As a Federal Government employee and AIA member, I am constantly seeking out opportunities to gain additional knowledge in areas related to the practice of architecture and the science and technology facility type I am involved with.  In addition to attending a very limited number of sponsored training opportunities each year due to business schedule and budget constraints, AIA members are able to "Self Report" many continuing education opportunities that are not "sponsored" by any vendor, provider, manufacturer or sales rep.  Who is going to predetermine the number of credit hours I report for the research I do developing biomedical design criteria for the Department of the Army?  or a presentation on facility impacts to respond to increasing biosafety and surety regulations? To the AIA, this research constitutes valuable, credible continuing education.  There is no sponsor, and there is no one that does an assessment at the conclusion of the activity to verify that I have achieved the purpose and objective.  Yet the AIA considers this acceptable credit.  Why shouldn't the State of Virginia? Computation of credit is proposed to the developer of a training course at twice that which a student would get taking the course, but not to someone conducting independent research to develop criteria or manuals that affect the design of a building. 

As a Public Architect in practice for over 25 years, I choose to maintain a license because it signifies a level of professionalism.  I am not responsible for stamping documents, nor do I practice independently.  There should be an exception granted to Public Architects who are in a supporting role and maintain a license for credibility rather than responsibility.