving it that goal because it’s beneath us. The very next story on the radio was about how the temperature was to reach zero degrees that night and how a record number of Vermonters are receiving heat assistance. It is the Vermont way to help our less fortunate neighbors, and we have state programs that reflect these values. Some in the legislature could use a reality check to understand that there needs to be a tax revenue base to support these programs or else the burden will fall to fewer and fewer Vermonters until we all just say ‘enough’ and move to Florida. At least we won’t have to deal with snow loads for our tent designs, but those hurricanes will be a bear!
Sunsetting the '9 year rule'
Editor's note - The following is an excerpt from a letter written by a member of our architectural community that you may have received in your email recently. It deals with an proposed licensing change that deserves comment from all registered Architects in Vermont. The Vermont Board of Architects declined to participate in this forum at this time and I hope that they will consider contributing to this discussion in an upcoming newsletter.
I’m writing to you to let you know about a significant threat to architectural licensing in Vermont. I’m asking you to join with me in opposing this proposed legislation (H.562 Section #6 & #53).
The Vermont Board of Architects has initiated legislation to require a NAAB accredited architectural degree for licensure in Vermont, eliminating the current Vermont “9 year rule.” The sunset date for the 9 year rule would be September 15, 2019, meaning that a candidate must be in the process by September of this year in order to be eligible.
Further, the Board has undertaken this move without taking any testimony or even notifying parties such as the AIA and Vermont Technical College. No announcement of this action of the board was sent to licensees or candidates in the state, although the board has a newsletter that would be an appropriate vehicle for such an announcement. In fact, going through past board meeting minutes in the public record, no substantive explanation of the proposed changes have appeared in those minutes, nor was any vote of the board recorded to move this change forward.
I’ve asked the Board for any evidence that architects licensed under Vermont’s current “9 Year Rule” have caused harm to the public or were otherwise less qualified to practice architecture. To date, I have not seen any such evidence. Therefore, I have to ask: who benefits from this change?
- Certainly not the Vermont students who are shut out of becoming a licensed architect if they want to attend an in-state public college as part of the 9 Year Rule. This change would require students who wish to remain in Vermont to attend a private architecture school since only one qualifies under subsection 201(a)(1). Many cannot afford this option.
- Not the state of Vermont, who will lose these students to schools in other states. As we know, architecture is a profession built on personal relationships, so when these students graduate from out of state schools they will often not return to Vermont to intern or practice. The diversity of our profession will suffer, as will the labor market in Vermont.
Is Vermont the last holdout in the country to accept experience in lieu of an architecture degree? Hardly, according to the NCARB website. 18 states or territories (including Vermont at present) do accept experience in lieu of a NAAB degree, including three of our neighbor states (Maine, New Hampshire, and New York). It’s clear to see where our future Vermont students would go – out of state to school, and remain there to practice, just increasing the ‘brain drain’ of young people from our state.
At VTC, we are dedicated to serve Vermont students, who would be directly affected by this move, making them ineligible for licensure in Vermont. These changes are not in the best interest of the public, Vermont students, nor the profession at large.
If you have any questions, please email or phone me at: 802-522-2799. Thank you for your time.
Barbara Conrey, Architect
Past Board Chair, Vermont Board of Architects
Past President, AIA Vermont & AIA New England
Professor, Vermont Technical College
Perspective on the '9 year rule'
By Shawn Brennan, AIA
A former coworker of mine is a very successful Architect practicing in Vermont, and he obtained his license through the provisions in the '9 year rule'. I asked him to comment on the proposed elimination of this rule and he was gracious enough to provide me with a few of his thoughts on the topic.
"I have been a registered architect since 1996 and used the 9-year rule to become eligible. I have an associates degree in architecture that is recognized as 2 of the nine required years of experience. In my opinion the vast majority of the experience that is necessary to become a responsible architect is not obtained in college, but most commonly in the workplace."
"I know a number of people that have a similar education and background that I had when I sat for the exam that are as qualified as individuals with an architectural degree and required 3 years of experience. Although I do believe that having a full architectural degree is ideal, that is a scenario that is not appropriate for everyone. To limit a person’s future because they could not afford that many years of school or had other personal reasons why a 5 year program was not a viable option seems short sighted."
I appreciate these comments and I would like to hear the comments of other Architects on either side of this issue. It is a change that will affect the profession as a whole and it is certainly worth discussion.
Roots of grass
By Diantha Korzun, AIA
The AIA Grassroots Annual Leadership and Legislative Conference was held in the beginning of February 2010 this year in Washington DC. As indicated in the title, the conference provides leadership training for the architectural community as well as leadership training to engage the greater political community. The conference also allows for a day on Capitol Hill to discuss state issues with Congressmen. Each year, AIA Vermont (as well as the other states in the nation) sends their Executive Committee to the conference to participate.
The AIA Vermont Contingent (Daniel Johnson, Diantha Korzun, Lauren Davis, Michael Hoffman and Hanne Williams) met with Congressman Peter Welch, Senator Sanders and Senator Patrick Leahy’s staff. There were five key issues discussed at each of the meetings which included:
1. Green Schools. The AIA encourages government policies and programs that spur the creation of high performance, 21st century schools. Specifically, the AIA promotes the 21st Century Green High Performing Public School Facilities Act. Legislation would provide 6.4 billion in grants to states and local school districts.
