To improve the Oklahoma Architectural Act; Provide Oklahoma citizens and businesses with a uniform standard for the protection of public health, safety and welfare as it relates to the built environment; Raise that standard to a level that matches the laws in adjacent states. This is one of several White Papers to generally explain the need and proposals to be presented to the Oklahoma Legislature's 2003 session.

In the past some owners have complained of added costs to their projects whenever the law has required them to hire architects for their projects. This argument lacks merit based on both regulatory and service issues.

From a regulatory perspective all states currently license professions due to the need to provide a minimum level of protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Barbers, electricians, realtors, food handlers and health care workers are but a few of those licensed in one form or another. Each of those professions provides a service that could be conducted by non-licensed individuals, to one degree or another. The state still requires the licensing of those individuals in recognition of the public well being. The state does not stop the licensing of individuals simply because of added costs.

From a service perspective architectural services are not an "added cost" issue. Owners who have never employed an architect are usually the first to complain about "added costs". Those owners fail to view the cost-benefit ratio. Applicable buildings designed by architects are usually more functional, more efficient, more compliant with building code and ADA requirements, more energy efficient and in some cases constructed with noticeably less square footage than similar buildings designed without an architect. Each of these actions has the opportunity to save the building owner even more total funds than the initial cost of architectural services. Clearly, those positives are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare.

In the past opposition to changing the application of the Oklahoma Architectural Act has come from the homebuilders and lumbermen's associations. Fearful of loosing "turf" these organizations have opposed all previous attempts to deal with this section of existing Oklahoma law. At quick look at surrounding states shows that there has been no detrimental effort or damage to the business of these groups. This situation exists even in those states whose architectural laws are even more restrictive that Oklahoma will have AFTER the passage of these proposals. In addition, the construction most frequently dealt with by the homebuilders and lumbermen's associations, i.e. single family homes through 16 unit apartments, are still to be exempted from the proposed requirements of the Oklahoma Architectural Act. Clearly, opposition to these changes to the Oklahoma Architectural Act can not be made based on "turf" arguments.

In the past another "turf" argument against changing the application of the Oklahoma Architectural Act has come from those claiming that the architectural community is solely trying to increase the number of buildings that will fall under the requirements of the Oklahoma Architectural Act. A cross check of the existing Oklahoma Architectural Act's requirements and those being proposed will show that many of the proposed changes are in language and format only. Those buildings are already under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Architectural Act. A check with building inspections departments around the state will show that a great many of the currently exempted building types are already being constructed under the management of an Oklahoma licensed architect. This is a recognition by those owners of the benefits of architectural involvement in their building programs. Clearly, opposition to the proposed changes to the Oklahoma Architectural Act can not be made based on "turf" arguments.

In the past some opposition to changing the application of the Oklahoma Architectural Act has come based on the argument that "things have been this way since 1947 - why change." The answer is obvious - the world and state of construction is not the same now as was the case 55 years ago. The existing law's wording is antiquated. That wording has not kept pace with the naming conventions and types of different buildings that are being constructed in today's world. Too many loopholes exist legally in the current Oklahoma Architectural Act. The loopholes are further complicated by a very confusing statement of grammar and punctuation in the existing Oklahoma law.

As far as precedent is concerned, a check of the architectural laws in all other states will show that each state has made several changes over the last 55 years in their respective state's architectural laws - unlike Oklahoma. As a result more buildings are legally exempted under the Oklahoma Architectural Act than is the case in any other state.

Precedent also says that, like most other states, Oklahoma should change this section of the law so that it is very easily understood by those affected by its application - architects, engineers, owners, contractors, sub-contractors, tradesmen, building officials, fire marshals, municipal and state government officials, attorneys, school superintendents and developers.

In the past some opponents of changes to the Oklahoma Architectural Act have argued that there is no demonstrated need to improve upon the existing public health, safety and welfare issues relevant to the Architectural Act. As has been discussed in this series of white papers improvement in this part of Oklahoma's protection of the public health, safety and welfare is absolutely necessary to raise the standard equally to all of Oklahoma's construction and to more nearly approach the standards of surrounding states. To do so will improve the business climate and the personal safety of Oklahoma citizens and visitors.

The central reason for making the proposed changes to the Oklahoma Architectural Act is to bring this portion of Oklahoma law into the 21st century on par with other states in the interest of providing equal protection of the public health, safety and welfare.

A hypothetical example relates to an out-of-state business traveler or tourist. Each person has the choice of eating, sleeping, conducting business and visiting points of interest in Oklahoma buildings. Neither type of person is generally aware of the Oklahoma Architectural Act. Should not the state of Oklahoma provide the same level of public health, safety and welfare concern for its guests as does Missouri, Kansas or Texas when that same guest travels in those states?

Should not the state of Oklahoma provide the same level of public health, safety and welfare concern for its citizens who are eating, sleeping, conducting business and visiting points of interest in buildings all over the state of Oklahoma?