July 2024 | Vol. 33, No. 3

Sanctions Issued for ARE Misconduct

Last month NCARB issued sanctions for a candidate who violated the ARE Candidate Agreement by exhibiting inappropriate conduct during an exam administration, unauthorized use of electronic devices while testing, and copying, recording, or disseminating exam content.

The candidate received a public reprimand and exam scores connected to the violations have been invalidated. The candidate’s testing authorization is suspended for four years, he is required to complete 10 hours of ethics education, and is banned from taking future divisions via online proctoring. 

For more information visit the NCARB website.

NCARB Fees Increase August 1

NCARB will increase the following fees, effective August 1, 2024. Announcing this decision NCARB stated, “This will be the first time NCARB has adjusted candidate Record holder fees since 2016, and exam fees will be updated for the first time since 2018. This increase addresses rising costs due to inflation—including increased information security costs—while still keeping NCARB’s fee adjustments below benchmarks for inflation over the past 10 years.” Some increases include:

• Licensure candidate Record renewal: $100 (previously $85)
• ARE cost per division: $250 (previously $235)
• Licensure candidate Record reactivation: $100 (previously $85) plus the cost of all outstanding renewal fees, up to $200 (previously $185)
• Annual architect Record and NCARB Certificate holder renewal fees: $285 (previously $270)
• Reciprocity and international transmittals: $475 per transmittal (previously $450)

A complete list of fees is on NCARB website.

New registrants Francisco Castellanos Pulida, Nabila Sarkar, Savita Deva and Jorge A. Hernandez Castro.

Board Finds Registrant in Violation of NRS 623.270.1(f)(1), NRS 623.325.1 and ROC 1.1: Case Nos. 24-027R and 24-034R

The respondent, Michael Peterson (147-RD), was alleged to have violated NRS 623.270.1(f)(1) and ROC 1.1 on two separate counts by not acting with reasonable care and competence nor applying the knowledge and skill ordinarily applied by residential designers in good standing practicing in Nevada. The respondent was also alleged to have violated NRS 623.325.1 by failing to have a written contract.

The board found Michael Peterson violated all counts of NRS 623.270.1(f)(1), NRS 623.325.1, and ROC 1.1. As Peterson was already on probation from previous matters, the board suspended the respondent’s residential designer license for three years, effective January 1, 2025. In the interim the respondent must contact all current clients, inform them of the disciplinary action, allow them to retain a new design professional, or allow him to complete the project prior to the suspension date. Peterson must complete specified practice management and professional conduct continuing education classes and pay all outstanding fines before applying for reinstatement. Peterson was also ordered to pay all costs and fees for the investigation and hearing.

Inquiries are routinely sent to both registrants and non-registrants for alleged violations of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) and Nevada Administrative Codes (NAC). 

There were two cases this period that were submitted for board consideration and approved. Additionally, six cases were closed because there was no basis for the allegations or the complaint did not fall within the board's jurisdiction.

The following cases were closed by means of settlement agreement; as part of the agreement respondents agreed to assure compliance with Chapter 623. Should the respondents be involved in a subsequent case and found to have again violated NRS, NAC or Rules of Conduct, the case may be used as an aggravating factor.

Every effort is made to ensure that the following information is correct. Before making any decision based on this information you should contact the NSBAIDRD.

Holding Oneself Out, Advertising, and Unlicensed Practice of Architecture, Registered Interior Design or Residential Design: NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c)

Case 24-024N

The allegations against Donna Johnson and Luxe Design were that they held themselves out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of architecture and residential design and engaged in the practices of architecture and residential design without having a certificate of registration with the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating an administrative penalty of $6,000 plus investigative costs of $2,000.

Advertising and Unlicensed Practice of Architecture, Registered Interior Design or Residential Design: NRS 623.360.1(b)(c)

Case 24-025N

The allegations against Nenah Washington and Neet Design Group were that they issued a proposal offering to provide services that fall under the practice registered interior design and engaged in the practice of registered interior design without having a certificate of registration with the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating an administrative penalty of $4,000 plus investigative costs of $1,500.