Rick Benner: It's now 9:00 AM, and I'm calling the regular meeting of the architect board to order. The board will provide an opportunity for public comment during the meeting. As a courtesy, I would encourage participants to mute their mics or phone when not speaking, to reduce the background noise when others are speaking. One challenge, is remembering to unmute your mic when you are speaking. Also, to the board members, to help us capture information correctly, please state your name when making comments. Thank you. Shari, at this time would you please call roll? And board members and staff, please respond if in attendance. Shari Honeywell: Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Rick. The first one is Rick Benner. Rick Benner: Present. Shari Honeywell: Roch? [crosstalk 00:01:06]. I read his lips. Scott? Scott Harm: Present. Shari Honeywell: And Colin? Colin Jones: Here. Shari Honeywell: Hi, Colin. Colin Jones: Hi, good morning. Shari Honeywell: And we have Paul? Paul Wu: Here. Shari Honeywell: Paul. And then we have Sian, she's on the phone from- Sian Roberts: I'm here. [crosstalk 00:01:27]- Shari Honeywell: And then, Susan was not able to attend today, so that's all I have for board members. I'll move on to the staff. We have Rick Storvick? Rick Storvick: Here. [crosstalk 00:01:43]- Shari Honeywell: And then, Debra? Debra Allen-Ba: Here. Shari Honeywell: And then, let's see, is Darla here? No. Okay. Tanya? Tanya: Here. Shari Honeywell: And then Kathy? Kathy: Here. Shari Honeywell: Thank you. [Anisa 00:02:03]? Anisa: Here. Shari Honeywell: And then we have Mike? Mike: Here. Shari Honeywell: Thanks. And then Jeanie? Jeanie: Here. Shari Honeywell: Thank you. And that's it. Debra Allen-Ba: Shari, don't forget our special guest, Bill. Bill: [crosstalk 00:02:28] Good morning, I'm here. Shari Honeywell: Front and center. Sorry. Hi, Bill. There you are. Rick Storvick: Rick, if I might just briefly, you'll notice a number of guests, and the last one, Bill Dutra. As we mentioned before, we've gone to a functional alignment, so your investigative staff, for example, work for Bill and Kathy's group. Kathy was one of the ones also called out here. And so we have some staff that are listening in that are either part of our licensing team, or investigations and compliance. And so you'll see those faces sometimes, or maybe just a name as part of the participants as they listen in and understand the work that we're doing. The staff that you've had historically working with you, I think Grace Hamilton and Keith Peterson are two investigators that have tended to investigate your claims, will continue to be involved. Anisa continues to be your licensing specialist. Later in the agenda today, either Kathy Nagley or Bill Dutra, will share a little bit about what their role is supporting the investigation unit. But that's why you have a few extra bodies there. And unfortunately, Elizabeth wasn't able to attend because she had multiple meetings going on today, so that's why she's not. But she did provide an update that I can share when we get to her report. With that, Rick, it's back to you. Thanks. Rick Benner: Okay. Well, thank you to all who are attending. We really appreciate all the hard work and dedication that you have to making our jobs easy. Thank you again. With that, I'll ask for a motion on the order of the agenda. Rick Storvick: And on the agenda, we're going to request one thing, a shift to the order. Since Sian is calling in from Wales, and we want to make sure that she's got a good connection, what I'd like to suggest is that there's part of the NCARB annual business meeting that talks about a resolution regarding responsible charge. It's a task force that's been working at least a year, I think it's been a couple years, and it will be proposing new language to responsible charge as part of Model Law. And so the voting delegate will have a chance to vote on that during the annual business meeting. Sian has been very involved in that committee. And I think if we could have a discussion early on in the board meeting about that, she could provide some perspective. I think the board will be in a better position to make choices on how you'd like to be positioned for that. The one recommendation I have is that you bump that conversation up to right after the approval of minutes, and then we can bump into the normal agenda from that point. Rick Benner: Do I hear a motion with that modification? Roch Manley: This is Roch. I move that we approve the agenda as proposed with the change. Colin Jones: This Colin, second. Rick Benner: Okay. It's been approved and seconded for approval of the agenda with the modification that Rick Storvick mentioned. All in favor, please say aye. Rick Storvick: Aye. Rick Benner: Aye. [crosstalk 00:06:00] Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Now we'll move to the approval of the minutes for the January 20th, 2022 meeting. Was there somebody who would like to make a motion for approval of that? Or if there are any modifications? Paul Wu: I move to approve the minutes as written. Rick Benner: Thanks, Paul. Do I hear a second? Scott Harm: This is Scott, I'll second that motion. Rick Benner: Okay. Thank you, Scott. It's been moved and seconded, all in favor of approving the meeting minutes signify by saying aye. Rick Storvick: Aye. Colin Jones: Aye. [crosstalk 00:06:49] Aye. Rick Benner: Any opposed? Okay, motion carried. I will go into the proposal for the responsible charge discussion. Rick, maybe if you want to start that off. Rick Storvick: Yeah, that would be great. And Shari or Kim, if you want to advance the packet, I'm showing that it's probably page 42 of the PDF document. I should say, a resolution 2022-B. There we go. And I think this and a couple pages headed in. Again, a little bit interesting, Scott Harm and I served a number of years ago on the futures task force. And in those conversations, one of the things that was talked about was responsible charge, and how has responsible charge shifted or changed with technology and where we are today? And the feeling of the future committee was that, we think it's already changed. We're already behind the times when it comes to how most states define responsible charge. We had a phone call with the model lock committee at the time, they had been working for a couple years. And when we talked about it, there was this incredible pregnant pause. And it was like, "Holy moly. No, we don't see it that way." Scott Harm: It was more awkward silence. Rick Storvick: Yeah. Incredibly awkward silence. And it highlighted for NCARB that maybe that was something that needed to be dove into. And I'll turn it over to Sian here in just a minute. Because I think, Sian, you all have been working on this for a couple years trying to wrap their arms around, how do you define responsible charge only in today's standards, but also moving forward, so it has some level of flexibility? And so, they've worked really hard to develop some language. And again, this is to be model loss, so something that people would pattern their individual state laws around. And they've worked really hard on it, and so they've got some language that'll be presented. And our voting delegate will have an opportunity to vote on the approval or not of this Model Law. Sian, do you want to explain what's going on with this resolution? Sian Roberts: Yeah. Thanks Rick. And thank you everybody for letting me put this ahead. I did want the opportunity to be able to explain to all of you what we've been doing for the last couple of years, and make the case for approval of this, or for Washington state to vote for this resolution. As Rick mentioned, the Model Law task force was alerted to the fact that the definition of responsible control needed some updating, but they didn't have enough capacity to be able to deal with it at the time, because they were dealing with all the other parts of Model Law. They chose to assign a task force to look at just that one definition. And so, I have served for the last two years on this task force, so it's taken this committee two years to write, yes, one sentence. That's true. One sentence, two years. But every word, believe me, was hashed over. We had a good group of people from varying firm sizes and parts of the country, so it was very diverse group. And I think equal to the people who were concerned about words like detailed professional knowledge, control and detailed professional knowledge. There were people who were concerned that opening it up too much would allow for plan stamping, or make that appropriate within the definition. You will see that this definition doesn't read very smoothly. We tried many ways to wordsmith it in a way that sounded better, but to be honest, every single word is in there for a reason. And taking any of those words out became problematic. We floated this definition out for the regional summit. And those of you who attended, region six, you know that we did have some comments from region six. None of the other regions had any comments at all, they were all very supportive. And I should say that we also floated this out at committee summit in December, and it also received a lot of positive feedback. Region six is really the only group that had any concerns, and their concern was actually having the word delegate in there. And there was a concern that would somehow allow complete delegation without any control. We had our last committee meeting the week following the regional summit, and hashed this over for another day of, where should we take words out? Should we define things better? Can we improve on this? And ultimately, decided not to. We believe that having oversee, delegate, and integrate all together means that just delegating isn't enough, overseeing is also required as well as integrating. We ultimately felt that this definition really did capture what we thought the direction that the profession is going. In other words, rather than detailed professional knowledge of the development and execution of the project, which we understand and know, is just not practical in a lot of today's practice situations. Larger firms, larger projects, you can't know about a door hardware set on an eight page door schedule for a high-rise. Those types of things really just are an impossible task. And we felt like, okay, well, the way it reads right now, how many firms are actually practicing out of compliance with responsible charge? The thought was to develop something that was more reflective of today's practice, and could move, as Rick mentioned, into the future in a more flexible way. Again, we added the word delegate and integrate, understanding that those are important aspects of what we do. And delegating responsibly is a part of what we need to do, especially those of us working in larger firms on larger projects, and integrating design and technical decisions. We wanted to keep the project's instruments of service in there instead of technical submissions. And we wanted to maintain the standard of care as important and significant in the definition. So two years, this is what we've come up with. And I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has about this now, or any concerns. I would certainly be happy if Washington state voted for this, but if there are any concerns, I'd like to be able to address them today. Scott Harm: Sian, I'll jump in. I'm not having a concern, I'm glad this is being presented. Because going through that experience with Rick was just... Yeah, it was eye opening and jaw dropping all at once. Did the committee talk at all about when you're in relationship with collaborative architects? When two firms team up to produce a project, did that ever... And I'm not proposing language change, I'm just trying to understand how it took you, whatever you said, two years to do a sentence. I was just wondering, in that conversation, was there ever... If Miller Hall and HOK, or Miller Hall and Tetra Tech did a project collaboratively, how that gets resolved. Was that ever part of the discussion? Sian Roberts: It was, and we talked about... Again, if you think about any scenario, so think about a scenario where say, Miller Hall is prime but we have a supporting architect team member who's creating documents for us. That kind of thing. Scott Harm: Yeah. Yeah. Sian Roberts: But ultimately, whoever is stamping and ceiling [crosstalk 00:15:46] those drawings really should be overseeing, delegating, and integrating. In other words, we talked about, in this situation you would be overseeing and delegating with another architect, not just somebody in your firm. But it would be another firm that you would have the same responsibility over that other firm. We talked about situations like, you have a hardware person who then maybe gives you documents that you have to put into your set, that's where the integrate comes in. You need to have responsible control over that, but you are really integrating somebody else's work. So you need to have authority and possession of the knowledge and ability to oversee and to integrate that work. You have to pick apart the sentence, depending on what situation you're in. Scott Harm: Right. Sian Roberts: But yes, we did talk about all of those situations, talked about design build. Yeah. Scott Harm: Okay, great. I just was in that situation a couple times, the 12 or so years when I had my own small business. I was teamed up with some national architectural firms that do things like the Jeanie baseball stadium, and really did have to feel comfortable in my position of being the stamper of the set on telling my collaborative nationally known firm, "No, you're going to have to listen to me. My opinion happens to count more." And when you're to a big firm, it takes a little bit of [inaudible 00:17:19] to do that, but yeah. Sian Roberts: Yeah. But if you're stamping and sealing the drawings, you're taking control for it. Yeah. Scott Harm: Yeah. That's it for me. Thanks. Sian Roberts: Yeah. I would say there was as much, if not more, concern about irresponsible architects than there was about making sure that we were actually describing the way practice works today. And making sure that this definition did not allow people to be irresponsible. Colin Jones: This is Colin. For my part, Sian, I do see the effort in that sentence, because I've worked over a lot of versions of documents like this. And I think you've done very well as a group. It's very clear to me that this gets the point across and doesn't lead us astray into other areas that are not resolved by this one sentence. Scott Harm: Yeah, absolutely agree. Yep. Roch Manley: Yeah. This is Roch. I agree with what Colin and Scott are saying. I think a lot of what prompted the discussion was where things are going from a technical standpoint. And as Colin was pointing out, that the sentence that you've come up with doesn't stray out of its lane and address complex issues directly, but you can infer. It looks like a job well-done. Sian Roberts: Thanks. And I guess the one thing to also remember, and again, Rick mentioned this at the beginning, but this is Model Law, it's not like we're actually adopting this as our own law. And if we decide to adopt this, or anything like it, we can certainly edit it when it comes time to put it in our law. So really, we're just talking about whether this would be end cards Model Law, just as a reminder. I know you're all familiar with that. Colin Jones: Right. But I think it's a good point. And I would ask the question, and be reminded hopefully, that as the board cannot initiate a change in the law and rule, it has to come from the industry or the public. Is that correct, Rick, for instance? Rick Storvick: Colin, that's 98% correct. You may recall when the law was changed to reduce IDP, now AXP, from three years to two years, the board actually drafted some language. And we asked the agency to take it forward as agency sponsored, and it didn't rise to the point that they wanted to do something. We always have that as an option, and we could certainly pursue it. But I think typically the architect program is a relatively small program of overall what DOL does. So at some point thinking that our law changes are going to rise to the point that the agency would take that forward is rare. That's why there's that slim chance. And so the path of before... And something like this, if the board looks at it, if the NCARB approves it, and you think that's a really important change that I'd be considered in our law, the board could certainly have that conversation. And