By Design
Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation
Summer 2007
An Electronic Newsletter by the Maryland State Boards of:
Architects, Certified Interior Designers, Examiners of Landscape Architects
Professional Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors

Stanley J. Botts, Commissioner of DLLR’s Occupational and Professional Licensing

Stanley J. Botts is the newly appointed Commissioner of DLLR’s Occupational and Professional Licensing. He will assume the position July 18 and address the licensees in the next issue of ByDesign.

Mr. Botts comes to O&P from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) and most recently served as a Montgomery County WSSC commissioner. In addition, Mr. Botts is a retired Senior Ethics and Compliance Manager from Verizon Communications with more than 30 years of experience in the telecommunications and government sectors.  Mr. Botts' background and experience at Verizon also included expertise in appeals, compliance, employee relations and dispute resolution.

Prior to Verizon, Mr. Botts worked for the federal government's Office of Personnel Management and General Services Administration and for Washington , D.C. government, holding various positions in public service.

The long-time Montgomery County resident is an active community leader. He takes a keen interest in County issues and volunteers on the Boards of Impact Silver Spring and Leadership Montgomery.

Mr. Botts holds a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration from Central State University , Wilberforce , Ohio . He resides in Silver Spring with his wife and has two children.

To review the qualifications for board service visit the design board’s homepage: and click on a board and the Online Law & Regulations button to see the specific requirements for Appointment to the Board.

The Architect Registration Examination (A.R.E.) is continuing to change for the better. In July 2008, NCARB will launch A.R.E. 4.0. This latest version of the exam updates and improves the current format by combining graphic and multiple-choice content. The A.R.E. 4.0 integrates the exam format while emphasizing the problem-solving skills architects regularly use in day-to-day practice.

One of NCARB’s missions is to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The A.R.E. is one way in which NCARB fulfills this mission. The evolution of the A.R.E. responds to the needs of the profession and the public to provide a tool that best assesses a candidate’s knowledge, skill and ability. The planned changes to the A.R.E. have been subject to intense thought, discussion and planning to ensure they are in the best interest of the profession and the public-at-large. The A.R.E. will continue to evolve with the profession in order to maintain the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.

A.R.E. 4.0 basics:

1. A.R.E. 4.0 will launch in July 2008.

2. There will be a one-year transition period between July 2008 and June 2009 for candidates currently testing to complete A.R.E. 3.1.

3. Candidates who do not pass all of A.R.E. 3.1 by the end of June 2009 will be transitioned to A.R.E. 4.0. Depending on their specific progress, a candidate may have to repeat content already passed under A.R.E. 3.1. Candidates should refer to the NCARB Web site’s “transition candidate” page in the A.R.E. 4.0 section for a chart explaining what divisions candidates will need to take if they do not complete the corresponding division in A.R.E. 3.1.

4. A.R.E. 4.0 will integrate multiple-choice questions with graphic vignettes, but the overall exam content will remain the same.

5. A.R.E. 4.0 will have seven divisions instead of nine.

6. A.R.E. 4.0 will also introduce enhancements to the Site Grading and Mechanical & Electrical Plan vignettes.

7. This evolution of the A.R.E. has been guided by the 2001 Practice Analysis survey conducted by NCARB that provided a comprehensive analysis of the architecture profession.

Benefits of the new exam for candidates:

• Seven divisions instead of nine
• Reduced number of trips to the test center
• Integration of multiple choice and graphic content
• Condensed subject matter—study for a subject all at once
• Slightly less testing time
• Better assessment of your knowledge, skills, and abilities

The seven divisions of A.R.E. 4.0 are as follows:

Programming, Planning, & Practice (85 multiple choice + 1 vignette)
Site Planning & Design (65 multiple choice + 2 vignettes)
Building Design & Construction Systems (85 multiple choice + 3 vignettes)
Schematic Design (2 vignettes)
Structural Systems (125 multiple choice + 1 vignette)
Building Systems (95 multiple choice + 1 vignette)
Construction Documents & Services (100 multiple choice + 1 vignette)

NCARB has launched an interactive section of the site to help explain the new exam structure and ease the transition for candidates. Two charts on its site explain how A.R.E. 3.1 will transition to A.R.E. 4.0. For example, the vignettes currently administered in A.R.E. 3.1’s Building Technology division have been integrated into four A.R.E. 4.0 divisions and the vignettes in A.R.E. 3.1 Site Planning have been incorporated into two divisions. Candidates should also note that A.R.E. 3.1’s General Structures and Lateral Forces divisions will combine with the Structural Layout vignette from Building Technology to form one division in A.R.E. 4.0.

Candidates currently testing should use the next year and the extra transition year― a total of more than two years―to prepare and complete all remaining divisions of A.R.E. 3.1.

The information currently posted on the Council’s site is just the beginning. The section will continue to be updated over the next two years to address candidate concerns and to better explain the changes ahead. Candidates are encouraged to use these resources to prepare for the transition to A.R.E. 4.0. With proper planning, the transition to A.R.E. 4.0 can be smooth for everyone.

by Stephen Parker AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
Chair, State Board of Architects

Stephen Parker AIA, NCARB, LEED AP

In July 2008, NCARB will be launching the new ARE 4.0 which is a significant step in meeting the charge of the 1999 Practice Analysis Directive.

Each and every year the exam undergoes a deliberate, studied and controlled evaluation process that involves close to 100 practicing architects from across the USA and Canada . The evaluation of ARE 4.0 has been guided by the 2001 Practice Analysis survey conducted by NCARB that provided a comprehensive analysis of the architecture profession.

In order to stay current, the exam must evolve over time.  A stagnant exam does not serve the Member Boards or the profession.  Sometimes, the changes involve more than just content.  The last major change to the exam structure was over 10 years ago when it became computerized.  The nine division ARE dates back to 1983.

David Cronrath, AIA, Dean of Louisiana State University College of Art and Design has stated, “The guiding principles for continuing evolution of the ARE can be summarized as making the exam more reliable, making it more consistent, ensuring it is objectively graded and making it a proper mirror of the skills and knowledge one finds in the architectural profession.”

The best place to learn information about the ARE 4.0 is at the NCARB Web site.  If you are a candidate who has passed at least one division of the ARE prior to May 2008, you will be considered a “transition candidate.” As a “transition candidate” you will be required to continue testing in ARE 3.1 until June 2009.  If you are not finished by the end of the one-year overlap (July 2008 – June 2009), you will then be transitioned to ARE 4.0.

By offering the ARE 3.1 and 4.0 simultaneously for a one-year transition, candidates shall have ample opportunity to complete ARE 3.1 and/or prepare for ARE 4.0.  However, some divisions of ARE do not translate from 3.1 to 4.0 and therefore may need to be retaken.  The chart translating the divisions from 3.1 to 4.0 is found on the NCARB website.  For those candidates who think they may be affected by this transition and may not complete ARE 3.1 prior to June 2009, we recommend they focus on passing those divisions that do not translate directly into 4.0.  This will avoid losing any previously passed exam divisions at the end of June 2009.

In the end, ARE 4.0 will be a more concise examination. The new exam will integrate problem solving skills and practice, focus on health, safety and welfare and test each knowledge area required to be a licensed architect.

NCARB’S 2007 Survey of Registered Architects

The 2007 survey of state architectural registration boards by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) indicates there are 112,650 registered architects in the United States.  This year’s findings reflect a 4.5 percent increase over the prior year in NCARB’s fifth annual survey.  More than 3,800 initial licenses were granted to architects in the past year, an increase of 34.5 percent over last year.

by Janine S. McDonald

Douglas McCoach, AIA, Baltimore Director of City Planning, explained the “Master Planning Process” for Baltimore at the Baltimore Architecture Foundation’s Spring Forum.   McCoach’s overall theme was actually two-in-one: rebirth and renewal.  McCoach alluded to a “new character” for the downtown Baltimore skyline as a major objective.  The four-part motto seen on Baltimore buses and billboards is simple: Live—Earn—Play—Learn.  The plan attempts to address these and other critical urban planning themes for the city.

Another objective of the plan is to bring residential home buyers back to the city.  McCoach mentioned southwest Baltimore as an area of moderately priced homes which could attract those who might obtain newly created jobs in the Ft. Meade area.

The master plan is a citywide revitalization proposal introduced last year under Gov. Martin O’Malley and fully supported by interim mayor Sheila Dixon.  The plan is significant because there has not been an evaluation of this type in Baltimore in more than 30 years.

Some of the impacted neighborhoods and items to be revamped include:

Park Heights, northwest Baltimore—revitalization of residential and commercial areas; improvement of Pimlico
• Poppleton—“Re-knitting” of urban fabric with residential development; addition of market rate housing;
  encouragement of homeownership
• Uplands, Edmonson Avenue corridor—addition of over 1,000 new homes; development of Edmonson Village
  Shopping Center
• Westport—mass transit light rail access; 27 acres of public space including a two-mile recreation loop

“What we have is land.  If we use it wisely, we can make desirable places to live,” McCoach said, speaking of improvements to Baltimore’s residential neighborhoods.

Turning to downtown Baltimore, McCoach mentioned there is development anticipated for specific properties such as 300 East Pratt Street and 10 Inner Harbor.  One measure currently underway to address downtown congestion is the Pratt Street Corridor Study.  The study obtained several proposals from companies for Pratt Street, considering the fact that commuter traffic and downtown business have changed dramatically since 1964, when Pratt Street was created.

Environmental and historical concerns have not been overlooked within the plan.  The master plan also calls for designation of historic districts as well as monitoring of flood plains for possible above sea-level rises.

The event was held at the Johns Hopkins Downtown Center, the fourth in a series of lectures designed to educate the architectural community and general public about architectural and urban design issues.


On April 12, 2007, the Board for Professional Engineers approved final action to amend Code of Maryland Regulations for the signing and sealing of professional engineering drawings.  Effective July 2, 2007, this requires a professional engineer to include new information when signing and sealing documents.  Such certification will help to clearly indicate that the professional engineer prepared and/or approved the drawings while reducing occurrences of the practice of engineering with an expired license.

The new certification for engineering documents is as follows:  “Professional Certification.  I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of Maryland, License No. _______, Expiration Date: _______.”  The document, certification, seal, and signature shall appear close to one other.


On May 8, 2007, Maryland Governor Martin J. O’Malley signed HB-413, Repeal of Authority to Issue Limited Licenses.  Effective October 1, 2007, the law prohibits the issuance of a temporary license to practice engineering for a specific project.

The change in the law repeals Section 14-316 of the Business Occupations and Profession Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.  Previously, limited licenses could be issued to applicants for the practice of engineering for up to one year if they do not maintain a place of business in Maryland.
From left to right, seated:  Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown; Senate President, Thomas V. "Mike" Miller, Jr.; Gov. Martin J. O'Malley; and Michael E. Busch, Speaker of the House of Delegates.
Standing: Harry Loleas, Deputy Commissioner, Occupational & Professional Licensing, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; and Robert L. Mead, Sr., Maryland Society of Professional Engineers.

by Noël D. Adams, ASID
Courtesy of the Washington Metro Chapter of the American Society of Interior Designers, DESIGNLINE

In a move that is certain to have a significant impact on the interior design profession, the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) announced stricter exam eligibility standards effective January 1, 2008. While current guidelines merely suggest that the work experience component of the exam prerequisites be achieved under the guidance of a practicing interior designer, the new language includes a "supervised experience requirement" stating that "exam candidates who begin their interior design work experience on or after January 1, 2008 will be required to complete all of that experience under the direct supervision of an NCIDQ certificate holder, a licensed/registered interior designer, or an architect who offers interior design services."

