Opinion
No. 1510 C.D. 2014
02-17-2015
Joseph C. D'Isabella, Petitioner v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Architects Licensure Board, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI
Joseph C. D'Isabella (Petitioner) petitions pro se for review of a final order of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Architects Licensure Board (Board) denying his application for reciprocal licensure because he does not hold a professional degree in architecture from an accredited school, does not possess requisite practical experience in lieu of the degree, and has not practiced architecture for more than ten years in New York following his licensure there. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I.
The following facts are not in dispute. Petitioner, who works at an engineering and architecture firm in Pennsylvania, submitted an application for a reciprocal architecture license to the Board, seeking to become a credentialed architect in Pennsylvania based upon his licensure in New York pursuant to the Architects Licensure Law (Law). In support of his application, Petitioner submitted documentation of a four-year Bachelor of Architecture degree he earned from Temple University in 1994 and evidence of his New York architect's license which was issued in August 2013 after he successfully completed the Architect Registration Examination (ARE).
Act of December 14, 1982, P.L. 1227, as amended, 63 P.S. §§34.1-34.22.
The Board provisionally denied the application under Section 9 of the Law, finding that New York's and Pennsylvania's licensing requirements are not substantially equivalent and that Petitioner lacked certification from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) under Section 9(a). Further, the Board determined that Petitioner did not qualify for reciprocity under Section 9(b) of the Law because he was licensed in New York in 2013 and, therefore, lacked the requisite ten years of post-licensure experience.
Section 9 of the Law provides:
(a) The board may issue a certificate, without examination, to any individual who is registered or certified as an architect in another state or country where the qualifications required are equivalent to those required in this State. The possession of a certificate from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards shall be prima facie evidence that the individual meets the qualifications required in this State.63 P.S. §34.9(a)-(b); see also Section 9.61 of the Board regulations, 49 Pa. Code §9.61 ("Licensure may be granted to an applicant who holds a license to practice architecture in another state, territory or country where the qualifications required for licensure are equal to the requirements for licensure in this Commonwealth at the time of licensure in the original jurisdiction and the applicant is of good moral character. Possession of an NCARB Certificate is prima facie evidence that the individual meets the requirements of the Commonwealth."); Section 9.62(d) of the Board regulations, 49 Pa. Code §9.62(d) ("An applicant licensed on the basis of education, experience or examination not equal to the requirements of the Commonwealth shall submit satisfactory evidence of at least 10 years of continuous practice of architecture while holding a valid license as an architect.").
(b) The board may issue a certificate to individuals who have lawfully practiced architecture in another state or country for a period of more than ten years if such individual achieves a satisfactory score on a practical examination of a nature determined by the board.
II.
Petitioner requested a formal hearing before the Board, contending that the Board should accept his experience in the field of architecture in lieu of its five-year degree requirement under Section 8(b) of the Law. In support of his application, he testified that he has the following professional experience: After receiving his degree, he worked for over two and one-half years at an architecture firm where he set up and managed its AutoCAD software and provided designs and drafting using the software. For the next two and one-half years, he provided AutoCAD, design documentation, drawings and specifications to a different architecture firm. From January 2000 through August 2008, Petitioner was self-employed but worked under the supervision of licensed architects. Petitioner explained that while working as a consultant, he performed design and drafting with AutoCAD, planned sections and provided elevation details in drawings provided to licensed architects. During this period, Petitioner's time was split between working from home and working in the office but Petitioner met with the supervising architect about once per week to review his work.
Section 8(b) of the Law states:
(b) Each applicant for a certificate shall submit evidence satisfactory to the board that the applicant holds a professional degree in architecture from an accredited school and has obtained at least three years' practical experience in the employ of or under the direct supervision of a registered architect or as part of the applicant's academic training. In 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 which may include academic training. The board may require that applicants who do not hold a professional degree in architecture must first pass a qualifying examination before being admitted to the licensing examination described in subsection (c). The board may at its discretion adopt as its standards for minimum education and experience, the current guidelines on education, training and experience equivalents adopted by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.63 P.S. §34.8(b) (emphasis added).
Petitioner was also self-employed from August 2012 through August 2013, serving as a consultant for other licensed architects by providing design and drafting services. In this capacity, he worked on projects in Delaware, New Jersey, South Carolina and Virginia but none in Pennsylvania. Again, he performed design and drafting services, assisted with specifications, and also performed price-estimations. From August 2013 through the date of his testimony in May 2014, Petitioner worked at an engineering and architecture firm under the direction of Gary Sharp, a Pennsylvania-licensed architect. There, Petitioner stated that he worked with "life safety plans, code review, submittals from the contractor, reviewing product data, ...specifications and design work, [and] projects, space planning." (Reproduced Record [R.R.] at 83a.)