if the agency didn't choose to carry that forward, I think the path, again, would be to go to AIA, to go to an industry group and explain why we think it's important and encourage them to pursue it. And that's been the most effective way to get law changes for years here in Washington. Colin Jones: Following up on an example that I know is in the works, is reducing the number of years of practice in order to qualify to be on the board-from eight to, I think, five. Has that progressed in any theater, be it DOL or AIA? Rick Storvick: No, not at this point. I think what I anticipate is that once NCARB, the annual business meeting takes place in June, I think that's where we've identified that we'll have a committee from this board take a look overall at things. And, are there things to propose? And that's one of the things, absolutely, that we would look to a change. But let's package anything together. And I think because this might be a pretty significant change, I think that's one of the things we want to consider. One of the things, when it comes to law changes specifically, we tend to be hesitant to open up the law. Because once you open it up, it's not just that piece that you want to touch that people sometimes want to shift. And I know when we went to AIA with the last one, that was their concern. Was that, do they really want to open it up for this little piece, because they're concerned there's some other areas that may be more impacted that they did not intend to? And so that's where I think if we bundle together a couple things that are important, it'll be a good way to pursue. I would expect that this summer, if we get a chance to sit down and look at these, we could certainly approach AIA if you had language in the fall that you felt was pretty solid, and they could start shopping that. The other thing about law change, is lots of times when you propose something one January, it doesn't actually get approved. It might make its way through a committee or something, but it usually takes two or three times through the legislature to get those things enacted. And that's another conversation that takes place a lot, like at NCARB. When it comes to regulation, it's one of the challenges with having regulation being current with industry standards, is if it takes two or three years to get your perfect language through, well, two or three years from now things might have some. I think that's one of the things I really appreciate about the work that Sian and this committee has done, is they tried to look at it not only just from today, but how will this language hold up moving forward? So if folks start shifting, it's still good into the future. Colin Jones: Just one last thing on that subject. Yes, Sian has done things in the right order by looking at Model Law first. But I'm saying this is not necessarily a serial or sequential process, but it can be a parallel process. I wouldn't hold up on moving our law forward if it should happen to end up ahead of Model Law, that's probably okay as long as it's the right change for our state. [crosstalk 00:24:33] I would look for that in the future, let's get a bunch of good things done. Rick Storvick: Yes. Rick Benner: Rick, I guess question procedurally, do we want to get the opinion of the board on this resolution now? Or do you want to wait until we're talking about all the different resolutions? Rick Storvick: You certainly could get the position of the board on this, and we just wrap that into an overall motion later when you identify a voting and alternate voting delegate for annual business meeting. But I think capturing the position of the board on this so that a person clearly knows, that would be great. Rick Benner: Okay. Rick Storvick: If you want to entertain a motion to approve or have them go back and wordsmith for another two years, whatever that motion might look like. Rick Benner: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion on this resolution as far as the opinion of the board? Sian Roberts: Yeah, this is [crosstalk 00:25:37] Sian, and I... Yeah. I'd like to move that the Washington board vote in favor of this resolution. And I'm afraid I don't have it in front of me right now, so I can't find a number. [crosstalk 00:25:56] Resolution regarding responsible control. Rick Storvick: Yep. Resolution 2022-B. Rick Benner: Okay. Do I hear [crosstalk 00:26:05] a second of that? Paul Wu: ... the motion Rick Benner: Paul, thank you. Paul Wu: Thank you. Rick Benner: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Colin Jones: [crosstalk 00:26:15] Aye. Sian Roberts: [crosstalk 00:26:17] Aye. Rick Benner: Is there anyone opposed to that motion? Okay, motion passed. And Sian, thanks for all your hard work on that. And Scott and Rick, thank you too for your years of participation earlier on that, and bringing it forward. All right. I guess we're going to go back then to one point... Let's see, where were we? One point- Rick Storvick: I think it'd be 1.4, communications. Rick Benner: Okay. Rick? Rick Storvick: And Shari, we have some information to project for this, don't we, under the communications? Here we go. Shari Honeywell: Yes. Rick Storvick: Thanks. This is a communication we recently got this past week from a building official in Washington, and had a very pleasant conversation with the gentleman as well. And this will tie right into an agenda item later on where we'll talk about outreach to WABO. This is not a communication that you need to do anything with or respond to, or fix, or whatever, but I thought we'd put it out there and we'll distribute it to the board. Essentially, the building official is asking, what's it take to get licenses as an architect these days? People don't seem to be well aware of code issues. And he calls out several issues where people submitting projects didn't have a good handle on the code, and different types of projects. And wondering, as building officials, he indicated some of them are getting frustrated that they're having things like this come through. And what can they do, or should they do? And so it's a really good topic to look specifically at, as we look to do an outreach with WABO. And, I think a good conversation for the board at some point, is this something that impacts what we do as far as licensure, or as far as the exam? Are there shortfalls in the current licensure process? It just felt like a really good conversation topic. And it might spur on some perspective on when we do a presentation with WABO in the fall, is this a type of thing that you'd want to respond to at all? Again, this is presented for your information, take a look at. And really, to dig in and consider when you've got a couple folks who will be part of an outreach to WABO in the fall regarding these issues. Scott Harm: I'll just jump in. Yeah, I'm highly interested in it. I'm curious... Okay, Shari, you got to quit moving the image. It's like watching TV with somebody else holding the remote. I keep zeroing in on a sentence and then it's gone. Shari Honeywell: Yep. Do I need to back up, Scott? I apologize. Scott Harm: No, no, no. I looked through our package to make sure we didn't have it. Curious, I think the person who wrote this, I think it's a person who identifies as a man, will try to be that correct. Rick Storvick: Yeah. It's a gentleman from, I think... Seemed like [crosstalk 00:29:48]- Scott Harm: There we go. Rick Storvick: There you go. Yep. You can stop there. Yeah, Bothell. That's just north of Seattle. Scott Harm: Of course, bullet point number one on that sheet disproves what I observed above. But it seemed like he, in the earlier stages, were referring to people as designers and not architects pretty consistently. That caught my eye really quickly. But now, of course, bullet number one right there says, "architects are very busy". Yeah. This drives me bat, you know what, crazy. And tracking my own career, sorry to stumble, I learned all this stuff on the job training. It wasn't really [detailedly 00:30:35] in embedded in my brain at a postgraduate level. There may have been a class on building codes, much like my wife, the dentist had to take one business class to become a business owner. But I do think, and this in conjunction with NCARB's bigger discussion on essentially, not how do we fast track the process to become an architect, but how do we make it more inclusive? And my blunt way of doing it, some ways making it easier or less intrusive. This is the outfall of what I'm afraid of. Yeah, this is wild stuff. Sian Roberts: Yeah, I would agree. And I do think that, again, this comes down to what I consider to be a real deficiency. Or not deficiency, lack of consistency in the AXP, what experience people get through AXP. Because you're right, Scott, most of us got that experience through working on a project. And if you don't go through that, you don't get it. And so I do often run into situations where people are not sure how to do a code analysis, or they haven't been exposed to that for whatever reason they show up during that two years. [crosstalk 00:32:03] I think it's a real issue. And I guess I would also say, that knowing the city of Bothell, jurisdictions have different levels of expectation for what you should show in a set of documents as well. That would be another interesting thing for us to talk with WABO about. Are you required to show every buyer proofing penetration through every assembly that you have as part of your initial building permit, for instance? Which is something we have run into. And running into more and more, and that's something that is evolving and changing over time. But better communication with the industry about what the expectations are would help as well. Colin Jones: Actually, writing for the ARE, it's clear that there is a desire and an effort to cover building code issues. It's a specific, basically one-seventh of the exam is based on that. But I'm fearful that we're still laboring under now a false and outdated assumption that there's more than one building code. And, while it's true there are variations across the jurisdictions, but it's all basically IBC. And I'm not sure that the educational process, that particular leg of the stool, has really addressed the issue. And it's evident when you see the statistics on specific questions on the exam that there is a gap, there is a vacancy in comprehensive knowledge when it comes to applications of the code. And of course, it's going to be the building officials who are going to suffer. Well, the public, but they're going to be the ones who are saddled with the responsibility of plugging this gap if it's gotten that far. I am sympathetic to them, and I'm thinking it's something that the profession, it needs to address. And in the larger context, beyond the exam process. But all through experience, education and examination, all of that needs to consider what can be done to drive an earlier awareness and competence with the codes earlier in each architect's career. Scott Harm: Yeah, I would like to engage the AIA. I mean, part of a bigger topic is my general frustration with what passes as continuing eds or credits that we get to renew our licenses. And it's essentially a lot of product sales people. I mean- Scott Harm: You know our licenses and it's essentially a lot of product salespeople. I mean, in all honesty, except for accessibility in ethics and a few tangential topics, it's a lot of people just presenting forms of insulation, their masonry, whatever. And I really believe this is maybe someplace where AIA could fill in and actually present a mini course in building code understandings, and it could be something that even an AXP candidate could get some kind of an AIA certification as being building code trained kind of a thing and become the in-house code, not expert, but person and get HSW credits for doing that. Because that's exactly what we're talking about is fire separations, exiting. It is purely health, safety and welfare, so it could be an easy fit, could be a revenue stream, could be a number of things, but I think AIA, or maybe NCARB could get a group together and do a training session on using the code. Because what further complicates it for those of us that work across the country is California has its amendments to the IBC. Washington state, I believe, has its amendments to the IBC. New York, I know they don't have their own code. They have massive amendments to the IBC. So you have to be not only aware of those, you have to know the general code before you start doing the amendments issued by the state. So it's a big concern of mine on the future. And I think a lot of it's compounded me being one of the old school, started hand drafting and hand lettering. When your drawings are left taped down to your board when you went home at night. Now everything is BIM and AutoCAD and the people that are producing them just turns off their monitor at the end of the day. And unless you know how to operate a Revit BIM station, it's really hard to jump into a set of drawings and look what's going to be kicked out when you go to quote unquote print the first time. So it's something I think is in large need to be addressed and opened up and talked about. But anyways, I'll get off my soapbox. Paul Wu: [crosstalk 00:37:23]. Yeah, I do echo all the comments here. As an architect, our main functional goal is to protect the life safety of the building occupants. And that is the major part of it. I found myself really working on projects that really spending most of my time not addressing the design features, but really addressing the life safety and egress requirements. So I think that's a principle that we should go with. Rick Storvick: Just a quick follow up. I really encourage the building official, that we appreciated the communication and that we're excited to actually have that back and forth so that we can hear what's going on and then try to think about creative solutions. And it really feels like there's two tax on this. One is just addressing with our Washington association of building officials and figuring out is there any way that we can help close the gap between what they're seeing and what we should expect, but then there's the other side interacting with NCARB and questioning. Does it have to do with AXP? Is it something to do with the exam? I think reaching out to the region and to NCARB and letting him know that at least what we're seeing on the street in real life is a real disconnect in part of the practice. That's problematic. And where does that go? So I encouraged him that if he has ongoing concerns to let us know. I let him know that we would be coming to WABO in the fall and doing a presentation and this really provides some perspective on maybe some of the things we might touch base on. Scott Harm: The bigger when everything goes horribly wrong scenario that I'm afraid of is if we speed up the process in which you become an architect and you do a three year internship as opposed to a five, or whatever. And then you immediately open your own firm and you don't know how to do this. And you happen to go to a jurisdiction whose building official also doesn't really know how to do this, and then ultimately people may die because things were never checked because jurisdictions have a giant waiver of liability. They're not responsible for all this. It's the architect. And so I really do think it's one of those disasters waiting for the perfect storm kind of a thing. Rick Storvick: But I think that really stands out to me, Scott, when I think back to the last time, I think it was in 2016, that if I remember right, you and Colin spoke with the WABO folks and just listening to those folks in their room, they vary from people who are reviewing plans from people who are actually licensed architects, licensed engineers, to people that it's like, somebody grabbed them and said, hey, we need somebody to fill this spot. And they're at a loss. And they're really relying on that stamp and the expertise that they're anticipating is brought by the design professional. And if it's just not there, because our standards were such, as you refer to, it's in those jurisdiction, there's a huge liability. And you're right. The liability isn't going to be on the local building official, it's going to go back out to the licensee. Roch Manley: This is Roch. These comments from this building official are extremely disconcerting. I'm going to make this point not as an excuse for any architects who are not practicing the rigor that was described in Sian's sentence that was presented a few minutes ago, but I can't help but wonder if this is an outfall of an issue with a labor shortage and inability to hire substantially good members onto your team as a result of the pandemic. It's not an excuse at all, and I'm not in touch with this as much as many of you are because I'm a retired architect at this point, but I can't help but wonder if [inaudible 00:41:58] there that might be self correcting or is it truly a systemic problem? Rick Storvick: Yeah. One of the things, Roch, that causes me to think again, we'll send this out to all of you, so you actually have a heart copy of it following the meeting. One of the things I would ask is, as you look through it, if you've got any specific questions you would like to ask of him, particularly if you're thinking about how we're going to approach WABO. And the first question that comes to my mind, Roch, from your comment is, is this something that they've seen just in the last two years, five years? Is there a point that there's been some kind of shift that might get to some of that? If you have any kind of questions that you think might help formulate how you'd like to respond to this or how we might move forward with this information, just send those back to me and we'll, we'll reach back out, so we can maybe gather a little more in depth perspective on some of the things that he is raising here. Colin Jones: I would suggest that this, although I've not thought about it that long, the idea that they've come to us with this problem thinking we can help them solve this problem. I appreciate it. And I think we can, but I think it's really for them to bring their observations forward to the architectural profession, and maybe AIA is the better agency to communicate this to their members. Joint seminars, continuing education, topic very specific to a very specific jurisdiction would give the opportunity to address the question of the problem most directly. And I can imagine meetings like we all attended, or Scott, you and I attended in Spokane, with WABO just sort of was an open door to that kind of conversation that could really get at the issue. So that's where I would look for the next course of action that would really be meaningful to this issue. Rick Benner: And I guess my thoughts, Rick, and others on why I think this is a troubling letter, I'd also want to do kind of the counterpoint to it, where I've also had experience with building officials who have nothing but a basic education or some education and don't interpret the code necessarily in understanding the intention of the code as much as the letter of the code. So I've had the reverse of this as well. So I think there's a dialogue between us that could go on that would be beneficial on both sides, because they may also be suffering the labor shortages on the building official side as well. So not that these are reflected in here, but as a counterpoint that at least I've experienced over time, that as building officials get more knowledgeable and experienced in the field as well, that changes. Rick Storvick: And with that, that's the only communication we had to bring to you today. But plenty of communication around it. Rick Benner: Okay. Thank you. So I guess now we're into old business, the regional summit report. Well I guess I'll turn that maybe to Rick. Rick Storvick: [crosstalk 00:45:55] start. I know that both Sian and Scott were there. We bumped into each other. Scott and I both had times that we actually showed up to a room and we were the only ones in the room virtually. So you're kind of looking at a blank screen, but maybe I'll let Sian, if she's still on the line there, can jump in. And then Scott and I. Sian Roberts: Yeah, I'm here, but why don't you guys start? I'm having trouble remembering all that much about it. When you attend virtually, there's a limit to your takeaways. Rick Storvick: Well, I think it is a little bit challenging and one of the things that actually stood out to me had more to do with really the regional meetings and what we do in region six and something, Sian, you touched on that when you brought the responsible charge, one of the things I've appreciated about west carb is that I think people dig into the topics at hand and then share opinions and thoughts as to what's going on. And there were some healthy discussion in region six as before. One of the things I was actually most excited for and almost shocked is that we have, and we'll get into this when we get to the annual business meeting. There's actually two positions where people are running for the NCARB board. There's competition. They have opposing candidates. And so in both those situations, both candidates came and shared with west carb and again, the members of west carb don't necessarily take things just easy and they ask hard questions. And so I think that was instructive. And the other one, and this is one that again, we'll touch base on during the annual business meeting discussion. There's a resolution regarding a mutual recognition agreement, an MRA, with the United Kingdom, and for west carb, there are some that have some concerns because what we've been told is that the way that the United Kingdom sees it is that they're fine with a reciprocal agreement for anybody who has a NABS accredited degree. And so if you have an NCARB certificate, but you don't have a NAB degree, you can't just get your license over in the UK and that's supposed to be a non-negotiable issue. And so it was pointed out that it seems to be a little bit out of step with some of the diversity equity things that we've talked about so often, because it all of a sudden minimizes the idea of the alternate pass that we talk about in Washington. So those were the conversations that stood out the most to me. Sian Roberts: Yeah. I will also say that I, now that I'm remembering all of this, had volunteered to do a couple things that I've followed up on and one was to look at what regulatory issues might be facing region six specifically, and to maybe facilitate a conversation and upcoming meeting about that. So Greg Ernie and I got in touch with NCARB, and they basically have a very easy website where they have a service that tracks all the regulatory issues that are related to architectural licensing throughout the country, and then they are sorted by states. So it's very easy to grab all of the things in region six with the exception of the Northern Mariana islands. So we are collecting that information right now and plan to have some sort of discussion at the annual business meeting. Whether there are any issues that we would like to bring up or discuss ourselves, we should be prepared for that. The other thing that we are doing is looking at all the different licensing requirements for the different states in region six. Again, this is something you can look up pretty easily on NCARB's website. So I think most of what we'll do is just show everybody how to look it up on NCARB's website. And then if there is a discussion that is specific to region six or issues regarding regulation that region six is experiencing, we can certainly have that conversation. I couldn't think of anything from our perspective that we would want to bring up, but certainly would like to hear if anybody has any thoughts about that or feel free to bring them to the annual business meeting. Scott Harm: Well, I do wonder in light of the communication, this wasn't something you're talking about, but on things that we might want to talk of, how many boards are engaging their building officials? I'm assuming most states have building officials associations. I would say probably confirm that we're not an island in this. And especially in states that have highly dense urban areas and also very rural areas with the whole spread of the sophistication of the building officials or building departments from one to the other, that again, it might roll into the larger discussion, the pathway towards becoming a licensed architect and even the EDI and all those kind of things. Is this going to be what we end up with? If we do a number, make it easier and faster, and then quicker to become licensed, is this where we're headed? And if we want to avoid it, what are the corrective steps NCARB slash AIA slash jurisdictions should we put in place to make sure that this doesn't become a blossoming problem? But as far as a report out, I'm glad Rick jumped in, because like Sian, I was struggling a lot to recall. And I keep telling myself notes to self, take active notes while you're in it and then give them to somebody right away. The end of each day, send Shari an email and say this is what I heard today. And I think that's going to be my default position, wink, wink, nod, nod to everybody else. I do find it interesting, because I was kind of pulled into it when I was the west carb chair when they limited the term durations for the region director. They went from, I think a three year to a two year. And all of a sudden you had three individuals who looked at each other and said, well, then I'm rotating out. So either I've got to make the next jump or I'm kind of done. And so I think it's going to be whoever our voting delegate is, assuming that person would be voting for those positions, we probably have to have kind of a frank discussion, because they don't want the default to be to vote for our guy kind of a thing. Which I think most states could, or most regions could be doing, which is something NCARB would have to deal with. And then the other thing that seemed to be pervasive on the meeting was the amount of comp coverage that equity, diversity and inclusion got. It was sprinkled almost literally in everything, including a young person who was a keynote speaker on that topic. And so I think it's something that NCARB is definitely taking very serious and spending a lot of calories on it. But it was sprinkled in almost everything. That's it for me. Sian Roberts: Yeah. I'll just second that Scott. There was definitely a lot of emphasis, and I thought the speaker was great and really livened up the meeting quite a bit, at least in my estimation, maybe it's because I was sitting in front of a screen. Rick Storvick: Well, and Scott, to your point on taking notes, it really hits me at this point where I miss Nita, because Nita always did take notes and you count on her having like 3, 4, 5 pages. She knew every speaker that spoke and every detail that they spoke of. And so maybe what we'll do is prioritize, and folks going, anybody that can take notes like Nita, you're automatic one of the folks to go because we know that you'll report back. Scott Harm: I think Scott might get to know his voice recorder on his phone really quickly. Rick Storvick: There you go. Scott Harm: But it is [crosstalk 00:55:24] Rick Storvick: Bottom line, Rick Benner, is that to me a real big part of it was the conversations around the resolutions and the people that we're voting for. I think sometimes we go into the annual business meeting with resolutions like, well, it's a no brainer. Everybody knows what they're going to vote for. Every office has somebody unopposed. So this year could have a little bit of excitement at that annual business meeting. And we might see some amendments show up on the floor based on a few of those things. So that should make for an exciting annual business meeting. Rick Benner: Well, and I do appreciate people stepping in at the last minute and doing my voting delegation for me since I was unable to attend. Appreciate that as well. So are we ready to move on to the next topic? All right. So 2.2 outreach. We already started into that a little bit, but Rick, I'll let you take over. Rick Storvick: Yeah, again, just real briefly, six years ago, we did this and did a panel discussion with WABO, which was, I think, well received by them. Well received by us. We've been in contact with the engineers board. They've asked for both a representation from the architect board and engineers board. They have a board meeting today also, but they've already agreed to participate with us. So essentially at this point we need two members who would be willing to have some meetings between now and October to look at exactly what the format will be, what the questions will be, and then commit to heading over to Spokane for that October 28th date. And last year, I think we flew over the day before, the night before we were able to go down and see the room that we were going to be in. And again, WABO had a person that was essentially the facilitator who met with us in the meetings prior to so that it was really kind of a team effort. Part of it was very much a canned presentation. We had questions that we solicited from them that we knew how to respond to. And then after that, it was literally an open forum question and answer that the panelists responded to. So really what we'd like to do today is just identify a couple members to participate in some pre-meetings and then be able to participate in that October meeting. Scott Harm: I'll participate, whether I go to the meeting and I mean, I don't want to forego anybody else going to the meeting in my stead, but I believe in this enough that I'll participate in the pre-meetings regardless if I go or not. Paul Wu: I will also participate in both of the pre-meetings and also I'm ready to travel to Spokane. I'm ready to go anywhere. Roch Manley: Yeah. This is Roch. I'd be happy to be involved as well. I think it's a pretty interesting, more local and state topic obviously than a lot of the national level stuff, so. Rick Benner: Okay. Anybody else that would like to volunteer? Colin Jones: I'm with you all in spirit. Rick Benner: Thanks, Colin. Okay. Does that complete that then, Rick, are you... Rick Storvick: Yeah. So what we can do because the pre-meeting we want to make sure we do not have a quorum. So with the three folks, with Paul, Scott and Roch, we can do that. And then as we move through and we get closer among those three, they can identify who will actually do the trip to Spokane and make that work. And I would anticipate that if we do a pre-meeting between now and the July board meeting, we'll give an update at that point, what the planning is looking like and go from there. All right. So thank you. Scott Harm: Rick, do we have any, I don't see this and I didn't read it in advance. Do we have any idea if ultimately, the engineers board participators, do we think it'll be one person from each board attending? So we think that's the likely number? Rick Storvick: I anticipate we'll have two from each board on the panel. And particularly, I think the last time we did this, the engineers made sure that they had a structural engineer and then I think the other was a civil engineer. So they tried to get a couple different areas of their practice. Scott Harm: Yeah. And that would cover the typical crossover areas. Landscape with architecture and civil, and then structural with building. So those are the good crossover engineers. Rick Benner: All right. Then I guess we'll move on to 2.3, the model law discussion. Is there anything, Rick, on that, other than... Rick Storvick: This is more of an update. At the last meeting, we identified three folks to be on a committee and they'll be taking the model law that was passed last year. And we've created a document where the model law is in one column and our current law is in another column. So the committee will be able to go through and see how our law is different from model law. And then what we'll be doing is updating that slightly after the annual business meeting to incorporate whatever we come up with responsible charge. And so then following that, we'll actually schedule some committee meetings for that group to start looking at it and checking off things. Do you like it, not? That's where we can start formulating if there's some recommendations for making changes. Once they get to that, we can make a determination, do we want to go to the agency and say, can we get agency sponsored legislation? Or do we just go to the industry to see if somebody's interested in picking up the ball on the things that we've identified as being important? One thing that stands out that we have talked about previously, and Colin mentioned earlier, is eight years the right amount of experience for somebody to sit on the board? Or something shorter? Or is there even a combination? Some states have actually gone to some of the positions don't require as much experience, so you kind of have some newer blood in there, but it's not like the entire board, all of a sudden could be made up of folks just