The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Buildin

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:05 pm

If you read the Opinion it discusses the Oireachtas and the EU - it refers to the Oireachtas as being omnipotent.
My comments above discuss this assertion.
I believe it cannot be omnipotent in an unlimited sense.
The roles of the High, Supreme and European Courts in commenting on legislation and reviewing it in the light of the constitution strongly suggest otherwise.

CK, I asked for your permission to pass the Opinion on to someone for review in an e-mail I sent earlier today and you might respond.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:44 am

onq wrote:If you read the Opinion it discusses the Oireachtas and the EU - it refers to the Oireachtas as being omnipotent.
My comments above discuss this assertion.
I believe it cannot be omnipotent in an unlimited sense.
The roles of the High, Supreme and European Courts in commenting on legislation and reviewing it in the light of the constitution strongly suggest otherwise.

CK, I asked for your permission to pass the Opinion on to someone for review in an e-mail I sent earlier today and you might respond.

ONQ.


I was on site inspecting the construction of a small extension in Castleknock when you sent the email. However, I have replied to you positively about 2 hours before your post that I am know answering.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:56 am

PTD wrote:Hi All,

I am currently preparing a Technical Assesment submission.

My progress so far includes a substantial part of Volume 1 complete and some work on Volume 2. I wondered if there were any others in a
similar position and if they would be interested in meeting as
a group at intervals as a means to help each other by sharing information and approaches. I'm in the Leinster area and could travel.
Please feel free to PM or email me if you are in a similar position.


PTD,

I am wondering why people accept to pay E6,500 for preparing the technical assessment that will give them the right to practice in Ireland only, when a British institute that I will not name charges only £100 to give you similar rights in Ireland, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, China, and many other countries...

I am also wondering how this British Institute is able to produce a similar examination at about 1/60 of the RIAI cost. The Institute of the Engineers of Ireland's cost for registering through experience is also a couple of hundred euro, then I guess that the problem lay with the RIAI. Why is the minister staying quiet on this financial issue?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby PTD » Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:57 pm

Hi CK,

Yes the money issue bites hard with me. Your arguements make sense.
However I cannot let it dominate my desire for professional development. I studied architecture in the past but did not complete the
course and that's my tough luck. For one reason or another i'v stuck with architecture. I'v slowly built up a client base from private domestic work, to work that includes schools and community centres. I can't afford to sound vague or dismissive when it comes to outlining to potential clients my credentials. And where capital investment is concerned (god knows if there will be any soon) government departments only want to see the right set of papers behind the name. I am prepared to come up with the fee for TA but only if I am sure I have a submission that will be acceptable.

On another note I have been informed by the RIAI that some form of
subvention may be applied to the 6.5K. What I am told is that the fee
is going to come down to around 5K. However this has'nt been confirmed yet by the RIAI so don't hold me to this.
PTD
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:54 pm

PTD wrote:Hi CK,

Yes the money issue bites hard with me. Your arguements make sense.
However I cannot let it dominate my desire for professional development. I studied architecture in the past but did not complete the
course and that's my tough luck. For one reason or another i'v stuck with architecture. I'v slowly built up a client base from private domestic work, to work that includes schools and community centres. I can't afford to sound vague or dismissive when it comes to outlining to potential clients my credentials. And where capital investment is concerned (god knows if there will be any soon) government departments only want to see the right set of papers behind the name. I am prepared to come up with the fee for TA but only if I am sure I have a submission that will be acceptable.

On another note I have been informed by the RIAI that some form of
subvention may be applied to the 6.5K. What I am told is that the fee
is going to come down to around 5K. However this has'nt been confirmed yet by the RIAI so don't hold me to this.


I am preparing the examination to become a full member of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologist (CIAT) which is a British based organization. I am told that it will give me similar rights than architects in Ireland, the UK, China and other countries. Do you mean that this is not true? You say that government departments only want to see the right set of papers; do you mean that the affix “MCIAT” is not recognized by the Irish Government?

Honestly, I feel more like an architect than an Architectural Technologist, but I cannot clearly understand the difference between the 2 professions when I listen to the CIAT definition of the term.

I would prefer to register with an institute in Ireland, but there is only the RIAI and they do not consider technologists as equal to architects and the ARAE is unaffordable and unpractical for someone of my age who worked in 3 different countries.