In further support of his application, Petitioner submitted five reference forms favorably reviewing his competency and qualifications. He also testified that he completed the Intern Development Program (IDP) hours mandated by NCARB.
On cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that New York's and Pennsylvania's licensing requirements are not equivalent, that he is not NCARB-certified, and that his degree is not a professional architecture degree accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Boards (NAAB). Additionally, he admitted that he lacks ten years of continuous practice of architecture under a valid license and stated that he passed all sections of the ARE over a period of more than ten years.
Following the hearing, the Board issued a final order denying Petitioner's application without prejudice for the same reasons set forth in its provisional denial. Additionally, the Board explained that it was not required to consider Petitioner's experience in lieu of the educational requirement under Section 8(b) of the Law, but even if it did, Petitioner did not demonstrate "the diversified experience of training in lieu of a professional degree" because he failed to articulate why and how his experience qualifies him for licensure by reciprocity. (Certified Record [C.R.], Final Adjudication and Order, at 14.) Further, the Board emphasized Petitioner's extended periods of self-employment during which he had only weekly meetings with the credentialed professionals in charge, explaining that such limited direction "may not satisfactorily provide sufficient opportunity to have a meaningful exchange of architectural knowledge via supervision." (Id. at 13.) The Board also noted concern that it took Petitioner over ten years to complete the ARE when, in Pennsylvania, the ARE must be completed in five years, and Petitioner offered "no extenuating circumstances as to the lapse of timely completion." (Id.) This appeal followed.
See Board regulation at Section 9.46(b), 49 Pa. Code §9.46(b) ("An applicant for licensure shall have 5 years from the date that the first passed division of the examination was administered to pass all remaining divisions....").
Our scope of review of the Board's determination is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether an error of law was committed. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704. An applicant for licensure bears the burden of proving that he meets all of the qualifications necessary for obtaining a license to practice in a given profession. Barran v. State Board of Medicine, 670 A.2d 765, 767 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 679 A.2d 230 (Pa. 1996). --------
III.
A.
On appeal, Petitioner does not challenge the Board's finding that New York's and Pennsylvania's qualifications for licensure are not equivalent or that he failed to practice architecture in New York for ten years post-licensure. Instead, Petitioner contends that the Board abused its discretion in failing to assess his experience in lieu of an accredited degree as a criterion for licensure under Section 8(b) of the Law, 63 P.S. §34.8(b).
As Petitioner notes, Section 8(b) of the Law provides the Board discretion in determining whether to consider an applicant's experience as a practical substitute for a professional, five-year degree. 63 P.S. §34.8(b) ("In 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 which may include academic training.") (emphasis added). However, in this instance, the Board did consider evidence of Petitioner's experience and found it inadequate to approximate a professional degree. Specifically, the Board found that Petitioner's extended periods of self-employment were not conducted under adequate supervision when he met with a licensed architect only once per week to review his work. Further, the Board concluded that Petitioner lacked the diversified experience necessary to excuse the formal degree requirement. Because this conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the form of Petitioner's own testimony, we find no error.
B.
Moreover, Petitioner argues that the Board erred in refusing to consider his IDP hours completed over a ten-year period as part of his requisite experience, reasoning that the licensing Boards in Illinois, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin consider IDP hours in assessing applicants' experience.
Regardless of what other states' licensing statutes and regulations may allow, Section 9.46(a) of the Board's regulations set forth the eligibility requirements for taking the ARE and require: (1) the possession of a professional architecture degree from an accredited program; and (2) three years of diversified training experience, demonstrated by satisfying the IDP training-hours requirement. 49 Pa. Code § 9.46(a)(1)-(2). Petitioner suggests that he may substitute practical experience not only for the professional-degree requirement but also that he may use his IDP hours in establishing his practical experience. Such a reading of Section 9.46(a) eviscerates the degree requirement (or adequate substitute) altogether by simply allowing an applicant to substitute his IDP hours, an independent requirement, for both a professional degree and practical experience. Moreover, such a reading is contrary to the Board's interpretation of its own regulation, which is entitled great deference. See Alpha Auto Sales, Inc. v. Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, 644 A.2d 153, 155 (Pa. 1994) ("[A]n administrative agency's expert interpretation of a statute for which it has enforcement responsibility is entitled to great deference and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Batoff v. State Board of Psychology, 750 A.2d 835, 841 (Pa. 2000) ("This Court has previously recognized that those persons who comprise the membership of the various administrative boards have been selected for the special skills and requisite expertise they possess in order to properly render an independent judgment."). Therefore, the Board did not err in refusing to factor Petitioner's IDP hours into its analysis regarding whether he possessed the requisite practical experience in lieu of a professional degree.
Accordingly, we affirm the Board's final order denying Petitioner's application for reciprocal licensure without prejudice.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of February, 2015, the Final Adjudication and Order of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Architects Licensure Board dated July 11, 2014, in this matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge