From The Publisher June 1998 The Passive Landscape Architect . . . . "I'll tell you . . . we fought and fought to get a practice act and then, once we got it, we put on the ole' cone of silence . . . . . " - Landscape Architects in almost every state... What is it about Landscape Architects that makes them so overall passive about their licensure? I have been writing this column now for about 14 years, and I can't tell you how often I've contemplated this question. You know it's not every Landscape Architect that's passive. I've met so many individuals who have a tremendous fire in them, but when you get together as a whole or as a committee something happens that has hindered the profession for many, many years. Sure, there have been some recent victories in licensure, such as North Carolina getting a Practice Act and Utah avoiding sunset, but then as we have seen in so many states, AZ, CA, FL, etc. once the sunset is turned back, once an act is received or once a compromise is achieved, the profession goes silent. In North Carolina, there's been a Practice Act in place for about a year but there has been no enforcement or legal precedence set to test or prove the act's legitimacy. In Utah a new piece of legislation has averted the sunset of the act but there had to be such haste that the definition was incomplete so that it has now gone to committee and onto the back shelf in the lives of the LA populace . . . . "we'll leave it in their hands . . . . In California, after a slurry of special meetings and task groups and independent posturing, LA's were forced into joining the architects. Forced to compromise, the talk was to keep fighting, look for alternatives, but the overall action has been to let it ride . . . In Colorado, at the last minute on the floor of the House, without warning, a site planning provision was added to a bill introduced by the Architects to define the practice of architecture and, if the bill passes, Landscape Architects (who still do not have their own licensing law) could be excluded from site planning altogether in the state, or charged with practicing architecture if they do a site plan (the bill would also increase the minimum fine to $1,000 for violating the provisions of the act). In Florida, last fall, at the urging of the FL/ASLA, the state licensing board adopted the CLARB Model Law definitions by regulation. The Florida Engineering Society has objected to these changes-- which outline the practice of Landscape Architecture in the state-- and are consequently challenging the regulation. On all fronts, the licensure/registration of Landscape Architects is being challenged by well organized, well-funded and savvy groups of architects and engineers. At the same time ASLA has only one full time staffer working on licensure issues and his responsibilities also include all matters of legislation . . . federal and state. No wonder we're losing the war . . . and yes, Landscape Architects are winning a battle or two along the way, but on the whole, we're losing the war to the A&E's. Forget all that talk about A&E's gaining respect for the profession. It's nothing more than a Himmleresque propaganda campaign to lull you to sleep. The respect those other professions are gaining is a respect for the profits they see coming from taking over your business. Recently ASLA has mounted a campaign to get its members to buy their local elected representative a copy of their association magazine. While it's a good idea to send those people a magazine, the ASLA is treating it as a money making proposition by charging the member for the subscription. Instead, the ASLA should just do it and get those people the magazine . . . and the membership should demand it so! Oh no . . . is Schmok gonna rip the ASLA again . . . No . . . not exactly As a part of LASN's Vision 2000 (see above) we wish to unite the profession and reconcile the ASLA with the RLA. To do this the ASLA must forget all the hubbub about award-winning association management and set its focus on Licensure. ASLA can take a major step in that direction with two specific actions. First, forget the extra tax of subscription buying and the hit or miss exposure that it would deliver and just send the legislators, en masse, a copy of the Society's magazine. After all, that's really what it's there for. Next, hire a full time TEAM to attack the licensure battles. One person cannot begin to mount a national front or be expected to even keep up the ever-changing front. There should be no more surprise additions to legislation unless it's the LA surprising the A&E's! Whatever the society spends its money on, it cannot be as important to the membership (and the whole profession) as the licensure issue. This is no time for a passive, facade-like treatment of this issue. Instead it is time to be proactive-- drop everything else and get into this war with a full arsenal! Anything short of full committal will result in a slow, painful and tragic takeover of the profession. It's in your hands . . . . . Earthman X