For some current students and recent design school graduates, this new requirement will not change their course of study or the employment they seek. Individuals who began their interior design work experience in 2007 or earlier do not have to satisfy the supervised experience requirement, regardless of when they finish their work experience for exam eligibility. However, for those students who graduate in 2008 or later, it could substantially alter their plans. Those who work for designers who don't meet the new criteria will not be able to sit for the NCIDQ exam and might not be eligible for licensure in some jurisdictions. Because "no independent practice time will be accepted" for the experience requirements under the new rule, those who establish a solo practice no longer will be eligible to sit for the exam without first working for a qualified designer or architect for a minimum of 3,520 hours (or 5,280 hours, for those with fewer semester or quarter hours of education).

For example, an established professional who graduated with an interior design bachelor’s degree in 1997 and immediately opened his or her own interior design business would not have to meet the supervised work experience requirement, because his or her first day of interior design work experience took place before 2008.

However, a student who graduates with a bachelor’s degree in June 2008 and gets his or her first design job in July 2008 will have to earn all his or her work experience hours (for the purposes of NCIDQ eligibility) under a qualified supervisor. He or she could choose to work for an unlicensed practitioner for two years after graduation, but those hours would not count toward exam eligibility. He or she could then go on to work under a licensed interior designer or two more years in order to qualify. Visit for more information on exam eligibility.

While these changes, along with ongoing lobbying initiatives by ASID, seek to further regulate the practice of interior design in order to increase public awareness and legitimize the profession, they simultaneously present barriers of entry into the field. Both current and prospective interior designers must research the various qualification requirements placed on the practice of interior design and the licensure requirements in the states in which they intend to practice. Combing through the increasingly restrictive regulations is no easy task.  Nevertheless, understanding the roles and authority of NCIDQ, state regulatory boards/bodies and professional organizations such as ASID is essential.

According to NCIDQ, its role includes "the establishment of standards for education and experience and the administration of a minimum competency examination." As a professional organization, ASID validates NCIDQ’s standards by requiring passage of the exam (and therefore compliance with NCIDQ’s prerequisites to the exam) for its highest level of membership (Professional Membership). However, despite that passing the exam has long been the brass ring for interior design students, many do not realize that this achievement, while resulting in a certificate that cites a personal accomplishment and satisfies membership requirements in some professional organizations, is not necessarily enough to satisfy the certification/licensure/registration requirements of some states/jurisdictions. While membership in ASID or other professional organizations might be the most recognizable hallmark of a professional interior designer, it is in fact the individual state or other territorial regulatory agency that governs the legality of practice. In short, an interior designer might have passed the NCIDQ exam and been accepted for full membership in ASID, yet still might not meet the criteria necessary to present himself as a certified/licensed/registered interior designer or to practice interior design in an individual state.

The interior design field is rapidly evolving into a profession with a more narrowly defined course of study and training. While passage of the NCIDQ exam, membership in professional organizations and certification are presently voluntary, all three qualifications are becoming the gold standard by which the profession and consumers view interior designers. Despite the greater restrictions, this type of recognition can only elevate the profession.
Design Boards Info


by Janine S. McDonald

Have you ever wondered who writes the examinations that are taken to obtain licensure for some of the professions represented by the Design Boards?  Howard C. “Skip” Harclerode, vice chair of the Board for Professional Engineers, and Thomas Orisich of the Board for Professional Land Surveyors are two professionals who participate in the exam writing and development process.  This includes volunteering at the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), as well as traveling to the organization’s Clemson, S.C. headquarters to prepare for upcoming examinations.

Professionals from across the country gather at the NCEES headquarters to review, write and rewrite test questions.  Individuals selected from academia, government and private industry are referred to by NCEES as exam development volunteers.  Harclerode and Orisich sit on the exam development committees that evaluate exams for the professions their respective boards represent.

Harclerode has been an exam development writer for over three years for the Chemical Examination Development Committee for the Professional Engineers (PE) Exam.  He works on this committee in the spring so his responsibilities do not conflict with his additional work on the NCEES Committee on Uniform Procedures and Legislative Guidelines.  Harclerode says he often fulfills the role of a test “troubleshooter.”  After an exam is put together, two people take the test as a trial run to ensure it is of reasonable difficulty.  Harclerode performed this task for the most recent PE examination.

According to Harclerode, the exam development volunteers have a bank of questions from which to assemble an exam.  Then the process of actually evaluating the exam takes place.  Test items can be returned to the bank for future use.  After four to five uses, however, they become obsolete and usually need to be replaced.

Howard C. "Skip" Harclerode, Vice Chairman, Board for Professional Engineers
Thomas Orisich, Board for Professional Land Surveyors

This is where the task of the exam writers comes in as they work to design questions that are challenging but not impossible to complete.  Harclerode says the test writers constantly ask themselves, “Is this a question that a practicing engineer can answer?”  “We’re constantly policing ourselves,” he says.

Harclerode relates one unusual experience he had as an exam development volunteer.  He and a chemical engineering professor were working a question for an hour, although the average time should have been six minutes per question.  It was decided the question was obviously unreasonably difficult, so they rewrote it, submitted it for review by two members of their respective committee and were able to later reinsert it in the test as a usable question.

One interesting facet of Harclerode’s experiences has been being part of a small on-call group of volunteers throughout the year that is forwarded problem questions to evaluate.  Harclerode says this type of question used to statistically evaluate a pass rate is called an equator.  Test statisticians identify equators that may have been frequently missed by test-takers and send these test items to him over the Internet in an encoded format.  Harclerode says he possesses software to decode the questions, evaluate and make suggestions for improvement and return the questions encoded again to NCEES.

Orisich is completing his second year as an exam writer.  He represents part of NCEES’ Northeast Zone.  Orisich says there are approximately six committees for land surveyors, with each committee fulfilling a different function.  One committee performs item writing, producing brand new questions.  Another committee does item review, evaluating the exam before it is used to determine if all of the questions are fair.  Such tasks are meant to make sure that NCEES is meeting current practices and standards for the professions it serves.

Orisich, who sits on the Examinations for Professional Surveyors standing committee, considers it an honor to have been selected for this task.  “As a professional for 28 years, it’s a very humbling experience sitting on this committee.  At times, I’m in awe of those sitting on the committee.  It’s like, wow!  I’m one of those who actually do this.”  In addition to the respect he feels it gives him as a professional, he sees it as a fulfilling experience.  “It’s very rewarding in that it’s a very unique learning process.  It’s an interesting way to hone your profession,” Orisich says.  “You don’t get that opportunity very often.”

How do board members receive the responsibility of serving on the exam committees?  Every board member receives a letter from NCEES inviting them to submit an application for consideration by NCEES.  If selected, they are notified directly by NCEES.

NCEES currently produces 18 engineering and 2 surveying exams.  There is at least one committee for each NCEES exam, with five sub-committees under the PE Civil Engineering Committee.  Each committee consists of approximately 12 committee members and 20 consultants such as academics and those who have recently taken an exam or gotten licensed, as well as professionals who work in private industry.  Most exam development committees meet several times a year.  Volunteers arrive on a Thursday night to prepare for question development and examination review, a process that typically lasts all day Friday and Saturday.

Harclerode says he least enjoys the long hours involved in exam review.  “You’re there from 8 a.m. to 5 or 6 p.m.  At the end of the three days, your mind is like mush…it’s very, very intense but the most efficient way NCEES can do it,” he says.

Although a grueling process, Harclerode says he does it because it is a way for him to give back to his profession.  He considers his role on the Maryland Board for Professional Engineers and his responsibility as an exam development writer as two of his most significant professional accomplishments.  “It’s rewarding to me,” he says.  He also advises other professionals to get involved with promoting licensure, get involved with a licensure development committee such as the one he serves on or in talking to high school and college students.  “I get true satisfaction out of it,” Harclerode says of his exam development duties.

When asked what he most enjoys and least enjoys about being an exam writer, Orisich says one thing he does not like very much is the travel.  When asked what he enjoys most, he says “the friendships I’ve made, the food and the good southern hospitality.”
artistic page break

Have you ever wanted to look up an article from a past issue of By Design?  Well, now you can!  By Design has a new archive available on the DLLR Web site.  This feature enables readers to retrieve articles from back issues of the newsletter.  Click on the BYDESIGN NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE and scroll through the archive to find an article that interests you today.

Click here for previous issues of By Design

Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation
Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing
500 North Calvert Street, 3rd Floor
Baltimore, Maryland, 21202

Stanley J. Botts, Commissioner
Harry Loleas, Deputy Commissioner

Thomas L. Woods, Executive Director
Pamela Edwards, Assistant Executive Director
Fax 410-333-0021

By Design
Janine S. McDonald, Editor

Contributing Writers: Charles Maloy, Steve Parker, Skip Harclerode, Pamela Edwards, Harry Loleas, Janine S. McDonald, Milena Trust, Thomas L. Woods


State Board of Architects
Stephen L. Parker, Chair, Architect,
Montgomery County
Diane Cho, Architect, Baltimore City
Gary A. Bowden, Architect, Baltimore City
R. Glen Stephens, Architect, Howard County
Paul R. Edmeades, Architect, Harford County
Gary Ey, Consumer Member, Harford County
Juan Torrico, Consumer Member, Baltimore County

Terry White, Executive Secretary

State Board of Examiners of Landscape Architects

Charles Bailey, Chair, Landscape Architect,
Howard County
Michael Fisher, Landscape Architect, Harford County
Liling T. Tien, Landscape Architect, Baltimore County
Evonne Caison, Consumer Member, Prince George's County
Ralph E. Reisler, Consumer Member, Cecil County

Mrs. Deborah Evans, Executive Secretary

State Board for Professional Land Surveyors

Charles Maloy Ed.D, Chair, Consumer Member, Baltimore County
Daniel P. Lavelle, Land Surveyor, Frederick County
Joan G. Dunne, Consumer Member, Baltimore County

John V. Mettee, III, Land Surveyor, Harford County
Thomas M. Orisich, Land Surveyor,
Baltimore County
Donald J. Ocker, Property Line Surveyor,
St. Mary's County

Mrs. Deborah Evans, Executive Secretary

State Board for Professional Engineers

Eugene C. Harvey, P.E., Chairman, Civil Engineer  Member, Anne Arundel County
Pastor Farinas, P.E., Electrical Engineer Member, Montgomery County
Sandra J. Murphy, Consumer Member, Prince George's County
Sallye E. Perrin, P.E., Civil Engineer Member, Baltimore City
H.C. Harclerode II, P.E., Vice Chairman, Chemical Engineer Member, Baltimore County
Steven A. Arndt, Mechanical Engineer Member, Montgomery County
Rosalind L. Yee, Consumer Member,
Anne Arundel County

Dorothy Matricciani, Executive Secretary

State Board for Certified Interior Designers

Diane Gordy, Chair, Certified Interior Designer, Montgomery County
Teri Bennett, Certified Interior Designer, Baltimore
Carla K. Viar, Certified Interior Designer, Washington County
Scott A. McGovern, Licensed Architect, Baltimore County
Ellen Schofield, Certified Interior Designer
Austine R. Fink, Consumer Member
Janis Daniels, Executive Secretary