2. Freezing Credit. The AIA supports policies that ensure credit is available for commercial development projects that create jobs and rebuild communities. The proposal was to restore liquidity to credit markets by extending the deadline for the Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility through the end of 2011.
3. Renewing Communities. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, targets funding to communities in need. The AIA is promoting using the CDBG as a vehicle for funding community-building projects with federal money.
4. Energy Efficient Tax Deductions. The AIA promotes legislation that enlarges the Energy Efficient Commercial Building Tax Deduction from the current $1.80 per square foot to $3.00 per square foot as contained in the Expanding Building Energy Incentives Act.
5. Relief for Small Business. The AIA is urging Congress to support the Small Business Financing and Investment Act and taking steps to relieve the burdens of COBRA. The bill would help small business secure loans, and gain access to larger amounts of capitol.
The National AIA offers support information and research into current bills so that state components can specifically address current legislation as well as offer deeper background expertise in areas of critical interest in the profession. In particular, our Vermont contingent was very impressed by the preparations Bernie Sanders had made for the meeting and the time he spent with our group despite the votes being cast in the room next door.
In addition to the leadership workshops and our day on Capital Hill, Hanne Williams was given tribute at the AIA New England dinner, the CACE workshop, and at a General Session for her 40 years of service.
Boy am I out in 'center' field
By Shawn Brennan, AIA
I was born and raised in Vermont, so I think I have a little street cred, or dirt road cred as the case may be, when it comes to talking about local issues. I consider myself a typical Vermont independent (little “i”, no non-party party affiliation intended) in that I vote for the candidate that I disfavor the least. Despite the political paralysis and reactionary rhetoric at the national level, there is a general sense of pride here in Vermont for our truly citizen legislature. That is why I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt on issues that sometimes raise my eyebrows. In Vermont we try to mix our idealism with realism, which is why I take issue with a recent report I heard on the radio. Before I lose you in my web of discordant thoughts, I should start this article with a little background so you will see how it ties to architecture. That’s a prerequisite or else I don’t allow myself to rant…in this forum.
If you aren’t aware of the fact that Architecture is a business that depends upon other businesses being successful in order to flourish, then you really haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the economy lately. It’s simple in that if nobody has the money to build or remodel then we don’t have anyone to design for. This business aspect of the profession is something I’ve picked up in practice since we all know that it isn’t a major emphasis in design school (I think business is mentioned once late in the fourth year…). So for you business minded people out there, please forgive any unintentional mangling of the facts, but as they saying goes, I won’t let them get in the way of a good story, or at least this story.
Driving to work one recent morning I heard a report about jobs and how the Governor has been working with three companies to entice them to create hundreds of jobs in Vermont rather than in other states. It seems these efforts were successful because apparently the only thing standing in the way of us getting these jobs was the extension of a state program to provide monetary incentives (i.e. legal bribes) for companies that choose to invest in our state. How about that? Here is a government program that is actually working when we really need it to work. Fantastic! But wait, there’s more. It seems the program would exceed the spending cap if these incentives were granted by the legislature. That means we’re doing even better at getting jobs than they had anticipated when the program was set up. Extraordinary and perhaps even unprecedented! But wait, there’s even more. The Governor asked the legislature to approve raising the cap in order to grab these jobs, and the legislature’s initial reaction was…well let’s just say there wasn’t a stampede of support from the snippets I heard.
The basic premise of the legislator being interviewed seemed to be that in Vermont doesn’t need to compromise itself like other states in order to bring more jobs here. Excuse me? Haven’t we already conceded that this program is necessary because we already enacted it? His sentiment was that Vermont is such a special place that businesses will move here just for the pleasure of our quality of life. That’s great if you like the quality of living in tent, because that’s all we’ll be able to afford if there aren’t any businesses in Vermont. While I think designing tensile structures would be interesting, there might be more challenge and money is they exceed 32 square feet. I agree that people do move here because of our way of life, but I think that may change if that way of life is abject poverty.
I liken this lack of realism to some aspects of the renewable energy movement. Everyone wants renewable power and extols its virtues, but nobody actually wants these sources built because the fish can’t swim through dams and wind turbines are scenic view terrorists. It’s politics as usual with a lot of talking about renewable energy, but not a lot of doing. Similarly, let’s talk about bringing high paying jobs to the state, but we shouldn’t actively engage in achieving it that goal because it’s beneath us. The very next story on the radio was about how the temperature was to reach zero degrees that night and how a record number of Vermonters are receiving heat assistance. It is the Vermont way to help our less fortunate neighbors, and we have state programs that reflect these values. Some in the legislature could use a reality check to understand that there needs to be a tax revenue base to support these programs or else the burden will fall to fewer and fewer Vermonters until we all just say ‘enough’ and move to Florida. At least we won’t have to deal with snow loads for our tent designs, but those hurricanes will be a bear!