The exam will only cost me £100 + a trip to London and probably 400 to 500 hours of work.

I would have preferred to be registered in Ireland as I am now working locally only.

I am also concerned with the RIAI to take away the rights of CIAT members in Ireland. I guess that if this is happening, and if I cannot register as an architect in the Republic, I will have no other alternative than to return to the UK that I left 10 years ago exactly.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:51 pm

CK wrote:I was on site inspecting the construction of a small extension in Castleknock when you sent the email. However, I have replied to you positively about 2 hours before your post that I am know answering.


Hi CK,

Got that and replied to your mail.

Thanks.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby PTD » Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:12 pm

Hi CK,

I looked into the CIAT process back in 2007 when The BCA first came
out and the RIAI ran the pilot scheme for TA. It looks like a very well established professional body who aim to provide recognition for members who choose to be self employed and run jobs from brief inception to completion. Also they can certify works but I'm not sure how far this extends in Ireland as they are a predominately UK organisation. I know that AIB allow Members to issue certs on homeloans.

I cant really comment much further than this not knowing your backround
and where you want to take your career/practice from here. But i don't think you will loose out by becoming a member of CIAT.

Just to say something about TA (if one can get around the crazy price) I'v completed some of the process and I have to say that it has helped
me take a look at where I am going professionally-this being especially relevant since the downturn has obliterated the housing side of things.
PTD
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:04 pm

I can only endorse taking an in-depth review of one's practice.
It puts a deeper level of understand on John Graby's exhortation that we should "take time to reflect".
Initially this sounded like a trite phrase, but the more I consider it, the wiser it seems to be in the context of development.
A lot of mistakes were made in the past ten years, and to my mind the laissez faire approach to finance percolated through many levels to planning and development.
The nonsense spattering of the country with nodes, gateways and other buzzwords made it seem like development should occur all over the place without rhyme or reason and the provision of a brand new motorway network did nothing to discourage the adoption of this principle.

A lot of in-depth reflecting now needs to occur with perhaps an independent, private instition being set up to advise the government on plannign matters.
Minister Gormley has taken the initiative on this and set up a think tank of sorts, but this may be tainted by association and fail come any change in government.
Its important that the professions preserve their indepdence and impartiaity in matters which have been shown to affect an entire economy and not simply act as whore and prostitutes for developers.
Sometimes the client is wrong, and needs to be properly advised of this by competent people, so that he does not end up surrounded by Yes men taking their commissions and laughing all the way to the bank.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby PTD » Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:56 pm

I don't know ONQ, a certain madness seems to be part of the Irish condition as the thread below may demonstrate;

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=7922
PTD
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:33 pm

PTD wrote:I don't know ONQ, a certain madness seems to be part of the Irish condition as the thread below may demonstrate;

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=7922


(nods)

Saw it many moons ago PTD - commented on it on daft.ie or myhome.ie one of the property websites - amazing to see the proposal - utter lunacy, but stacks up well if funded by a casino proposal.

After all, the only thing las Vegas has is a desert.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:23 am

What about the Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010. It was supposed to be assessed by the government yesterday. Any news about it? As the motion been delayed for a third time?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:12 pm

No news.

As somone we both know said the last time this question was raised, they probably have a lot on their minds right now.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:29 pm

onq wrote:No news.

As somone we both know said the last time this question was raised, they probably have a lot on their minds right now.

ONQ.


They probably have even more in their bank account.:D
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:41 pm

Roight then, here we go:

============================================

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/uk/arb-faces-challenge-to-part-ii-%E2%80%98injustice%E2%80%99/5008469.article

Arb faces challenge to part II ‘injustice’

A legal precedent allowing those qualified to part II to call themselves architects could be set following an application from an architectural assistant to join the Arb register
Paul McGrath’s action was prompted by the Arb’s “discrimination” in forbidding UK-trained part IIs from calling themselves architects while admitting European architects with the same kind of qualification.

McGrath, who was awarded his part II in 1984, has set up The Association of Part Two Architects (Tapta). Tapta’s first official act was to write to Andrew Stunell, the minister in charge of the Architects’ Act, calling for an end to the “injustice”.
At the same time, McGrath applied to join the Arb register. British people need part III to do this, but an EU directive allows most Europeans to join with the equivalent of a part II qualification.
“My motive is to correct an injustice,” said McGrath, adding that it was ridiculous that those with master’s degrees are forced to call themselves assistants.

