Licensed. Registered. Certified. Reregistration. Title law. Practice law. Review. Repeal. Appeal. Sunsetting. Sunrise. C.L.A.R.B. What do all these terms have to do with the Landscape Architect?

Unless one has an astute political mind, it is hard to comprehend all the legal terms involved in the local, state, and national political arena. In all actuality, it is a question of definition more than anything else. Once you have a solid grasp of the terms used at all levels of government, it is much easier to comprehend what it is they are trying to tell you, and how legislation affects you.

Politics are a confusing mess anyway, but when issues come up that affect you, it is essential that you have a complete understanding of what the issues are and how, exactly, they affect you and your business. As a Landscape Architect you should be aware of the status of your license and how the state views your license, the privileges it allows you, and the rights you enjoy by holding that license.

A Little Bit of History

Landscape Architects were first licensed in California in 1953 through the efforts of Mr. Raymond Page, Harry Shepard, Lynn Harris, Art Barton and George Huntington, and since that time the field of Landscape Architecture has grown to include over 9000 licensed practitioners.

Currently 40 states license Landscape Architects. In some states a legislator may challenge specific state boards by the introduction of a bill at any time during the legislative session. Other states come under “sunset” review after a designated period of time. In fact, Florida is one of the few states to have a true “sunsetting” review on a regular interval, and according to Ray Yeker of the Florida ASLA, this allows the association to be organized and prepared to not only put their case before the review board, but to further their cause through legislative action.

In contrast to Florida’s regular “sunset” review, a California legislator can, at any time, introduce legislation to abolish the California State Board of Landscape Architects, and repeal every license in the state. Legislators there have introduced four bills in the last eight years to accomplish this goal.

It is not just Landscape Architects they are after. Various associations have spent a great deal of money to defend themselves against the onslaught of legislation designed to abolish organizations which, in some cases have been in existence for over one hundred years. In come cases it is much needed legislation for the good of the public. However, a lot of bills are introduced because of the ignorance of the legislator and/or apathy on the part of the organization involved.

Although it is essential for Landscape Architects to maintain their licenses for reasons previously stated, Senator Boatwright (R. California) (who introduced SB 87 in California calling for repeal of licensing in that state) appears to have a legitimate concern based on the public’s point of view. In the Sacramento Bee of April 17, 1987, Legislative Anlayst Elizabeth Hill commented in her annual report to the legislature that?EUR??,,????'???”some of these boards serve little useful service to the consumers, while others could accomplish their goals better by being part of larger entities?EUR??,,????'???(the) Landscape Architects Board licenses professionals whose clients are mostly large organizations perfectly capable of assessing shoddy work. This Board hears few complaints and rarely takes action against the regulated professionals.”

More than meets the Eye

In the states where licenses have been repealed, considerable damage has been done not only to the LA’s, but also the contractors, architects, and engineers who depend on LA’s to develop project plans and designs. Most states, municipalities, and local governments require licensed professionals to sign design plans. According to Johanna Luce of C.L.A.R.B., this was the main reason that the Oregon State Board of Landscape Architects was reinstated after it was abolished (at a cost of the taxpayers of over $200,000) in 1981. Other reasons for re-instatement included restraint of trade and right to work issues. LA’s all of a sudden found themselves in the position of not being able to sign their own plans, nor submit plans in their own names to governments and their agencies. This allowed LA’s holding licenses in other states to come in and do the work and sign the plans.

The state of Utah lost its State board in 1973. Since then they have made no attempt to re-instate their licenses, nor have they current plans to introduce legislation in the near future. Colorado, on the other hand, has begun preliminary efforts to regain their licenses which were revoked in 1976. Illinois, which has never been licensed, began a campaign in 1975 which may become successful within the next few legislative sessions.

In California the current bill SB 87 is being reviewed by a legislative analyst to determine whether further action is warranted in the abolishment of the state Board of Landscape Architects. Up until this time the bill has been put before the Legislative Business and Professions Committee twice, but for lack of support, has been forwarded to a legislative analyst for further review. Once the legislative analyst has completed his report, a recommendation will be made as to the direction to be taken by the Committee. At that point the bill will either be killed, or be sent back to the Business and Professions Committee for further action. According to Jeff Chamlee of the CCLA, the legislative analyst will probably take until the fall for the report to go to committee.

