Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board of Architecture issues education letters over alleged unlicensed practice and misuse of title
Summary
At its April 16 meeting the Mississippi State Board of Architecture voted unanimously to issue letters of education in two complaints: one alleging unlicensed practice (to be closed when sealed plans and assurances are submitted) and one for unlawful use of the title “architect” on exempt-project drawings.
The Mississippi State Board of Architecture voted April 16 to issue letters of education in two recent complaints and to track a third matter that may proceed to a formal hearing.
Executive Director John Cothron told the board that the architect respondent in Complaint #2024-11 has requested an informal conference; if the parties do not reach a settlement, the board has reserved July 23, 2025, for a formal hearing. "The architect respondent has requested an informal conference," Cothron reported.
Separately, Cothron and Jimmy Sullivan summarized Complaint #2025-1, which alleged unlicensed practice. Board member Bradford Jones moved and Leigh Jaunsen seconded a motion to issue letters of education to the contractor and the tenant explaining building-design requirements; the board said the matter will be closed once the board receives assurances of compliance and verification that properly sealed plans have been submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
In Complaint #2025-2 the board heard that the title "architect" had been used unlawfully on the cover sheet of drawings for an exempt project. Larry Bishop moved and Jaunsen seconded a motion to issue a letter of education to the respondent and to send a copy to the engineer who prepared the plans; the motion passed unanimously and the case will be closed upon receipt of assurance of compliance.
The board did not adopt disciplinary penalties at the meeting; in two matters it chose education letters and conditional closure, and in the earlier-filed case it scheduled (but had not yet set) a formal hearing date if settlement is not reached. The board's actions were procedural motions recorded in the minutes and reflect the board's current enforcement pathway rather than final adjudication.
Next steps: staff will monitor compliance and, if necessary, proceed to the July 23 hearing reserved for formal proceedings.