Should Arb reject his application – as he expects them to – he is prepared to challenge the board in the High Court. However, he would also accept a compromise two-tier system. Under this, part IIIs would continue to be classified as “registered architects” but a new “certified architects” category would be created for part IIs.
Prominent Arb critic Ian Salisbury said he was delighted by McGrath’s challenge.

“Clearly countries in the EU are coming out of recession at different speeds so it’s a great shame that young British people with part 2 are unable to fully qualify and thus go abroad for work as architects.
“It is unfair that those in Britain have to do a whole extra year of study to call themselves architects. If Arb was to turn down McGrath’s application, he could challenge this on the grounds of irrationality,” he said.
Arb and CLG said they were looking into the matter before responding.


============================================

AND

============================================

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/uk/arb-threat-to-new-association-of-part-ii-architects/5008791.article

Arb 'threat' to new association of Part II architects

The founder of the newly created Association of Part Two Architects (TAPTA) has complained to a minister after receiving a “threatening” letter from the Arb.
Paul McGrath, an architectural assistant, applied to join the Arb register last week in a move which he hopes could create a legal precedent for thousands of professionals trained only to part II.

He also wrote to Andrew Stunell, the minister responsible for the Architects’ Act, urging him to end the Arb’s “discrimination” in forbidding UK-trained part IIs from calling themselves architects while admitting European architects with the same level of qualification.
The only response was a letter from Arb chief executive Alison Carr warning him about the use of the term “part two architect”.
McGrath said some of his members were “scared out of their wits” by the letter.

In his reply to Carr, he wrote: “As our purpose is to campaign for the part II qualification to be formally recognised in its own right it seems undemocratic not to be able to freely use the phrase ‘part II architect’ in any debate.”
He also wrote again to Stunell questioning whether the Arb should be threatening TAPTA when its members had not broken the law.

Association of Consultant Architects president Brian Waters said part IIs could be “fobbed off” no longer and described the Arb’s letter as “intimidating”.
He said: “The system has to acknowledge the inequality and either raise the bar for everyone else or, if they can’t do that – and they’ve had long enough – find a means to recognise the part II qualification on its own terms.”

The RIBA’s Richard Brindley acknowledged the anomaly but said a two-tier system would be confusing. The solution was to develop qualifications that were transferrable across the EU, he said.
An Arb spokesman said McGrath’s application was being considered. He added it would be illegal to use the term “part two architect” in a business context.

Letter to TAPTA from Arb November 4
TAPTA letter to Andrew Stunell November 9
TAPTA letter to Arb November 10

============================================

I have added the emphasis in bold.

I would support the suggestion by Paul McGrath for recognition for Part II Architects and this was the substance of my submission to the JOC on 18th May 2010
However, the facts as reported suggest that the Registrar here seems far more amenable to discussion and resolution than the ARB in Britain, so why is everyone clamouring for an independent ARB as opposed to the RIAI.

It could make everything a heck of a lot worse for Part II's and Grandfathers alike.
To those of you familiar with this thread I refer you to the Poll above.

Once again I am struck by the irony of making a post which seems to show the Registrar in a positive light.
After all, I am supposed to be John Graby's nemesis according to one poster here. :D

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:07 pm

John Graby, RIAI Director, persists on his misleading allegations that the Building Control (Amendment) Act 2010 is in breach of EU Law. http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202010/November2010.pdf
See page 18-21
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby batten » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:35 pm

which particular part or statement is misleading?
batten
Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:39 pm

batten wrote:which particular part or statement is misleading?


Page 19 of the Gazette, J. Graby says that:

"RIAI has received an opinion from Gerard Hogan SC (unti recently, and now appointed to the High Court) on whether the amendment to the act, proposed by John O’Donoghue TD, and supported by the alliance, was compatible with the Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC."

The opinion in my possession is about compliance with EU Law, not compliance with Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC

Page 19 of the Gazette, J. Graby says that:

Mr Montaut also draws comparisons with doctors, nurses, lawyers, and so on, on the basis that the titles of their profession are not protected.