Even if SB 87 is killed after the report has been submitted, there is no guarantee that another bill won’t be introduced during the next legislative season.

Part of the problem is that each newly elected legislator targets landscape architects because they do not understand the function of the landscape architect and the reason this group or professionals is licensed.

Three years ago Washington State went through a tough sunset review. The issue snuck up on the association and, if not for the quick reactions of Henry Boyar, then president, that state’s license status would have been in serious jeopardy. Boyar, along with a group of dedicated individuals, began a separate organization (PLAR) to fight the sunsetting bill. After two years of hard work, organization and heavy financial drain, the bill to abolish licensing in that state was killed.

The amount of work and money required to put the landscape architects’ case before the legislative committee was stunning. According to Mr. Boyar?EUR??,,????'???”even after the state house and senate had voted in favor of landscape architects keeping their licenses, the state auditor (who had headed the legislative analysis on sunsetting) went to the governor to encourage his veto over the house and senate vote.” That veto did not come about.

This is yet another example of how political the situation is. It is essential that landscape architects become involved in educating the public. It is also important that landscape architects begin policing their own profession more closely, and thoroughly examining each complaint brought before their state board. Protecting negligent practitioners does not do the person in question, or the profession any good. It is time to get tough within your profession, especially as it relates to the private residential consumer, who is the most susceptible to negligence and the least knowledgeable as to what a licensed landscape architect is.

A Practice State

The first step in solidifying all states recognizing licensed landscape architects is for the ASLA to put a firm definition on what, exactly, a landscape architect is and how they protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This definition must encompass all the things that a landscape architect does while explaining the difference with architects and engineers. After coming to a satisfying definition, this definition must be adopted in all the states, regardless if the state is licensed or not.

Only after every state has a uniform and standard definition can the next step be taken. That is, every state must push for legislation to make it a ‘Practice Act’ state. In review, Title Act requires only those who wish to use the title “landscape architect” to be licensed. Those who practice landscape architecture but use an alternative title, such as “landscape designer,” or “site planner” are not required to be licensed. A Practice Act is designed to provide mandatory licensing. Practice Acts define the “Practice of Landscape Architecture” and require that those performing this type of work be licensed.

A Title Act does little to prohibit or restrict the practice of landscape architecture. As California’s “Little Hoover Commission” (1968) noted: Title Acts are of “no value to the consumer” and if “a genuine need exists for protecting the public from persons unqualified by lack of training or education?EUR??,,????'??? and if licensing will give the needed protection, that licensing should be mandatory.”

These steps are absolutely essential if Landscape Architecture is to evolve into the profession it was intended to be. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) is not questioned; why should Landscape Architects be? Landscape Architects believe they are qualified and competent professionals worthy of holding the license that sets them apart from others. It’s time to put your money where your mouth is. Take a stand. Organize. Call the ASLA Office of Governmental Affairs and ask what you can do.

Start protecting your profession. If you are in a Practice Act state, find out what is being done to individuals practicing landscape architecture without a license. You’ll find out that very little is being done. Either your Board slaps these people on the wrist or refers the matter to another board, such as landscape contractors board. How does that protect you from non-licensed people practicing landscape architecture?

Special thanks to Henry Boyar (Washington State ASLA), Jeff Chamlee (CCLAJ, Ray Yeker (Florida ASLA), Johanna Luce (CLARBJ, Betsy Cuthbertson (ASLA Office of Governmental Affairs), Joe Heath (Chair, California State Board of Landscape Architects).

Material for this article was gathered from the following sources: Staff Sunset Review, Oregon Board of Landscape Architect Examiners (legislative research dated March 24, 1978), Washington State Legislature Budget Committee, Sunset Program and Fiscal Review (Landscape Architects Sunset Regulatory Activity preliminary report June 19, 1984). Landscape Architects Sunset Review Report 1981 (response to Assembly Bill No. 1625, California). ASLA Chapter Program Guide 1981 (Sunset and Politics). The Case for Registration of Landscape Architects in Illinois, January 1975 (Illinois Chapter ASLA).