Board of Landscape Architects
Regulation and Licensing Department
2550 Cerrillos Road – Hearing Room #1
Santa Fe, New Mexico87505
Friday, January 14, 2011 - 1:00 p.m.
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rolston St. Hilaire, Ph.D., Public Member, Chair
William Perkins, Professional Member, Secy/Treasurer
Elizabeth Reardon, Professional Member
George Radnovich, Professional Member
Enid Tidwell, Public Member
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Jackie Holmes, Board Administrator
Pat Ortiz, Administrative Assistant
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. CONVENE
The meeting of the Landscape Architects board was called to order at 1:20 pm.
2. ROLL CALL and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF GUESTS
The meeting had been properly noticed and upon roll call of the Board members a quorum was determined to be present. Mary Smith, Assistant Attorney General was absent.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AS PROPOSED
Ms. TidwellMOVED to approve the agenda. Mr. PerkinsSECONDED and the MOTION CARRIED.
4. APPOVAL OF MINUTES – (October 22, 2010)
Mr. PerkinsMOVEDto approve minutes as amended. Ms. Tidwell SECONDED and the MOTION CARRIED.
5. OLD BUSINESS –Dr. St Hilaire wanted to follow up on an item discussed at the previous meeting and asked the Board Administrator if she had followed up on the possibility of getting password protection, so that licensees’ registration numbers could be listed on the board’s web page. Ms. Holmes responded negatively and stated that she thought it was fruitless to broach the subject with IT because she had already discussed this with one of the computer techs and was basically told “no”. Many computer operations are controlled by DOIT,the State’s Department of Information Technology.
Mr. Perkins asked ifthere was an update on Gary Fankhauser’s request for licensure; had we received the three replacement reference letters. Ms. Holmes responded affirmatively, stating that Mr. Fankhauser sent three satisfactory replacement letters and is listed on the agenda under new licensees. He was licensed by the Board.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ron Miziker/Redstone Visions of Albuquerque – License Status
Dr. St. Hilaire acknowledged receipt of Liz Reardon’s email about Redstone Visions of Albuquerque. Ms. Reardon and Baker Morrow saw an article in the Gallup Independent
about the city of Gallup developing a master plan for RedRockPark. Redstone Visions was listed as the consultant for the project and Ron Miziker as the contact person. The question that arose is whether Ron Miziker or anyone else at Redstone Visions is registered with the Board as a Landscape Architect. Ms. Holmes confirmed that Ron Miziker is not registered with the board.
Mr. Radnovich asked if Mr. Miziker needed to be licensed as a Landscape Architect to do the required work. He wondered if Mr. Miziker might be licensed as an Architect and stated that architects often do master plans for sites and for campuses though usually not for parks. Ms. Reardonresponded by saying that there was not a full description of the work to be done, but it seemed to include work that may require a Licensed Landscape Architect. The description of the project is Red Rock Park, a six hundred and forty plus acre recreational area, expands along Interstate Highway 40, it includes rodeo arena, ceremonial grounds, International classic clustering center, concert and performance amphitheatre, a tram, a movie museum, a working movie set, retail markets, entertainment areas and everything bound to reflect the areas culture and history. Clearly there is a huge architectural component to it. The word “park” raised a red flag.
Mr. Radnovich said that the description of the project did not necessarily raise a red flag
for him. It seems more like a campus of buildings that include museums, a cultural centerand other structures. There have always beenarchitectural plans that do not
include Landscape Architects, that just organize the site.
Mr. Perkins stated that it would be germane to know whether the advertisement for the projectidentified master planning and design and construction phaseservices. He also stated that although he was not sure of the full implications it would be useful to know if the City of Gallup’s request for proposals specifically asked for proposals from architects or Landscape Architects or planners. The Board learning how the request for proposals was framed might have a bearing on the question. Did the City of Gallup think thatan architect was what they wanted, and so advertised it as such?
Ms. Reardon stated that the feasibility study could/would be the first phase of a long term design and construction. It could very well be that Mr. Miziker is just doing the feasibility study and, once approved, would deliver or delivered a master plan including budget and time line by the end of the year. It sounds like Gallup is negotiating with Mr. Miziker to give them a proposal for the work. Mr. Mizikerwas a vice president at the Walt Disney Company and has designed and created similar award winning projects and attractions around the world, including Saudi Arabia, Japan. Whatever role he is playing may be more than appropriate. Ms. Reardon went on to say that because the city of Gallup is using public money the request for proposal and any plan developed is public information. It might behoove the Board to do some research and determine the scope of work for this project.
Mr. Perkins stated that it might be legitimately alright to ask what type of licensure individuals in this firm have that would enable them to master plan a park space. Perhaps Redstone Visions has a Landscape Architect on staff. Perhaps the Board could also determine whether Redstone has licensed Architects on staff. That should be public information.
Mr. Radnovich pointed out how interesting RedStone Visions name is and stated that there are many “visioning” companies these days, whose staff members are not architects, landscape architects or planners. They create visions for different projects.
Dr. St. Hilaire summed up by stating that it is the Board’s duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. To that end he stated that it is worth following up on identifying the scope of work for Red Rock Park; whether Redstone Visions has Registered Landscape Architects on their staff and if Mr. Miziker is a licensed Architect.
Dr. St. Hilaire asked Ms. Reardon if she would be willing to do research on this issue so that it could be followed up on and the Board could then get guidance from Assistant Attorney General Smith on how to proceed, if at all, with this. Ms. Reardon said that she would do the research. This issue will be addressed again at the next board. meeting.
- Yellow Book advertising – A Registered Landscape Architect brought this issue
to Mr. Perkin’s attention and asked if the Board could look into it. This RLA did a search for Landscape Architects on “Yellow Book”,which produced a long list of names. Most of those listed were not landscape architects. It seemed that quite a few of those listed were Landscape Contractors, Landscape Designers and Landscapers, not necessarily
Landscape Architects. Yellow Book is careful to add acaveat in their printed version that says, “Yellow Book makes no claimthat these people are properly licensed”. It seems that Yellow Book should be responsible for the misrepresentation. This is misleading to the public.
Ms. Holmes asked who the culprit would be; Yellow Book for,in essence, describing those listed as Landscape Architects or the people listed for claiming to be such?It seems that just based on some of the company names, e.g. Bob’s Landscaping Service or Frank’s Landscaping and Tree Service, the people listed are not claiming to be Landscape Architects.
Mr. Perkins stated that although Yellow Book has a disclaimer it seems to be inadequate in addressing the misleading message that is going out to the public. He added that there is no fee required to be listed in Yellow Book. They are interested in quantity and do not seem to be concerned about listing being correct.
Dr. St. Hilaire mentioned that a few years ago the Board dealt with the same issue. Pat Montoya who was the Chairman of the Board spoke with US West Direct about listing unlicensed individuals and firms in the “landscape architects” section of the phone book yellow pages. US West said they were not stating or suggesting that those listed in the yellow pages under landscape architects were in fact landscape architects or licensed; they had to place them somewhere in the book. Dr. St. Hilaire went on to say that the Board needs to enlighten whoever the publisher is and send a letter to them telling them that Landscape Architects need to be licensed by the state.
Mr. Perkinsvolunteered to prepare a draft letter to Yellow Book, working with AAG Smith. If Ms. Smith approves such a letter, it can be presented at the next board meeting.
7. Committee Reports
A. CE Committee–No report.
B. JPC Committee-Mr. Radnovichattended the November 9, 2010 Joint Practice committee (JPC) meetingand made the following report. There was quite a bit of discussion about House Bill 220. The bill refers to a combined board as the Architects Board; Landscape Architects are not even mentioned in the title of the bill. It was agreed that this misnomer should be brought to the attention of Representative Al Park if HB 220 is revived.
It was affirmed that the Architects want to remain autonomous and not be within the umbrella of the Regulation andLicensing Department (RLD). Mr. Radnovich and Bob Calvani, of the Architects Board planned to get together to talk about what theirrelative roles and strategy would be in taking a stand against HB 220.
Mr. Perkins asked if there were any merits in consolidating the two boards. Mr. Radnovich responded by stating that some large states, like California have one board that consist of planners, landscape architects, architects, surveyorsand engineers and that seems to work fine for them. He went on to say that there were a few members of the committee, particularly the twosurveyors and one of the engineers whoreally did not see a combining of the boards to be problem.
Ms. Holmes asked Mr. Radnovich if he got the feeling that the objection against the boards combining is just that or if the Architects board was more concerned about being under the auspices of RLD. Mr. Radnovich thought it was the latter.
C. CLARB Committee –Mr. Perkins is the Board’s CLARB representative. He acknowledged that Ms. Holmesforwarded an e-mail from CLARB about their annual
meeting,which will be in Denver this year. The dates of the meeting areFebruary25 and 26, 2011. He confirmed that the Board does not have funds for out of state travel in its budget.
Mr. Perkins spoke with Annette Thompson Martinez, budget liaison for the Board and Commissions Division of RLD and learned that the Landscape Architects Board is
self supporting andthat the budget that is given to the Board is exclusively from
the fees that come from licensing and renewals. He also learned that the Board has a
cash balance of approximately$82,000
Ms. Holmes clarified that the Board has no control over its cash balance and can not use that money. She went on to say that the Board has $973.63 in participation credits with CLARB that can be used for a board member or the board administrator to attend a CLARB meeting.
Dr. St. Hilaire expressed the importance of someone from the New Mexico Landscape Architects Board attending a CLARB meeting. Ms. Tidwell suggested the Board look into travel to CLARB’s meeting next year. Mr. Perkins agreed that trying to send someone to CLARB’s next meeting is a good idea. He stated that this would only make the Board’s relationship with CLARB a little stronger. He went on to say that the Board was fortunate to have a couple of board members who were involved with CLARB; serving on their boards, etc, in the past, who were able to attend various meetings without charge to the Board. But as that is not the case any longer, the Board will have to come up with ways to finance/support travel to CLARB’s meetings.
Ms. Reardon agreed with Ms. Tidwell that plans be worked on for attending next
Year’s meeting with the use of the Board’s participation credits in the CLARB account. The Board could better prepare themselves properly. She felt sure that her office would contributetowards the travel if she were chosen to go.
Dr. St. Hilaire thought this was a great idea and stated that the Board would get the issues and all information pertinent before a decision is made on who will attend the CLARB meeting in the future.
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION–Ms. Tidwell made a MOTION to go into executive
session pursuant to NMSA 1978, 10-15-1H (1) of the OpenMeetings Act. The only items discussed will be the items listed on the agenda. Ms. ReardonSECONDEDthe MOTIONand itCARRIED. Roll call was taken; Dr. St. Hilaire voted yes; Ms. Reardon, yes; Mr. Perkins, yes; Mr. Radnovich, yes and Ms. Tidwell voted yes.
- Applications for Licensure
1. Tina Reames- Dr. St. Hilaire made a MOTIONto approve Ms. Reames to sit for the LARE. Mr. PerkinsSECONDED the MOTION and it CARRIED.
2. Mary Robins- Ms. Reardon made aMOTION to ask Ms. Robins to submit examples of her work and documentation showing that she passed the LARE.
Dr. St. HilaireSECONDED the MOTION and it CARRIED.
9. BOARD ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
A. New Licensees – Ms. Holmes reported that the following applicants were licensed since the last board meeting: Susannah Abbey;Will Moses; Paulina A. Eaton, Billy J. Vicic; Kevin Doniere;Gary Fankhauser; Michele Shelor and Sara Moore.
B. LARE-December Administration- Ms. Holmesadvised the Board that the LARE wasadministered in December and that there were had 5 candidates. The results are disseminated in February. Candidates can check CLARB’s website to find out if they passed or failed.
C. Forms, applications-The board administrator drafted a “reinstatement” application and asked board members for help in finalizing it. The necessity for a new application form arose when the board had its last rule hearing, changing rules to close a loop hole that directed landscape architects with expired licenses to re-apply for a “new” license instead of reinstating the previous license. It is clear that the fee consists of the $200.00 renewal fee plus the late fee of $100.00 per month (up to 4 months), and that the applicant needs to provide proof of continuing education. What Ms. Holmes asked for help with was clarification on how much information the Board wanted to know about the person reinstating their license.
Ms. Reardon stated that it seemed that the primary concerns of the previous board in closing the loop hole was to penalize Landscape Architects for not renewing their licenses and to ensure that they kept up with New Mexico’s continuing education requirements. Therefore Ms. Reardon recommended that the reinstatement application ask for all continuing education taken since licensed in New Mexico, to date.
Mr. Radnovichexpressed concern over the fee being charged for reinstatement. It seems a little unreasonable and unfair to charge the maximum amount in late fees that one might pay if their license lapsed, particularly if it’s been six years since the license lapsed. Mr. Radnovich would like to revisit the Board’s fees at a future meeting. Mr. Radnovich suggested that the Board askabout the applicant’s employment since being licensed in New Mexico.
Ms. Holmes will incorporate the two recommendations regarding continuing education and employment on the reinstatement application.
Dr. St. Hilaire asked Ms.Tidwell if she would be willing to work on applications and other forms as needed and she agreed. Ms. Holmes and Ms. Tidwell will work on forms together. Dr. St. Hilaire suggested that if they needed helpthey could touch base with Ms. Barbo (former Public Board member).
D. Pro-Ration of Licensing Fees- Ms. Holmes advised the Board that there was a complaintabout the initial license fee of $200.00 being charged when applicants only get to be licensed for 6 months or less before having to renew their licenses. A recent licensee who was approved for licensure at the last board meeting (October 22nd), Michele Shelor, telephoned the office to complain that when she received her license certificate in January, 2011, she was astounded to discover that she would have to renew her license in June. That means that she paid $200.00 to be licensed for 6 months instead of one year. Ms. Shelor thinks this is terribly unfair.
Ms. Holmes reminded the Board that this issue had come up before and at a previous meeting it was suggested that perhaps the Board could look into a way of pro-rating the fees. She asked if this is something that could be looked into.
Mr. Radnovich pointed out that they just went through this in Colorado, and they do not pro-rate fees there.
Dr. St. Hilaireasked the Secretary/Treasurer, Mr. Perkins, to look further into the
pro-rating of the fees for the next board meeting. Mr. Perkins accepted the assignment to check into the fees.
10. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will be on FridayApril15,2011 in Santa Fe at 1:00 pm.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 pm.
Submitted by______
Patricia Ortiz, Administrative Assistant
Approved by______
Rolston St. Hilaire, Ph.D.,Chairman Date
Page 1 of 7