The RIAI are the first to have made such comparisons, not Brian Montaut. He was only using the RIAI arguments as per the misleading RIAI radio advertsing which was stopped by the BAI.

Page 21 of the Gazette, J. Graby says that:

It is revealing that, in this debate, no mention is made of the original purpose of registration – namely consumer protection.

To protect consumers it is the profession that shall be regulated. The actual legislation defended by the RIAI does not do so. The Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010, would allow to take this route without discriminating those who are confronted to a financial and inadequate barrier when willing to register today.

Page 21 of the Gazette, J. Graby says that:

No regulatory body could have other than grave concerns if a person were to be admitted to a register whose competence had not been independently assessed and where relevant EU standards were to be ignored.

Mr Graby fail to say that he was never assessed as per EU standards because these standards were not in place when he qualified. Some members of the institute were assessed 20 years ago or more, why shouldn't they be re-assessed today in the name of public interest? Their qualification does not reflect the practice of architecture today. Many Members of the RIAI would have refused to be assessed for the purpose of being registered. Many of them would fail the Prescribed Register Examination imposed on some of us today. Why is Mr Graby pretending that it is only Architects' Alliance who refused to be assessed on some biased criteria?

Page 21 of the Gazette, J. Graby says that:

While the RIAI is engaged with government on this matter, the RIAI is not instructing or requiring architects on the register to take any particular stance. If, however, they have concerns, then they have a democratic right to make these concerns known.

Mr Graby fails to say that prior to the Building Control Act 2007, the RIAI represented professionaly qualified architects only. Does he sincerely want us to believe that this has changed today?

Page 21 of the Gazette, J. Graby says that:

The RIAI, in its role as a competent authority, has responsibility to other EU member states to provide evidence; this documentation is issued and accepted on the basis of mutual trust. If there were architects on the register in this state who have not been assessed to the EU minimum standards, then the competence and access to EU markets of all Irish architects would be called into question.

Mr Graby knows that the Irish Register of Architect concerns only Ireland and no other countries. He knows that it is full membership of the RIAI that gives Irish architects the right to practice in Europ. if his intentions are honest, why is he trying to pretend the contrary?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:46 pm

Another issue, not related to this Law Society Gazette article, on which the public is misled, is related to certification.

All banks and solicitors ask for architects’ certificates, however they would accept building surveyors' certificates, some engineers' certificates and registered architectural technicians certificates.

The public is not aware of that and they pay sometimes twice as much for using the services of RIAI members, because they are misled on this issue.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:52 pm

In terms of protection of the public two factors arise - competence and integrity.
Certainly proof of competence can be claimed by reference to a third level qualification and a professional practice exam.

however t is well known in every discipline involving the exercise of skill or craft that academic studies and exams can only bring you so far.
Beyond that point the skill or craft must be exercised and, where regulation governs the exercise, practice must be gained by "learning the ropes".
Also, just as the market is a poor tool for accreditation of third level qualification, so third level qualifications are a poor yardstick whereby to judge a professional's integrity.

Yet both competence and integrity can be shown by reference to a career in a profession spanning 10 years or more - its a matter of what a person has done as opposed to what they will do.
Given a certain level of competence in design and a good track record serving the public, this really comes down to an equitable and affordable means of assessment.
It is hard to break away from the idea of qualitative assessment when it comes to design, for quality is precisely what defines good from poor or poor from bad.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby PVC King » Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm

onq wrote:Yet both competence and integrity can be shown by reference to a career in a profession spanning 10 years or more, so this really comes down to an equitable and affordable means of assessment.

ONQ.


+1 you've nailed the perfect one liner
PVC King
 

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:45 am

(bows)

I try. :)

It is this competence of persons who have been providing an acceptable service to their community for in many cases twenty years, not seven, that the Building Control Act 2010 was intended to support.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:22 am

onq,

One of the problems so far is that competence is assessed by the RIAI and that they have set standards and financial barriers has to minimize the entry of self-trained architects on the register.

Another problem is that quality is recognized differently in function of taste and in function of the criteria of assessment.

Your comment on quality is somewhat hypocrite if I consider that you bullied me to support the bill.

