• Home
• About
• Archives
• Subscribe
• Contact

City Government

Library Architect Fined By State

 April 20, 2019 ⋅  Post a comment

Timing is everything. The architectural firm awarded the $11 million contract to build the Boise Library was not licensed in Idaho at the time they solicited the job.

A partner in the architectural firm Safdie and Associates has paid a $500 civil fine and $600 in legal fees to the Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses after obtaining a license seven months after soliciting business in Idaho.

Based on public documents obtained by the GUARDIAN, we learned that JAMES GREGORY REAVES, admitted to practicing architecture in Idaho without a license prior to being awarded a huge ($11 million) contract by Boise City to design a library.

Idaho code 54-305(1) states that every person practicing or offering to practice architecture in Idaho must be licensed in Idaho.

It may be a minor slap on the wrist to the Safdie partner, but to those firms that lost out in the competitive evaluation process, it has to be a slap in the face to have an unlicensed out-of-state competitor win the bid.

Boise officials evaluated the proposals October 28, 2017. Reaves obtained his license June 8, 2018.
The civil penalty agreement was signed January 31, 2019.

UPDATE 4/23/19
Here is a very recent “request for qualifications” from another government agency. We would gladly share the original Boise RFQ document if anyone has it. Note item 2.

Click for penalty agreement details.
Apologies for the formatting issue.

BEFORE THE BOARD OF ARCIDTECTURAL EXAMINERS
STATE OF IDAHO
In the Matter of the License of:
JAMES GREGORY REAVES,
License No. AR-986412,
Respondent.
Case No. ARC-2018-3
STIPULATION AND
CONSENT ORDER
WHEREAS, the Idaho Board of Architectural Examiners (“Board”) has received information that constitutes sufficient grounds for the initiation of an administrative action against James Gregory Reaves (“Respondent”); and

WHEREAS, the parties mutually agree to settle the matter in an expeditious manner in lieu of administrative hearings before the Board; now therefore,
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the undersigned parties that this
matter shall be settled and resolved upon the following terms:
T… .
STIPULATED FACTS AND LAW
1. The Board regulates the practice of architecture in the State of Idaho in accordance with Title 54, Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code.

2. The Board issued License No. AR-986412 to Respondent to practice architecture in the State of Idaho. Respondent’s license is subject to the provisions of Title 54, Chapter 3, of
the Idaho Code, and the Board’s rules as promulgated at IDAPA 24.01.01, et seq.

3. Respondent is an architect and partner at Safdie Architects, which is based in
Somerville, Massachusetts. Respondent is a licensed architect in Idaho, New York, and South Carolina.

STIPULATION & CONSENT ORDER – 1.
4. On June 8, 2018, Respondent first obtained his Idaho architecture license.
5. On or around May 16, 2018, Respondent submitted an application to the Board for an Idaho architecture licensure. As part of the application, Respondent (answered) “yes” to the following question: “Have you solicited work or practiced architecture or represented yourself as an architect in this state prior to this application?”

6. In submitting his license application to the Board, Respondent also included a letter. In his letter, Respondent stated that his firm, Safdie Architects, teamed up with a Boise based architecture firm, CSHQA, to pursue the design of the new Main Library located at 715 S. Capitol Boulevard in Boise, Idaho. Safdie Architects and CSHQA were subsequently awarded
the architectural project. Consequently, Respondent stated that he was applying for an Idaho ‘ architecture license by endorsement.

7. In pursuing a contract to design the new Main Library, Respondent provided or offered to provide architectural services in Idaho prior to obtaining an Idaho license. Respondent solicited architectural work and provided architectural planning, advice, and/or consultation as
part of the process of being awarded the project. (emphasis added)

8. The allegations set forth above constitute a violation of the laws governing the practice of architecture in the State of Idaho, specifically Idaho Code §§ 54-305(1) (stating that
every person practicing or offering to practice architecture in Idaho must be licensed); 54-314(1 )(g) (stating, that the Board may discipline any person “practicing architecture or representing oneself as a licensed architect when unlicensed”); and 54-314(1 )(1) (stating :that the
Board may discipline any licensee who violates any provision of the Board’s laws or rules).
Violations of these laws constitute grounds for disciplinary action against Respondent’s license
to practice architecture in the State ofldaho.

STIPULATION & CONSENT ORDER- 2.
II.
WAIVER OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS
In entering into this Stipulation and Consent Order (“Stipulation”), Respondent ( or
Respondent’s legally authorized representative) acknowledges the following:
9. Respondent understands and admits the allegations pending before the Board as
set forth in Section I. Respondent further understands that these allegations constitute cause for
disciplinary action upon Respondent’s license to practice architecture in the State of Idaho.
10. Respondent understands that Respondent has the right to a full and complete hearing; the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; the right to present evidence or to
call witnesses, or to testify; the right to reconsideration of the Board’s orders; the right to judicial review of the Board’s orders; and all rights accorded by the Administrative Procedure Act of the State of Idaho and the laws and rules governing the practice of architecture in the State ofldaho.

Respondent hereby freely and voluntarily waives these rights in order to enter into this Stipulation as a resolution of the pending allegations.

11. Respondent understands that in signing this Stipulation, Respondent is enabling the Board to impose disciplinary action upon the right to future licensure without further process.
m.
STIPULATED DISCIPLINE
12. Respondent acknowledges and agrees that the following discipline imposed for the violations set forth herein is reasonable under the circumstances, although not binding upon
the Board.
STIPULATION & CONSENT ORDER- 3.
Fines, Costs, and Fees
a. Respondent shall pay to the Board an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 within one hundred eighty (180) days of the entry of the Board’s
Order.
b. Respondent shall pay attorney fees in the amount of $600.00 within one hundred eighty (180) days of the entry of the Board’s Order.
• c. If Respondent fails to pay the administrative fine and attorney fees in
accordance with the terms set forth in this Stipulation, Respondent shall be
ineligible to renew License No. AR-986412 or obtain any other license
issued by the Board until such fines, costs, and attorney fees are paid in
full to the Board.
Miscellaneous Provisions
d. All costs associated with compliance with the terms of this Stipulation are
the sole responsibility of Respondent.
e. The violation of any of the terms of this Stipulation by Respondent may
warrant further Board action. The Board, therefore, retains jurisdiction
over this proceeding until all matters are resolved as set forth in this
Stipulation.
IV.
PRESENTATION OF STIPULATION TO BOARD
13. The Board’s prosecutor shall present this Stipulation to the Board with a
recommendation for approval.
14. The Board may accept, modify with Respondent’s approval, or reject this
Stipulation. If the Board rejects this Stipulation, an administrative Complaint may be filed
STIPULATION & CONSENT ORDER- 4.
against Respondent with the Board. In the event this Stipulation is rejected and an administrative
Complaint is filed, Respondent waives any potential right to challenge the Board’s impartiality to
hear the allegations in the Complaint based on the Board’s consideration and rejection of this
Stipulation. Respondent does not waive any other rights regarding challenges to Board members.
15. If the Board rejects this Stipulation, with the exception of Respondent’s waiver set
forth in the preceding paragraph, this Stipulation shall be regarded as null and void, and admissions in this Stipulation and negotiations preceding the signing of this Stipulation will not be admissible at any subsequent disciplinary hearing. Additionally, and with the exception of Respondent’s waiver set forth in the preceding paragraph, this Stipulation shall not become effective until it has been approved by a majority of the Board and a Board member signs the attached Order.

NOTE: The rest of the order is legalese which did not apply if the agreement was carried out. GUARDIAN format limits the length of text.

To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.