licensed. So there'll be more to come in scheduling those committee meetings, moving out. Rick Benner: Okay. Any questions about that, Rick? Or anybody else? Okay. Thanks, Rick. I should have previously mentioned, but I'd like about a 10 minute break after review master action items list so that I can medicate my cats. But hopefully that is okay with everybody. So with that, I guess I'll turn to 2.4 and Shari. Shari Honeywell: All right. So we had Darla create that exam score summary. So that's been completed. This is complete, the score review. Let's set up the architect law, which we are going to do that. I'll be setting that up next or for June. Set up meeting, delegation, that's in process. We are working on that. And then we completed Rick and Deb discussed the WABO, and then the charter. That's in progress, we've met on that. So we're still working on that. Let's see. Send voting delegate. That's been completed. This is slate of officers. We got that done. And this is on hold, the visibility green book, because they're restructuring our website. So that's on hold. That document that Rick was just talking about is done for the model law. And the hybrid meetings are still on hold. It is in the works, but we're waiting for facilities to get that done. So hopefully. Colin Jones: Sherry, this is Colin. I have a question about the second to last one. Do you say that's complete? Are there copies available to the committee that's looking at that? Shari Honeywell: It's a working document. I haven't seen it, but we could probably, can we send that out, Rick? Rick Storvick: Yeah. Shari Honeywell: Okay. So I'll make a note. Colin Jones: Maybe I've missed it, but I... Rick Storvick: Yeah, I stopped that it got sent out, but if not, we'll double check and we'll make sure that gets out today. Colin Jones: Okay. Thanks. Sian Roberts: Yeah. I haven't seen it either. So thanks, Rick. Rick Storvick: So I probably missed it. Shari Honeywell: Thanks for the question, Colin. And that's all I have. Rick Benner: All right, Shari. Thank you. So with that, then I'd like to take a 10 minute break if we could and get back at, let's say 10:15, 10:20. Sian Roberts: I'm not going to be able to join you after the break. But I do want to make sure that you have quorum, right? You can vote on things without me. Rick Storvick: Yes. We have quorum with you stepping off, Sian. Thank you. Sian Roberts: Okay, great. Thank you so much. Paul Wu: Enjoy your trip. Sian Roberts: Thanks again for [crosstalk 01:06:23] Paul Wu: We'll make contact when you get back. Sian Roberts: Yes, that sounds good. And yes, Paul, I do have that window open that we can get together, so I will be in touch when I return. Okay. Bye everyone. Rick Benner: Bye. Colin Jones: Appreciate you being here. Scott Harm: So Rick, we're saying again, 10:15? That's enough time to get him doped up. Rick Benner: I hope so. Scott Harm: Okay. Rick Benner: Thank you. Scott Harm: Thanks. Rick Benner: Thank you. Welcome back to the meeting. I believe the next item is 3.1, election of officers. And I have a motion that I would like to make for the officers for this coming year. And that would be to have Roch Manley be the chair of the board for the year. Scott Harm to be the vice chair, and for Susan Cooley to be the secretary. So I'd like to entertain a motion for approval of those three. Do I hear a motion in a second? Paul Wu: I move. Rick Benner: So move to the second. Colin Jones: This is Colin, I second it. Rick Benner: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on it? If not, all in favor of approving the motion, please say aye. Speaker 1: Aye. Colin Jones: Aye. Rick Benner: All right. It's been approved. Congratulations to Roch and Scott and Susan. So I believe you'll be taking over at the July 21st meeting. Scott Harm: So completely out of context before it goes away, but Roch, you've got great lighting going on in your camera. Roch Manley: Well, thank you, Scott. Scott Harm: It could be your profile picture. Roch Manley: It's called a window. I have a window right there. Rick Benner: All right. And then we'll move on to 3.2 and I'll turn it over to Rick Storvick. Rick Storvick: Thanks, Rick. Hopefully you all noticed that the packet this time was immense. Around 160 pages, and most of that was NCARB information. And hopefully you've had a chance to look at that NCARB annual business meeting. I anticipate that there's just a couple things we'll want to focus on today, because they're kind of key elements, and then we'll need to have a motion for the board to authorize somebody to be the delegate and somebody to be the alternate voting delegate to take positions on behalf of the board as needed. And just as a reminder, what will happen, hopefully we'll have a handful of folks attending the annual business meeting, and it would not be unusual, particularly with some of these resolutions to find some area proposing an amendment to one of the resolutions to want to change it. Your voting delicate cannot let... Rick Storvick: Your voting delegate cannot circle up with their folks that are there with them and essentially create a public meeting that nobody got invited to try to figure out what to do. So really what you're doing is authorizing the voting delegate to have the knowledge base from conversations here that even if there's an amendment, they would... I think it's consistent with our board's position to vote for or against the amendment. And depending on what happens the amendment, how to vote on the items at hand. So with that, I'm going to go down a couple pages here and get to some of this information is just basic information about the conference, the basic timelines. And I've got information from folks who want to attend. We're trying to get the travel authorizations approved. So everybody asking to go through can go. The one place I do have a question, Roch you weren't sure and so I'll need to get feedback from you, whether or not you think your schedule would allow it and then we can put in a travel authorization for you. Shari Honeywell: So, Rick, I did have a question about that. I was curious, because I haven't signed up yet, but I was going to attend it virtually. But I didn't know whether to sign as an MBM funding or funded or [crosstalk 01:11:33]? Rick Storvick: So the virtual attendees shouldn't have a cost. So we'll reach out to end carbon find out so what do you click on when you're just a virtual attending, but there shouldn't be a cost as my understanding. Shari Honeywell: Okay. Thank you. Rick Storvick: And that'd be great to be there. So what I'm looking at Shari is it looks like page 32 of the packet kind of start there to highlight the resolutions that probably be good to have some discussion around and have a sense of what you'd like to do. Resolution 2022 A mentioned earlier, the mutual recognition arrangement between NCARB and the United Kingdom. States that the agreement is expected to be signed in spring of 2022. And if the agreement is ratified, it'll be implemented January 1, 2023. So to be ratified, that's what they would be voting on right at the annual business meeting. And we can go into the details and flip it down on it some, but the real point of contention that there was at least in west carb at the region was a question of exclusivity. That the only way that United Kingdom would allow the reciprocity is if it was limited to people in the United States who only have NAB accredited degrees. And the comment during the regional was those that were proposing that it's a really good thing that ought to happen is that we can't get the United Kingdom to move off of that position now, but they promised to talk about it later after the thing's been ratified. So resolution 2022 B, you've a position on .that's the one that Sian was involved with responsible charge and model law. So we've already had that conversation. Resolution 2022 C. This is not anything that's has been controversial anywhere along the way. Sun setting examination related resolutions passed a long time ago that no longer aligned with how NCARB operates today. And again, resolution 2022 sunsets resolutions passed again, that don't fit today's world. Resolution 2022 E. This is a carryover from last year. And you started seeing resolutions associated with diversity equity and inclusion. This one is very specific and takes the diversity collaborative. So it's a group that's been around for a couple years, basically an NCARB commit and takes it from the collaborative to being a standing advisory committee. So the difference is a standing committee becomes part of the organization's wherever into the future. The exam committee is a standing committee, the education committee is a standing committee. So this is taking it and putting it in that ball. And the argument is that the organization should always be looking at these topics and it should be forefront in their mind. So rather than having it something that at some point would go away, that it's just a standing committee for the organization. Resolution 2022 F updates NCARB bylaws to add Northern Marianna islands to article six, section two. Again, this is just more update. And then resolution 2022 G. A holistic update to requirements for NCARB certification in the guidelines. And this comes from the professional conduct committee's rules of procedure and removing some appendices. You can see here, they talk about an update on resolution 2021 H. This is the one from last year that would rework the makeup of the NCARB board and eliminate a couple positions so that there would be a faster track for people to get onto the board. Again, this is something that came out of the diversity collaborative. There was a lot of questions about that one last year heading into the annual business meeting and they decided to pull it back. There are far too many questions. You may recall that you had conversations around this, and there was just a lot of uncertainty. Like what were they doing and how would that overall impact the board and the organization and where does experience fall into the importance of serving on the board? The concept last year was that they pull it back and come back with a revised version this year, but you can see in this they've done a lot of work this last year with some diversity consultants. And I think they're still trying to figure out the best way to make something happen. And they don't really have a solid proposal to put before the organization at this time. So you're not seeing anything, but I think this is in here because they wanted to give people an update because the topic is really important. And it's not that it's gone away, but they're really, I think, trying to find the right solution as opposed to something that isn't bought out from all corners. So with that, I guess one of the questions I would have of these, I assume that you'd like to have some conversation around the MRA, I don't know if you want to have discussions around any of these other things, but open it up to your desire. And then we can go down to the page that maybe provides more in depth information regarding that specific topic. Scott Harm: So I'll take it. First of all Paul for some reason, we're seeing two of you. At least I am. Paul Wu: Well, I accidentally got out and coming back in, I guess. Scott Harm: There you go. But anyway- Rick Storvick: Well it's kind of nice because one of them is frozen. It's just- Scott Harm: I was going to say the top one. Yep. The top one is frozen in time. So Rick and I, and honestly can't remember who else made the regional call. I think it's called the board of directors call Rick, is that what it was? Rick Storvick: Yeah. Board of directors call. Scott Harm: And this is pertaining to the MRA. And so those of us who attend the annual business meeting either virtually or in person might see me go up to the microphone to I would say maybe offer a dissenting opinion of this. And part of it is based on the fact that our region, yeah region took a position of, well 80% of license holders are now accredited architects. And this is almost a direct quote from someone who would go unnamed, why should we care about the other 20%, and hold up the whole thing for that 20%. I, for one took that as a completely hypocritical position, given all the discussions and calories being burned on equity, diversity, and inclusion for underserved communities, especially economic disadvantaged communities that don't align with race, color, sexual orientation, and to simply say, why should we care about the 20% and hold it up for them seem to be again, super hypocritical. So I will try to be a little more eloquent than that, but I don't want our board to be surprised when the really intense short guy from our committee gets up and says that, "I do think we need to be cautious about this because we are discarding 20% who may be the economically disadvantaged people or the people that are having a harder time getting licensed in the first place." So just as information only don't want anybody to be surprised. I know I will be in some way, shape, or form representing our board. So just wanted to let you know. Roch Manley: Thank, Scott. It's good to know that you're passionate on the point, because I know we've had a lot of discussion on that, especially in our jurisdiction. Rick, when you're talking about this, you mentioned that I think what I heard was that should the resolution pass, there would be some sort of follow up discussion on that point. The point of the hard line the UK would take on the education part of the three legged stool. So what does that mean? Rick Storvick: So I'll try to characterize the conversation that as Scott referenced at the pre meeting of board of directors, where the comment was made, that we shouldn't hold up the 20%, we should just March forward. And that it's a little bit interesting. I would characterize it that there was this really strong message that if we insist that alternate path people need to be included and don't limit it just to NAB there's no way that the UK will sign. And this is my characterization of it, but don't worry because as soon as it's signed, we promise that we'll sit down and talk about it. And one of the 10 from California who voiced concerns about that he made the point that in the work that he's done, his observation, there's a lot more architects that would like to go from the UK to the United States than there are architects wanted to go from the United States to the UK. And his comment was, "I think we're in a position of power. I don't think we need to accept this that is really is contrary to the position we're trying to take around diversity, equity, and inclusion because we're being held up the it's do or die, but with a promise that in the future they'll think about it." So to me that characterized that engagement and conversation there. Scott Harm: Exactly. Yep. And my concern is we hold the leverage now, but once it's executed then all bets are off it's, there's no impetus to do anything else other than. Shari Honeywell: So I guess playing on that, is there any possibility of an amendment that would say that this resolution sunsets, if there isn't an agreement by a certain period of time later? Or that that discussion hasn't concluded later? I mean, just as a compromise of, okay, we still disagree with it, bu we'll go along for now, as long as you have some sort of sun setting that it disappears after a year, if we don't come to an agreement on that topic? Scott Harm: Just like still clock ticking on it. You need it. Shari Honeywell: I mean, that's what happens on state law now for alternative delivery. We have a sunset every three years or 10 years or whatever its sunset's out, if you don't renew it. Roch Manley: I like that idea, Rick, anything that we can come up with to put some accountability to that promise of further discussion and the resolution of that question. Scott Harm: Absolutely agree. A really good idea. And I do think it was it's 17 states if I remember correctly, Rick, that are similar to ours where we have alternative pathway to licensure. And so this is maybe 20%, but it's probably spread out across the country. And I do think there should be a way to keep a fire lit under someone to make this happen or come to a final agreement one way or the other. Rick Storvick: I think the other piece of that too, Scott, as I look at it from the future's collaborative perspective, part of the conversation around licensing for several years has been envisioning that there's going to be a further breakdown of some of the barriers. And so that leads to that you probably, at some point have more alternative paths that people are going to be able to follow. Scott Harm: That's what I'm saying.. Rick Storvick: It's like the alternative path thing right now is more likely to be growing in the future. Yep. Scott Harm: And then we already have MRAs with Canada and Mexico, correct? Rick Storvick: Yes. Scott Harm: And I know in Mexico having practiced in Southern California for a number of years that graduates from the university programs and architecture take their tests immediately upon following graduation and are immediately issued a license. And so you've thought that is one extreme. And then this is maybe the other one where you have to have a NAB accredited degree or you don't get to play in the game. So it's going to be a Mexican educated architect advisor for a license in the UK. It's like, okay, good luck. And that's said under economically or potentially underserved minority that is blocked from doing business as his much more able counterparts who have the economic wherewithal and the education. And now they're blocked out of expanding their career in the practice because they simply just don't meet that box Colin Jones: I may not be following the conversation as closely as I should, but it does sound a little bit to me like as the Washington State Board for Architects, I think we have a responsibility to the architects of Washington State, more so than the architects of any other state. And for us to go along with this and basically say that a number of our membership are from a number of architects from Washington state who don't have the NAB degrees will not be able to participate. Scott Harm: I might steal that. I think that's a- Colin Jones: Well, it seems like it's irresponsible for us to go along with it as a board. We just have to think about that and make sure that's not going to be a problem for us down the road. Scott Harm: But all the other- Rick Storvick: One thing I'll add in here, that's a unique caveat to this. If you go and you vote against it, but it ends up passing and it ends up being operational in January of 2023. If we want, we can actually still take advantage of it just because we vote against it at this level doesn't mean that we can't have folks utilize it down the road, but that's just a little piece. Colin, I really like your perspective that, I mean, really, I think part of what Washington has been known for is its alternate pass. And I think we've talked in some paths that position is actually becoming more of a leader in the industry. And I think supporting that is a real important thing, supporting that position that we believe in alternate paths. Colin Jones: Exactly. Shari Honeywell: And I think initially we should take the position. I agree with all of you that we should oppose the resolution. And all I would offer, as I said is if we can't get majority to oppose it, then propose a resolution that sunsets it out if we don't come to some sort of an answer in a year or however long afterwards- Rick Storvick: Good. Shari Honeywell: ... see if we can get a majority on that. If it's as a compromise. Did you want to, Rick talk about any of the others now or go through any of the... Or is there any concerns or comments about the others that we want to address, the other resolutions? I apologize. I didn't have a lot of time last night to read through them all. So I just glanced at them. Rick, you're on mute here saying something. Rick Storvick: It's pretty animated. Yep. Thanks. At least I've got my camera on. So you can know when I'm being a fool. Any concerns or questions regarding the sun setting, resolutions that are there? And hearing none I'm assuming that you'd be fully in favor of your voting delegate, just voting to approve those. And then the next one, that to me seems like it could be a bit questionable. Let's see. Let's go down one more page. 2022 E to approve or not the diversity collaborative moving to being in a standing advisory committee in the NCARB bylaws. Any comments or questions there? Shari Honeywell: So Rick, again, I didn't get into the detail of it. Does it explain then what's the term of office of those delegates and how does that... It, obviously it's different with a standing committee than a collaborative, which maybe you're just on the collaborative and you're there till whenever the collaboratives done. Is there a term, limits and how does that all happen? Rick Storvick: No, I think as far as it being a committee, it's the same type of structure as any committee, people are appointed to sign. Where the key is it's like the new president of NCARB has no option to decide they don't want staff that or they don't want that committee moving forward. They're going to have to staff it. There'll be board stuff assigned to it and things. So it makes it one that is, those are positions that are filled each year. I would anticipate they'll probably film similar to they do. There's some folks that carry over from year to year and others are new to it. The real key is, it's just like, if you ever think that the work of the diversity collaborative is done, the only way to make that committee go away would be to change the bylaws so that it's no longer standing committee. Shari Honeywell: And the committee's appointed by the president each year- Rick Storvick: Yes. Shari Honeywell: ... then just like the others? Rick Storvick: Yep. Scott Harm: The only wordsmithing I would do to this overarching language is exchange the word priority for important. But that's a wordsmithing thing. Priority seems to imply that it's going to take precedent over 99 other issues. And while I agree it's worthwhile, I don't know that I think it should supersede almost everything else as being a priority or the priority. But yeah. Rick Storvick: So if that's the only discussion there, I think again, that informs your voting delegate on how you could proceed. So then the other thing that we have and I'm going to see if I can find the right pages for it. Before we find your voting delegate, are the folks running for office and in particular, the ones that are running opposed to each other and I'm looking for the right page here so that I can. I think what we can do, it looks like probably down to page 56, Shari is I think the first candidate. So Richard McNeil, wait, he's down the Mississippi area, I think from memory. Jackson, Mississippi? Scott Harm: Yep. Rick Storvick: Is running for the position of secretary. And we'll give you a couple moments to look at that. And again, this information's in the packets And if any of you know these candidates, it might be something you speak to a little bit. Richard is running against John Rottermarker. Is he Pennsylvania? Ohio, I think. Scott Harm: Ohio. Pretty sure. Rick Storvick: And I think Richard has this pretty complete packet in the packet you have from John I think the only thing that I received was an email expressing interest in the position and running. They both came to the Western Regional meeting and talked about their candidacy. So do any of you know Richard or John and have any thoughts or comments for that? Scott Harm: I know Richard from my brief bump up as our west CRAB chair. Very impressed with the man, very articulate, pretty impassioned, like many of us on the brighter side. Never seen him do anything. My biggest observation when we go virtually is how do people behave after hours? I always put that as a mental note kind of a thing. And not that any of these candidates I've seen do anything that would bring embarrassment to the NCARB, but I have seen that in others in the past, which is why it became on my radar. I like him. I don't have as much with David. I just met him in passing, but my deeper experiences having served some times on committees and been around them in close proximity, I'm comfortable with Richard. That's all I can say. Of those two he'd probably [crosstalk 01:36:32]. Shari Honeywell: I do know Richard pretty well. He was chair of several of the committees that I was on for the ARE. As Scott alluded to he's very passionate guy, very considerate Southern gentleman, I guess I would say type of person. I think he has two daughters that are both into the architectural field, so has quite a bit of knowledge about how the younger architects are viewing things and how some of the DEI lens might be playing out with his daughters running through the process. So I would be in support of Richard for the position. Rick Storvick: Go ahead bro. Roch Manley: I've sat on a couple of committees early on, ARE committees with Richard and had similar experiences. And I guess one thing that impresses me is his presentation, his depth of experience and he may be in one of those jurisdictions where that's allowed because of the terms they're given. But nonetheless, it seems like this is something that NCARB would be well advised to take advantage of his experience and his dedication and his depth of knowledge, as well as all the other things that Scott and Rick were mentioning. So I'd be in favor of him as well. Colin Jones: Likewise for me, this is Colin. He was one of the first people I met in participating in national events. So I've known of him and known him and greeted him for about 10 or 11 years. I grew up in Mississippi. So we had an immediate affinity. We know a lot of the same Mississippi architects. And I agree with the things that you have said, each of you have said about him. He's a very. A gracious and thoughtful person. And I think very comprehensive in his qualifications for a role like this. So I would be happy to see him succeed in that. Rick Storvick: Well, it sounds like there's strong support for Richard. So I think that provides what your voting delegate need. The next one, Shari, if we can go down to page 60 is the first communication from one of the two candidates for the position of treasurer. And this is David Hornbeck and David is running against Ed, right> Scott Harm: Yeah. Shari Honeywell: And Marley. Rick Storvick: And Marley from Arizona. And again, this is for the treasurer's position. They've both actually included quite a bit of information in the packet here. Any thoughts, comments, observations from interactions you've had with either of these gentlemen? Scott Harm: Wait. So I'm a little confused. I thought I had this figured out. So John's not running against David Hornbeck. Rick Storvick: No. John is running against Richard and David is running against Ed. Now, I think what may have been confusing, I believe at the regional conference when they came to visit, they didn't have the people that were running against each other in the room at the same time. Scott Harm: You're absolutely correct. Rick Storvick: So, because I left it thinking that David running against Richard, and it's not what it was. Shari Honeywell: Could you scroll down to the next. There you go. I don't know either of them very. The face is familiar and I think Ed's been a little more vocal than the other, but it seems like, at least from me, there is a difference in size a firm that they're involved with. Am I reading that right? Because it seems like Ed has quite a bit of bigger firm and a more experience than his challenger. Roch Manley: This is Roch. One thing about Ed's background and the jurisdiction he's from, his jurisdiction has been facing a lot of the issues that might be cropping up in other jurisdictions with limitations on regulatory power hours of their board and changes in the structure of their board. I guess, as you know, as well as the fact that I think we lose him from a leadership role, if he doesn't advance, it would be my understanding. I don't know Mr. Hornbeck very well, but he's got an impressive resume in terms of commitment NCARB and his professional community service. But they're pretty comparable in extent, I guess, is what I'm seeing, Rick Storvick: And one thing that you've mentioned Roch that is so very true when I think of regulatory reform in states that have had legislation that attacks licensure and regulation, Arizona is like at the forefront of it. And so it's certainly an area that Ed has had a front row seat on what can come along that way. And those type of efforts are not going to go away in the years to come. So it will be part of what jurisdictions will face for years to come. Shari Honeywell: Well, I do think Ed's not afraid of stepping up to a microphone and stating a position either. So not that the other might be, I just don't know him that well. Paul Wu: Well, it's my first year on the board. So I've no really input or contact with any of these gentlemen, but all the candidates seem to be well qualified. So I'm relying on you guys on the recommendations. Scott Harm: So I'm going to knock myself out. Rick going into this I was still confused and my struggle was, and it's kind of unfortunate, but anyways, I really like John Rottermarker, who's running, not for this position, so I still got them confused. And so I thought John was running against Ed and to be perfectly honest, I was going to make campaign for John. I'm a little disappointed already has is an email know in this packet, he doesn't even have a... Scott Harm: ... a little disappointed all that he has is an email in this packet. He doesn't even have his resume. I mean, I wonder if that's a goof at what level, but this is one of those instances where my intuition is to go with Ed, only because I've spent hundreds of hours with him. Again, when I was climbing up the West CARB organization, and know that he's a very stellar individual of pretty high moral standards, and a clear thinker. And as I forget who said it, he's not afraid to step up to the microphone and say, "Well, hey, let's wait a minute" kind of a thing. So I do admire him of that, and someone ultimately if it should go this way, could see him leading the organization and doing it pretty much in the vein that Alfred's set. I think Alfred's raised the bar, even though it's been a challenging year, I can see Ed continuing that same kind of vein and effort kind of a thing. Colin Jones: I've met Ed and had dinner with him and enjoyed his company a great deal. I don't have much more to say about him other than the fact that his daughter plays the ukulele. So that might be enough right there. Scott Harm: He did put together one of the more impressive packages. Rick Storvick: Right? So then any needs to discuss any of the other candidates that are running unopposed? Their information is clear at the back of the packet, thinking that it probably wasn't overly important at this point. So if that's the case, what I'm hearing, Rick, is that we have information regarding the resolutions and the desire of the board and a lot of conversation that would provide context if there were any amendments that a voting delegate could utilize, and you've got your positions on the candidates. And so at this point it seems it'd be appropriate for the board to make a motion to name somebody to be the voting delegate, alternate delegate. My understanding is that we anticipate Scott Harm and [Sian 01:47:26] and Paul all being able to attend in person. We're still waiting for the travel authorization so we can put that forward. I need to find out if we can send Roch, if he's got the availability to go. But I think those first three for sure are pretty confident if you wanted to. And we know that Susan can't go. Shari Honeywell: Okay. Rick Storvick: She's not here, but she had indicated as much. So at this point, I think you could entertain a motion for a voting delegate and alternate delegate as proposed in the cover sheet to this item. Colin Jones: I would like to make that motion. Rick Storvick: And Shari, can we move up to page 19? That'll take us back to where we have the recommended motion. Yeah. And maybe just slide down just a little bit so we can see the bottom piece of it there. There you go. Thanks. Scott Harm: I think Colin, you're going to name names, I think, in your motion, right? Colin Jones: With regard to the delegates? Rick Storvick: Yeah. Colin Jones: Scott, Sian, and Rick. Scott Harm: Paul. Colin Jones: Is that correct? Rick Storvick: Paul. Colin Jones: Which- Scott Harm: Paul. Colin Jones: Who were nominated? Shari Honeywell: Yeah, I'm not attending in person, I'm attending virtually, but I think it would be preferable to have an attendee that's actually in-person there. And I guess I would make an amendment, maybe call into your motion and recommend that Sian be the voting delegate, and Scott be the alternate. Scott Harm: He's not here, I'm going to for it. Shari Honeywell: Well, and I think because he has the knowledge about the responsible charge- Scott Harm: No, all kidding aside. Shari Honeywell: ... good, responsible control component pretty well. And it seems like he's been involved with a lot of that, a lot of those other things discussed. Not that you haven't, Scott, but [crosstalk 01:50:12]- Scott Harm: No, no, no threat [inaudible 01:50:13], I'm fine. Paul Wu: I'll second the motion. Colin Jones: As amended? Paul Wu: As amended. Colin Jones: Very well. Shari Honeywell: Okay. I've heard a motion and a second, all in favor? Scott Harm: Aye. Shari Honeywell: Signified by saying "Aye." Colin Jones: Aye. Rick Storvick: Aye. Shari Honeywell: Opposed? Okay. Thank you, and we have that in place. Roch Manley: And aside, on my attendance, it looks like my calendar is clear on those dates, Rick, so. Shari Honeywell: Okay. Roch Manley: Let me know how it looks. Shari Honeywell: Well, we'll get your name in there and see if we can make you fly, fly away. Roch Manley: All right. I'd love to go, but I'd have to take my cats with me and that's just not going to work. Shari Honeywell: Right. Scott Harm: If I remember correctly, the registration's open and it's not closing too soon. Shari Honeywell: No. Scott Harm: Yeah, but the order is the wait to [inaudible 01:51:13] and then register. Correct? Rick Storvick: Yeah, so we know which one to, so, yep. Scott Harm: Right. Okay. Rick Storvick: And I hope to have that here soon. Scott Harm: Right. Rick Storvick: Okay. Shari Honeywell: Okay? Roch Manley: It's similar. Shari Honeywell: So should I [crosstalk 01:51:28] bid on that one? Rick Storvick: Yep. Shari Honeywell: So I guess now we're into the complaint cases. Rick Storvick: Yeah. So Shari, I think if we go down to page 68, it looks like, it will be the first case. Wow. You're fast. Shari Honeywell: It looks like these are all Scott's. Scott Harm: Yeah, so I've got, just for background, I've got all four of them opened up in the background because some of these I did a little while ago and it's like, okay, I've got to make sure that I had them in order. So this was one of the more complicated ones. I'll go ahead and present it. So this is case number 2020-12-1781-00 ARC. The complainant hired an individual to do both design and construction on a project, and later charged that the individual represented themselves as an architect when indeed they were not. And part of it being exposed to, or being allowed access to an early website that was under construction that contained the language that the person was an architect, but was when in its final format was not included in the website per our investigatory staff. The complainant did give some names that could add additional information to the case, and neither person that they presented really supported much of what the complainant was proposing, knew the individual to be a competent designer, this was a residential project. Their recollection was that they never, never professed to be an architect, nor did they say they were not an architect. It was just not ever brought up. There was an invoice or a contract that contained the word "architect" that was explained away and believed by our investigatory staff as just being a copy-paste error by an administrative staff member who did indeed say that was the case, that they were using that invoice background. There was a previous relation, what complicates this, so there was a previous relationship where this designer did have an architect within their firm. They were legally designated as the architect responsible for designing the firm. But that collaboration dissolved. And now this individual is only operating as a design build residential provider of services. Let's see. And then is the last statement, is everybody that was contacted did support the idea that the respondent was very professional, knew what they were doing, provided good services. And, and the complaint was not even based on bad design services. The complaint resulted in discrepancies in the construction side of the endeavor where the respondent is still owed north of $130,000. The complainant did not want to pay an invoice. It's gone to civil litigation and they found in favor, actually, of the respondent. So it seems like it's just a complainant who, for one way, one reason or another got really upset, and is trying to find ways to, I don't know, voice their disgruntledness, or just get out of it. And really, in my review, in talking to the investigatory staff, the person, the respondent really did behave in a very professional manner throughout the entire intercourse of what happened. So I'm recommending we just close this with no further action. Shari Honeywell: Good. Colin Jones: Scott, that sounds like you did a very comprehensive evaluation of the situation. Scott Harm: Yeah. Colin Jones: Well, I'm curious what the complainant's response will be or has been. Has there been any response, is the complainant anticipating that this is the way it's being disposed of? Scott Harm: I would have to... This is conjecture on my side, so I don't know that it's fair to be honest with you, but the fact that they've lost the civil suit, I think, is laying the groundwork for... I'll do my normal crass self... "Get over it," you know? So I don't think that the complainant would be, is going to be too surprised when and if they're informed of the outcome, the disposition of this case, should you agree with my suggestion. Hopefully I answered your question. Colin Jones: Yeah, quite adequately. No, thank you. Rick Benner: Okay. So do I hear a recommendation to approve the case manager's recommendation on this case? Scott Harm: This is [crosstalk 01:56:47]- Colin Jones: I would move that we accept the case manager's recommendation. Rick Benner: Do I hear a second? Paul Wu: A second. Rick Storvick: This, there you go. Rick Benner: Is there any further discussion on the case? Hearing none then I would ask for those that are in agreement signified by saying "Aye"? Colin Jones: Aye. Rick Storvick: Aye. Rick Benner: Any opposed? If not, case then is accepted. Case manager's recommendation is accepted. Thank you. Scott, the next one? Scott Harm: Okay. I'm going to let Shari, because like I said, I've got them all opened up on another screen. So now I have to jump to the... Is this... Which is our next one? Is this it, 2488, right? Good. I grabbed the right one. So... yeah, I'm just reading. I've got two different things opened up. So just give me just a second, I want to make sure I'm speaking accurately. Okay, so yeah. This is, again... Rick Benner: Case number? Scott Harm: ... yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, thank you very much, Chair. Case number 2021-10-2488-00 ARC. This is again a residential project, so not necessarily requiring the duties of a licensed architect. However, the respondent in this case is indeed licensed. They were engaged by a homeowner to simply enclose that yeah, it says "170 square foot." The way I read the drawings is there's a pad outside what I'll call the back door of the house. And the homeowners wanted to turn it into a mud room, so put walls around it and enclose it. The agreement, the original contractual agreement between the respondent and the complainant was, this should be a relatively simple project. However, there's no guarantees with what the jurisdiction will say. So, gave him a proposal to do a simple enclosure of the mud room and said, and in fact in their proposal stated that there could be some environmental concerns. And I did copy this because you're close to, I think it was a, I think they're called seasonal streams, and in the wet areas, it's running with water in the dry areas. It turns dry. And warned the homeowners that you may want to engage some kind of wetland biologist or environmental person, and the complainant decided not to do it. Long story made very short, it did blow up, that they found that they were, what would be violating the setback required by the seasonal stream. And it created a lot of angst within the city of Mercer Island, which was the jurisdiction having authority. And it made the project design significantly more expensive. And the complainant is proposing that they should have been more forewarned about that instance. And the documentation shows that it could have maybe been stressed a little bit more, but the architect, the respondent really did do their due diligence in stating that "There's no guarantees what the authorities having jurisdictions are going to do, and this could turn into something more complicated." The complainant ended up not wanting to pay the respondent for any of their services, even though they were rendered in kind, in compliance, and in accordance with the proposal. And I believe, Shari, if we go down, because I don't have the packet in front of me anymore. So I want to say, I believe this is another one where I really do think the respondent, a licensed architect, did everything they could have done to warn the client. And again, and some of us who do private sector work, there's no guarantee what the building officials are going to come back with review comments. They stated that that was a possibility, that's exactly what happened, and then the whole relationship kind of went sideways. But the architect really did nothing that I wouldn't do as a standard practice. It looked all very much above the board. Rick Benner: Thank you, Scott. So, is there a motion to accept the case manager's recommendation? Paul Wu: I move to accept the decisions of the case manager's decision. Rick Benner: Thanks, Paul. Is there a second? Roch Manley: This is Roch, I will second the acceptance. Rick Benner: Okay. Thanks, Roch. Any further discussion about the case? Hearing none, then I would ask for a vote of all in favor of accepting the case manager's recommendation, say "Aye." Paul Wu: Aye. Colin Jones: Aye. Rick Benner: Any opposed? Motion carried. Thanks, Scott. If we'd like to move to the next one. Scott Harm: Yep. Hold on, I've got to find it. It is 1708. Wow, I'm hitting on all cylinders, I haven't failed yet. Case number 2021-07-1708-00 ARC. Give me, again... Okay. So if you had a chance to read it, yeah. It's someone who was professing through a website advertisement that they were licensed in the State of Washington, where they had actually since let the license expire and through lack of attention, never bothered to update their website, indicating that they were licensed in Washington, and I believe also another state. As soon as our investigator contacted them, I think almost literally the next day, the website was amended to remove that reference. So it was just explained away as an oversight when they moved away, and they moved to, I think, Colorado, and just started to let... And some of us do, we have multiple license, just start letting licenses expire. Just never thought to go back in and update their website and readily just fell on the sword, said it was their mistake and corrected it. It was either that day or the next day that they updated the website and got it. And I believe the investigator even looked into LinkedIn profiles and it's the same thing, there's no references to being licensed in the State of Washington. So it was just really an oversight of someone who's letting licenses lapse is probably as they get through the latter phases of their career. So again, closing it with no further action. Rick Benner: So do I hear a motion to accept the case manager's recommendation? Colin Jones: If I could ask a question, I'm wondering, what would've brought this up. Is, are there people policing this deeply into what people are... have claimed on their websites? As I understand it, the complainant did not have any other relationship with this- Scott Harm: So- Colin Jones: ... respondent. Scott Harm: ... no. No, and Colin, I can tell you, I have personally met the individuals you're describing. There are, and the two that I know of are architects who are actually... It's like, "You do not have anything better to do with your life?" kind of a thing, who are just watchdog, maybe they figure it's their public service. They're just a watchdog for our profession. And one of them, I actually worked with at one point, and he still was in the Tacoma area. And I was always befuddled on, "You must have something better to do with your time," but he would just search out, drive by signs and see the word "architecture" in any form and then Google them and all that stuff. And even in the background information for my case manager read report, there is, yeah, you've got it right, there is no other relationship explained in the complaint summary. And I don't believe in talking to our investigatory staff, there was ever a discussion on how exactly did this happen. It's just that it was noticed that on the respondent's website that they had this reference. And the complainant noticed that they were not indeed licensed in the state. Yeah, so there are people that do that. Yeah. Colin Jones: Okay. Well, I was just curious, I have no complaint about that. Rick Benner: So, I guess in that same vein though, I guess the question is, would there have been any work done in the state, by somebody who had, who has license had expired, that I guess the question for me is, how long since the license had expired, had it still been on there, and have there been any recipients of work performed in the state that by an unlicensed architect, I guess, would be my question is- Scott Harm: Yeah, I guess that- Rick Benner: ... if this is kind of a common occurrence, it's, okay, is there something that we're missing out there that, again, could be being performed by a person who, an architect who no longer has a license in the state? Scott Harm: Yeah, I think there's that distinct opportunity. I mean, opportunity. Yeah, opportunity, Rick. In this case, I really don't think it was. Because it's even quoted by our investigatory staff that the respondent's reply was, "Thank you so much for bringing this up to my attention, for bringing my website to my attention. The website was created by a third party and it was accurate at the time. However, the website is now updated and necessarily deleted the actions. Really appreciate your energy- Rick Benner: Right. Scott Harm: ... in this matter." So, and it expired back in 2016. So I don't, I just think it's just, yeah, someone who's probably, again, maybe in the latter phases of their career and are going to start letting licenses lapse and just probably should shut down the website actually too. Colin Jones: So- Rick Benner: Yeah. Colin Jones: ... in answer to- Rick Benner: I'm not citing this particular one, it just raised the question in general for me of... Scott Harm: But it is, I don't want to just brush that comment off because I hadn't, it dawned on me, but I think next time maybe I'll see any one of these, if there is a way... how we, I don't know how we would do it, Rick Storvick, about, "We don't have access to WABO or building officials of, have you permitted anybody with a stamp of 2182, you know, architectural stamp 2082?" Yeah. Rick Storvick: One of the things that stands out to me with this conversation, Scott and Rick, is when we visit with WABO, they're expecting to kind of get information from us on how we might be able to help them in their space. Right? And this certainly feels like a place maybe we can raise a question if there's a way that you can help us with data that you have. And the one that stands out to me, you had a case several years ago of unlicensed practice that you took pretty significant action, we had a pretty significant settlement with the person. And then as we investigated, I think it went from like the one complaint that we knew about, and I think we expanded out to about seven cases of unlicensed practice, but felt that there was probably even more. But literally you have to go out to every jurisdiction and look for something. And it just begs to me kind of this question, would there be some way to interact with WABO so you might be able to find where does this license number pop up, or where does, something that would allow you to track some of that better. Scott Harm: Well yeah, and I wonder at the building official level, do they do a, I won't call it a Google search, a search on our website, as I have done many times, "Is this an active license?" And we might ask them to do that and then create an avenue by which, "Hey, we don't find this guy licensed, this individual," I'm sorry, "licensed. Let's keep it on a tickler file." It just, Rick brings up a good point that there could be instances where people are just still cranking out work and they've let a license expire, you know? Rick Storvick: Yeah, and actually that's one of the things we've done with other programs during our outreach. And there's concern about whether people have valid licenses, whether there's been action against the license and a space that we frequently have encouraged people to use our license lookup before they do business with someone to make sure that they do have an active license. So yeah, again, I think it's part of a good conversation when we meet with WABO. Rick Benner: Okay, thanks, Rick and Scott. So back, I guess, again to, is there a recommendation or a motion to accept the manager's recommendation? Paul Wu: I think the motion was made. Was it? Rick Storvick: Yeah, we already have a motion, don't we? Paul Wu: Yeah, I'll- Rick Storvick: This is- Paul Wu: ... second that motion. Rick Storvick: There you go. Rick Benner: Okay. Thank you, sorry. I'm getting confused between which cases, all of them are Scott's. So- Shari Honeywell: Wait, who- Rick Benner: ... is there any further discussion then on this one? Scott Harm: Wait, Shari, yep, Shari, go ahead. Shari Honeywell: Who was the first on it then? Who was the first on this one? Rick Benner: I thought I had called for a motion, but then- Colin Jones: I asked the question- Rick Benner: Colin had a question. Colin Jones: ... I asked a question. Paul Wu: Oh, I see. Rick Benner: Yeah, so I don't think I ever got it first. Roch Manley: Well, this is Roch. I can retroactively make a motion- Rick Benner: Aye. Roch Manley: ... that the case manager accept, or the case manager's recommendation be accepted. Rick Storvick: So it sounds like- Rick Benner: Perfect. Paul Wu: And I second it. Rick Benner: Okay. Roch Manley: There we go. Shari Honeywell: All right. Shari Honeywell: Thanks guys. Got it. Paul Wu: Yeah. Rick Benner: So hopefully there's no further discussion on this one, and all in favor of the accepting the case manager's recommendations say "Aye." Paul Wu: Aye. Colin Jones: Aye. Rick Benner: Okay. Any opposed? Motion carried. And the last one, Scott? Scott Harm: Yeah, I've got... I'm having a, I don't think I have this one, hold on. Oh, there it is. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Case number 2021-10-2622-00 ARC. I think this is very similar in nature, I think I got these two right in a row. Yeah, this was another instance, I think very similar to the two ago where they were indeed... hold on. I'm sorry, I've got to read my... Yeah, okay, so this is another design build company [inaudible 02:12:51]. Okay, okay. Okay, now I've got it remembered. Okay, so this is an individual, and this is one of those ones where I think holding a mirror up. I think we could do better, you know, maybe it's one of our writing assignments on, I made a reference to architects, take one class, I'm running a business. Or my wife as a dentist took one class, is running a business. Well, one class regarding it, the building code. What it actually takes to become a licensed architect to run a business of an architectural firm. And this is one of the instances where I believe if I'm getting it correct... yeah, yeah, that the individual was a licensed architect. However, their firm was not licensed to provide architectural services. So being similar to Roch at one point, of being a sole proprietor kind of owner architect of a business, there's two licenses that you have to have. And if I remember correctly, this individual had, it was licensed, but his, their firm, which contained the word "architectural" it, was not licensed as a business to provide architectural services. It was a design build firm. And upon being contacted by our investigatory staff and informed of the laws regarding operating a business, providing architectural services... No, I'm getting that... Or I'm sorry, everybody, I'm getting this kind of wrong. I know they made, it says in report, they removed all references... I can do four of these in a row. Rick Benner: Maybe I should have just asked for a motion, Scott. Scott Harm: No, it's a lot. Scott Harm: Okay. So I am, what's that, [inaudible 02:15:03]. Sorry, hold on. So an architectural firm. Okay, so again, this is again a design build service where I think there was a previous relationship with an architect within the design build side that had been designated as the architecture in charge of, responsible for design, and that had since dissolved. And so they were licensed as a design build firm, but not licensed as an architectural firm. And upon being notified by our investigatory staff, made all the correct business licenses and removed the references to providing architectural services. So it was just, yeah. Rick Benner: Okay. Thank you, Scott. Scott Harm: I'm not doing a very convincing job and I apologize. Colin Jones: I have a question. If you recall, Scott, I understand your challenge, because these are all very similar. But I, in this situation, and I'm in sole practice now, too, and I sort of understand the problem, it would be an option for them to either remove all reference anywhere to a firm practicing architecture, or to actually get a certificate of authorization through the department of licensing. Is that correct? Is that what the two options a person in that position would have? Scott Harm: I'm sorry, Colin, I was reading because I just didn't... I know I'm being recorded, embarrassed with how much stumbling I'm having through this, and again, just because I got fed these through a straw really quick. So again, it wasn't licensed and he had to remove all the references to architecture on his title blocks and all that because he is just a designer. He's not a licensed architect, he just does residential work. So they removed all the terms, reading our investigatory's report, and stating that they made the changes immediately, and removed "architectural" from all the correspondence. So I kind of missed your question. Colin Jones: You answered it, though. Very- Scott Harm: Okay. Colin Jones: ... well-done. Scott Harm: Okay. Colin Jones: I understand the situation. It was there was an architect who was not part of his firm, but was designated as such, when he was operating as a design build operation- Scott Harm: Very good. Yeah, yeah. Colin Jones: ... that needed an architectural license. Okay. I got it. Scott Harm: Yeah, yeah. That was it. And again much like one of the previous cases, according to our investigatory staff, they made the changes, quote unquote, "immediately." So I'm assuming that's well within a week's time that they- Colin Jones: Yeah. Scott Harm: ... they went in and made the changes. Roch Manley: And Scott, there's certainty that the projects that this firm was working on were all exempt from the- Scott Harm: Yeah. Roch Manley: ... laws. Scott Harm: Yeah. Again, what Mr. [Brenner 02:18:49] brought up earlier, I am a little concerned about how do we, how can we actually track these things through building officials? But there seemed to be nothing in the multiple pages of the investigation, that there was anything done that was not exempt, not exempt. Because they were primarily more of a builder than a designer. They provided adjunct design services to support their building activities. Rick Benner: Okay, thank you, Scott. So is there a motion to accept the case manager's recommendation on this one? Colin Jones: I would like to move that we accept the case manager's recommendation. Paul Wu: I second. Rick Bennerl: Okay. Any further discussion? Scott Harm: I'm tapping out for the rest of the year. Rick Benner: All right. Rick Benner: All in favor, say "Aye." Paul Wu: Aye. Roch Manley: Aye. Colin Jones: Aye. Rick Benner: Any opposed? All right, Scott, you've earned your salary for this month. I Scott Harm: I get my merit badge. Rick Benner: All right, whew. Looks like there's nothing under legal issues- Rick Benner: Looks like there's nothing under legal issues for determination or deliberation at this point. And the disciplinary and investigation items. Rick Storvick: One thing that stands out to me here, Rick, is right now, we only have cases with Roch and Scott. And I just wanted to point out that I anticipate Paul will start sending you something here in the near future. And when we do, let's make sure we connect on what the expectation is and how to review what you're doing and that any questions along the way, obviously, you can ask Scott, he can do four at a time, but you can reach out to our staff as well, any questions, so that you feel comfortable with what you're doing as you go through it. It's interesting, Scott's cases today were all pretty similar and it's not unusual that we kind of get some similar things. It's rare that we get something that's really super in depth and really technical in nature. Not a lot of those, but occasionally, we will. But when we reach out, we've got something to send your way. Let's make sure we schedule some time to just kind of walk through the process so you feel comfortable with making the decisions. Our hope always is that we can provide enough information in an investigative report that you've got the details you need to determine if there's a violation and what kind of recommendation you'd like to make. And we like to try to turn them around as quickly as possible. And one of the things, and I think Scott probably fell under this, as a board meeting starts coming up, we're putting together a packet, we're like, "Oh, my goodness. I think we're really close on this. Can we get ahold of that case manager? And can we get that final piece?" Because if we miss this right then, we're waiting another three months, so... Scott Harm: So the one thing, Paul, I would caution you against, because I will admit I was guilty of this way back at the beginning, we're strongly discouraged if not prohibited from doing your own investigation. So no popping into websites, no Googling, no nothing. If you need information, just remember you go back to your investigator and ask them to do it. Rick Storvick: Yeah. And if there's [crosstalk 02:22:22] anything that you want, you're welcome to do that. If you feel there's a piece of documentation that you would expect as an architect that would be there and it's not in what you received, absolutely ask for whatever you want, make sure that you're comfortable with the details that you're reviewing, that you can make a solid decision on it. And recognizing that when you come to the board, you might make a recommendation and somebody might have a question about like, "Well, what other projects have they done across the state, Paul? What have you done about those?" Just kind of be thinking through some of those type of concepts. Paul Wu: I will do. Thank you. Rick Storvick: That's it on the case support or status [crosstalk 02:23:00]. Scott Harm: And the one that Rick referred to, Paul, that I worked on a while ago was over an eastern side of the state. I probably had seven go rounds with the investigator on different things. Yeah. Paul Wu: All right. Thank you. I will seek advice if I need to. Okay. Yes. Rick Benner: Okay. And tab seven, my understanding, there's nothing to report here, is that correct, Rick? Rick Storvick: So again, Elizabeth wasn't able to make it today. She did tell me we're waiting on an attorney general opinion that the board weighed in with a feedback back in the fall. Apparently, Elizabeth has seen an initial draft of the attorney general's opinion and I would anticipate it will probably be published before your next board meeting. When we find out that it's published, we'll certainly share that out. Her initial reaction to what she saw in the draft was that there was nothing that would be kind of surprising to the board or inconsistent with the type of opinions that the board was coming up with in the fall. So again, we'll get that out to you once we see it. The last time they issued an opinion, we didn't actually find out about it for a few weeks because they issue it out to the people who have made the specific request and then it starts filtering out. So if one of you actually hears that, you heard that the opinion was published and you haven't heard something from us, shoot us an email right away, because maybe we weren't looped in and we'll get it out to you. Rick Benner: Okay. Thank you, Rick. Paul Wu: Yeah. Rick Benner: Board executives report or excuse me, committee task force. Sorry. Getting ahead of myself. So Rick, it looks like maybe Roch has something maybe to comment on? Roch Manley: Yeah, this is the board charter update you see in the packet, there's a description of what the status is and it states that we've met in April and the discussions on the charter have been pretty interesting and deep and straight as far as everybody being very dedicated to trying to pull together a document that will be useful and informative and have touch points on a number of levels from onboarding new members to stating what we do and why we do it for the benefit of local government officials, state government officials, and even NCARB and other jurisdictions. So it's been a good effort. Where we ended with the last meeting was we identified and divided some further tasks and we are each... I think, we've had a couple of sections that are reported back with some texts and we're waiting for a few more sections to report back with writing tasks. And those include board members, staff, and the Attorney General's Office. So it's got a few moving parts, it's grown maybe a little bit from where it was when we initially started looking at it. So any questions? [crosstalk 02:27:19] comments, Colin or Scott, or Rick, any other comments on it? Colin Jones: That seems like where we are. Rick Storvick: Yeah. And again, I think the group has really dove into the specific topics and the purpose and things. And I think what we're going to come up with is really going to be a great tool that's hopefully easy to read and not just a bunch of information that nobody wants to pick up and has the usefulness that... So for example, if you're approaching something for the first time, you can refer back to it as a reference material. So... Colin Jones: Yeah. Rick Benner: Okay. Just to inform folks, I have a hard close at 12:00, so... Paul Wu: Okay. I do have item. I don't know whether this is a good time to bring it up. May 10th, we have a town hall Zoom meeting that Sean and I will be participating, regarding the process of licensure and any questions that people can raise about specific licensing requirements in the State of Washington. I will be meeting with Sean to go over what we need to present, but in the meantime, if the staff can send me information that I can read and prepare myself for, so I don't appear completely like a fool in this respect, I appreciate it. I'll do some homework before that. Rick Storvick: Great. And Paul, let's go ahead and connect after this meeting. And Aneesa Bonham, who is our licensing specialist, will be attending that meeting virtually with y'all. And maybe what we can do is figure out when you and Sean are doing a pre meet and let's see if we can get Aneesa connected to that meeting as well so that you've got a uniform voice. And absolutely, we can get you information that we typically use for those outreach events. Paul Wu: Right. Good. Yeah. I'm waiting for Sian to come back and then we'll have coffee and talk about this. Rick Storvick: Perfect. Roch Manley: Paul. Rick Benner: [inaudible 02:29:40] support. Roch Manley: Who is the audience for this? Is it an AIA sponsored or some other... Paul Wu: It's Washington Council, AIA Washington Council. Roch Manley: Okay. Got it. Cool. Good. Rick Benner: Thanks for doing that, Paul. Scott Harm: So if we were all included an invitation, do we have a quorum issue? Rick Storvick: I don't think this is something everybody's... This is a very specific outreach event that any kind of an AIA are doing. Correct. Scott Harm: Okay. Rick Storvick: Yeah. Scott Harm: Great. But as an AIA member, might I be included? Colin Jones: Of course, you are. Rick Storvick: Oh, you could be. Sure. Scott Harm: Yeah. Okay. Colin Jones: Yeah. Rick Storvick: Just don't talk to Paul and Sean when they're there and we're good. Paul Wu: All right. Rick Benner: All right, Rick. Rick Storvick: Okay. So I think next slide, we should have your information about licensees. Kind of interesting. The numbers don't change a lot from time to time, but you can see kind of the distribution you still have. I think it's around 57% of our licensees in the state are in-state folks with the balance coming from outside. One of the things that we often look at is how many make up that 65 and above versus the other age groups. And so just interesting. If we can go to the next page, Shari, you have your new licensees distributed by reciprocity, and then by examination. And the reciprocity, the state that they're coming from. And of course, the examination where they currently live, which most of them are here in Washington, but you can see there's at least one person down there from LA, California, South Pasadena, Winter Park, Florida. So some folks out of state. I'm assuming they live there, but they're looking to work here either remotely or come here. So... Scott Harm: So I wonder if there's any, going back to the EDI and our issue with the MRA, I think 53 or four Californian and I don't think Oregon, they chose to take the licensing examination in Washington State because they don't have a NAB accredited degree. Rick Storvick: That's an interesting question. Yeah. You often hear from some of those states that require NAB degrees, especially when they have an adjacent state that doesn't of people kind of crossing the border. I think we heard that some, a perspective when we were still at three years of AXP versus other people at two years and people talking about, well, they go next door because they can take the exam with only two years and then they'd end up coming back. Scott Harm: Yep. Rick Storvick: So other than that, one of the things that we've talked a lot about is our functional alignment and I'm really pleased that it looks like Cathy and Bill are still online. One of the things we're accustomed to hanging out with you for two or three hours every time, but I'm really pleased a lot of these staff that are supporting you now in different sections are still here. Wanted to give Cathy and Bill an opportunity, just kind of introduce themselves, talk a little bit about the work that they do in the centralized investigations audits unit. So Keith and Grace work there and it's a great opportunity for them. So looks like we've got Cathy. Cathy N: Hi, thanks for having us today. I'm sorry, Bill had to step away into another meeting. So on behalf of both of us, I'm the administrator over our centralized investigations and audits unit. Bill is the assistant administrator. And as you know, business and professions has went through an alignment. I believe you possibly had an opportunity to speak with Michael from our licensing team during your last meeting. So he was able to tell you a little bit about that function. What we do is we support and we have all the employees that would be going out doing our investigations, our audits, and our inspections. And what this gives us an opportunity to do is this allows us to help support one each other and our boards more. The great thing is you're not going to see a big change at all. The people that are supporting you now, Keith and Grace, they're going to continue to support you. The great thing is that this allows them to have more support on our end as well. So they'll be able to reach out to other investigators to be able to talk about best practices. They'll be able to get the support they need to be able to go out and compile the investigative notes, to be able to provide that back to you. We still want you to know that you guys have all the authority still. We're not changing. There's no change in authority. We're just here to support you and your business and help the program and the board be successful as well. So with that, I welcome you to reach out anytime to Bill or I, and we look forward to being able to sit in this space again and be able to support all of you. Paul Wu: Thank you. Colin Jones: Thank you. Rick Storvick: And one of the things I'll just follow up briefly, I don't think we've had any complaints that have gone through this board at this point that Bill or Cathy have had to jump into. But for example, this morning, Bill was attending the landscape architect board. We had a case there that the complaint was closed and the complainant wasn't very pleased about it. And it was a pretty aggressive interaction and engagement. And that was a point that our investigator was able to reach out to Bill, who has, I don't know, 30 years experience doing investigations and all kinds of programs and stuff, and was really able to support our investigator through the things to follow. And we anticipated today that that complainant was probably going to show up to the landscape architect board meeting to have public comment that wasn't necessarily appropriate for the board meeting. And so Bill was there to help, again, support staff through that. So it's a great opportunity. And Cathy and Bill, I think you're going to be able to really support our folks well. Other than that, you've heard last month about, or a couple months ago, about POLARIS and the data breach that we had. And they're continuing to deal with that. My understanding is POLARIS is totally back up and running and running smoothly at this point. So things are going fairly well and we're moving into this functional alignment fairly well and finding support for all of the different teams. So I continue to encourage you all that as we move forward, if some point you feel like there's some disconnect either with our licensing team or our investigation team or something, speak up, let us know, let us know sooner rather than later. So maybe it's a quirky thing that we just weren't aware of. So appreciate that. Other than that, Rick, that would be it for operations and the Department of Licensing today. Rick Benner: Okay. Thank you, Rick. So at this point, are there any other items that the board members would like to bring up? Colin Jones: I will just report my experience as an architect who has been informed that their personal information has been compromised, I took advantage of the Experian offer and I'm enrolled and it's gone very well. And I have every confidence that I'm safer now than I probably was before. So that seems to have worked, at least from my perspective. Rick Storvick: Thanks, Colin. That's good to know. Colin Jones: And if we're at that stage, this is going to be my last board meeting officially. So I'd like to just say goodbye to you guys, but not goodbye, I hope. Really enjoyed being on the board and serving with you and Paul, I'm sort of sorry I won't be serving with you. [inaudible 02:38:36] forward to that, but to all of you on the board and the staff, it's been a real highlight for my last 12 years to be able to be exposed to your intellect and your wisdom and your humor. And I will miss that indeed. And do in fact look forward to not making it a hard break that I do have a participation as a public person on one of your committees. And I intend to continue to follow through that and offer up whatever else services you might wish until I have a replacement. And I know that that sometimes can take a while. I don't expect it to this time, but should it be that, I'll be a thorn under your saddle blanket until then. Paul Wu: Question, Colin. Colin Jones: Yes? Paul Wu: Are you still going to practice? Colin Jones: What's that? Paul Wu: Are you still going to practice architecture during your retirement? Colin Jones: Yes. I have a firm. Very, very inventively named Jones Architecture. And I have a very limited practice and I'm selecting my projects very carefully. Scott Harm: It's been a pleasure. Colin Jones: Currently involves collecting eggs, planting potatoes, and advising on garlic spacing. Paul Wu: Well, you earned your promotion. Scott Harm: It's been a pleasure [crosstalk 02:40:07] serving with you, Colin. You set the bar fairly high for all of us. Your thoughtfulness and your thought provoking questions and everything. Just really, really enjoyed our relationship. Just so sorry that we're not together in person, so we can go out for a lunch or anything like that right now, but very much appreciated our association and got a lot of value out of you as a person and as a practicing architect. So thanks for your service. Colin Jones: Thank you. Paul Wu: Likewise. Thank you. Rick Benner: Yeah, Colin, I just want to say my appreciation too. You were my mentor when I first came on to the board and did a great job at that and helped me get into the [ARE events 02:40:53] and move forward into that participation and always showed a lot of thoughtfulness and kindness to me. And I will always remember that. And I hope you stay in touch with us along the way too, as we- Colin Jones: Thanks, Rick. Rick Benner: ... continue on. Colin Jones: [inaudible 02:41:14]. Roch Manley: This is Roch. Likewise, the same, Colin. And I'm looking forward to being able to have the privilege of continuing to communicate with you on our other little project with the charter. Colin Jones: Okay, great. And we'll do some investigation of some new IPAs too, maybe. Roch Manley: [inaudible 02:41:35]. Rick Storvick: Colin, from the staff, we greatly appreciate you. You have been part of... It doesn't seem right to utilize the term rock, but you've been one of our rocks, but not that kind of rock, but the real rock. And I pass along greetings from Lauren also. I met with Lauren yesterday and we were talking and I said, "Well, you ought to come to the board meeting." [inaudible 02:41:59] "Well, they're probably all gone now." And I said, "No, actually, most of the board members that you left behind are still there, but we are about to lose Colin and she had many kind thoughts and comments and has missed her time away from this board, so thank you, Colin. Roch Manley: [inaudible 02:42:15]. Colin Jones: Thanks. Shari Honeywell: Yes. I've enjoyed our meeting you, working with you, collaborating with you, Colin. You've been a... I'll miss you. So keep in touch. But I don't think this is the last of you. I'm sure we'll see you at July. Colin Jones: You think so? Okay. Roch Manley: I hope so. I'd bet money on that one too. Yeah. Colin Jones: All right. Shari Honeywell: Yes. One last... Or yes, hopefully, we'll see you in July. Colin Jones: Okay. Thank you. Rick Benner: So I'm going to drop off a couple minutes early and I'll let you guys wrap up. So thank you. Talk to you soon. Colin Jones: Thank you, Rick. All right. Bye. Roch Manley: It sounds like the baton is being passed momentarily here. Shari Honeywell: So it's action items. So I'll go ahead and get those. And can you see the agenda? Do you want me to put the agenda up, Roch? Roch Manley: I can put it up on my other screen if you want to go back to. And I've got the regular unannotated, but let's see. Shari Honeywell: I'll do it. It's okay. Roch Manley: I got it. We are on item... Rick Storvick: 10.2. Roch Manley: 10.2. Action items from this meeting. So Shari, can you share with us the action items from this meeting? Shari Honeywell: Yes. So the first one I have is I'm going to email you the building officials email that he sent Rick. And then if you guys want to have any comments or questions, you can send those back to me or Rick. The outreach committee I have is Scott, Paul, and Roch. I'm going to set up a meeting on the model law, and I'm also going to send out that working document that Darla created. So I'll send that out to you guys. I'm going to get the new board members on the website and let NCARB know who they are. And then I'm going to check on the NCARB virtually and let Rick Benner know. He shouldn't have to pay the cost. And then Sean is the voting delegate. And then once we get the AGO opinion from Elizabeth, then we'll send that out to the board for you guys to review. And then it looks like Paul and Sean and Aneesa are going to attend some function with the AIA in May 9th. So we're going to get licensed information to Paul and maybe meet. I'll set up a meeting. And I think that was all. Colin Jones: Shari, was there something regarding the model law and Washington law comparison? Shari Honeywell: Yeah. That's going to set up the model law meeting. That's all I had and then send the working document out. Sorry, go ahead. Rick Storvick: We'll send that working document after. [crosstalk 02:45:47]. Colin Jones: Okay. Good. Rick Storvick: Yep. Shari Honeywell: Yes. That's it. Roch Manley: Okay. Thank you, Shari. Now, we move on to item 10.3. Agenda items for next meeting. If you can comment on that and if anyone else has any comments to add? Shari Honeywell: Sure. Yeah, the one thing I had is to bring back the NCARB annual meeting report out and then hopefully, we'll have the charter ready to bring back and to be voted on. That would be our hope, our intent. So that's all I have for that. Did I miss anything? Scott Harm: No. Can I... Maybe this should have been in... What are we in? We're in division chapter 10, right? Other business? Shari Honeywell: Yeah. Scott Harm: Rick and Shari, what is the... Any idea on the state moving forward because of the current lifting of the mask mandates and all that stuff? When we might be contemplating in person meetings again? I'm assuming we'll always do hybrid. I think that is a default, but yeah. Rick Storvick: Right. So where we're at with being able to meet in person, which would be no doubt a hybrid, is that we're working internally within our organization and trying to get where we actually have a room set up that we can have appropriate webcams and sound so that you'd be able to see and hear people appropriately and be able to engage with anybody who's remote. Currently, the technology that we have in our facilities does not work well for that. We were in a meeting yesterday for example, and if more than one person in the meeting room spoke at once, all of a sudden, you couldn't hear anything, because it was just a garbled mess. And so we're facing a couple challenges with that one. The agency itself is trying to get several of those rooms set up, but then some of it, I know some areas we've had is we've had problems with technology because... So for example, we've issued a lot of new laptops to staff because the old laptops were dying, but for them to function, you have to have a docking station, right? Well, you can't buy the docking stations now. So we're trying to get people set up, but because the supply chain things... And so I think we had some conversations about just trying to normalize our operations in the office and where folks can come back. But because the supply chain things, if you can't have the equipment for somebody to sit down at a desk, it just doesn't work very well. So I still anticipate probably for the balance of this year, we'll probably just be remote, but if we get the room set up and when we do, I expect the first in person or hybrid meeting would be coming to Olympia, working out of the DOL, one of the conference rooms. So we can do that, probably do that a couple times. And then if we can figure out how to take a show on the road and we either know what technology to ask for like in a hotel meeting room or something so that you feel very engaged whether you're in person or remote and the public can engage appropriately. That's the point that we'll start reaching out that way. Scott Harm: Those are pretty fair to say that the Wazzu University visits probably aren't going to happen. So we get through that. Rick Storvick: Well, I don't think that they'll happen in this calendar year, but I think Wazzu is highly likely to be one of the first places that we would do a hybrid meeting away from here. And Rick has gone now, but the universities are probably much better set up than what we are within our offices because they've had to been teaching remotely. So I think university campuses are going to be really popular places for us to go when we get... Which hopefully, one of the things I'd like to get back to is the point that we're visiting those technical colleges or community colleges as well. Because I think that's been some really good outreach events for us. Scott Harm: I agree. Yeah. Thanks. Rick Storvick: Yep. Roch Manley: Yep. Agreed. Any other thoughts on agenda items or questions, comments to add? If none, moving on to item 11. This is the point in the meeting when we invite members of the public who might be in attendance or others to make statements or comments to the board, Is there any public person who wants to come forward? [inaudible 02:50:43]. It's like we have no public comment. So item 12 on the agenda is adjournment of our business meeting. So thank you all very, very much. Paul Wu: Thank you. Roch Manley: Good to see everybody. Colin Jones: Likewise. Thank you.