I am not afraid of being assessed through a fair system. I am preparing my MCIAT and it is a laborious task. However the cost is only £100.

The problem in Ireland is that the assessments are biased. The request for a quantitative rather than qualitative examination was targeting this matter. It is easy to prove the wrong doing of the assessor on a quantitative matter and more difficult on a qualitative one.

If it is only about quality, why aren’t we all passing the same exam as they do in the US and Canada? Qualified and non qualified assessed the same way?

The request for a quantitative exam rather than qualitative is important because it prevents the RIAI to claim that domestic extensions are not sufficient to register as an architect. It prevent the RIAI to use any pretext they can to discredit self-trained architects.

The real problem is that the RIAI was representing professionally qualified architects only and that the RIAI is now assessing self-trained architects. One who does not see the conflict of interest here must be blind.

The problem with the RIAI being the only institute to register architects is that there is no competition and that they favor their members.

Considering engineers in Ireland, I am aware of a minimum of 3 institutes: IEI, ACEI, IIE. As a result, the cost for a self-trained to register as an engineer in Ireland is about 5% of the fees charged by the RIAI.

I cannot understand that CIAT can charge only £100 for assessing qualified or self-trained Chartered Architectural Technologists when the RIAI asks €11,500 + €2,000 (seminaries) to assess self-trained architects. How does the IEI charges only €350 to do the same for its engineers?

Comparison with registration in other countries arrives to the same conclusion. The RIAI is abusing its position to discriminate self-trained professionals using financial means and others such as misleading advertising, delays in the procedure and everything they can to discourage applicants.

If there was another body to register architects in Ireland, the competition between the 2 groups would bring the cost of registration down, not only for self-trained… I think that we could see the cost of registration being slashed.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:35 am

Is it normal that some of us have to register in the UK today only because of the financial barriers set up by the RIAI?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:48 pm

CK,

Your questions are velid, but you're asking the wrong guy.

All of archiseek already knows where I stand in relation to all of this.

Lord knows I've posted about it in depth and frequently here and elsewhere.

So I'll treat your querstions as rhetorical, but note that there is a big difference between seminars and seminaries.

You really need to bone up on your english if you're thinking of writigs another letter to the Times on this, for example.

Although, given the earlier reference to John Graby as Cardinal Mazarin in this thread, perhaps your reference to "seminaries" is not so wide of the mark after all. :)

Image

"What did I ever do to John O'Donoghue, O Lord, and me only trying to do your will?"

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:12 pm

CK wrote:o
(snip)
The real problem is that the RIAI was representing professionally qualified architects only and that the RIAI is now assessing self-trained architects.
(snip)


I have to correct you on this point.

My understanding is that several people without formal qualifications became Members of the RIAI in the past and may still be Members now.
I'm fairly certain that when put to the question on this John Graby will confirm that such a category of person, assuming they still exist, have all been assessed by the RIAI according to their standards.

The constant demonizing of an enemy does little to move matters forward CK - it is highly likely that not all MRIAI's agree with the way this has been handled based on their public support.
While some MRIAI's have definitely rallied around the Registrar and written to TD's I understand that total figures are not the entire 2,850+ Members supposedly on the RIAI's books.
The policy instituted by the RIAI of offering CPD points to Members to undertake workshops in political lobbying may have left a sour tates in the mouths of Members and TD's alike.
Many older MRIAI's might look favourably towards the Grandfathers fate and may have the decencey to admit that in other circumstances, there but for the grace of God, go they.

It looks like the MRIAI(IRL) suffix is a form of containment by the Registrar in terms of what he perceives as the assurance "his" register gives to the rest of Europe in relation to the standard of those on it.
I'm not sure all MRIAI-Registered Architects will see the logic of having both the MRIAI and MRIAI(IRL) suffixes in the marketplace at the same time.
It doesn't seem to give clarity, but perhaps I'm not seeing the strategy clearly enough.

But all this needs to be thrashed out in a wider contect than the RIAI/ARAE hivemind and in closed session of the RIAI council.
Assumptions have been made about how to handle this whole affair and "what the public want" based on secondary information.
I think some primary information is urgently needed beyond the last Red C poll on public perception of the title.
As a profession we need to know what the public want and what the public need.
I don't think it ends with the regulation of Registration, but of providing services.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland