I am not lying.
I have spoken homestly on this issue from the start.
I pointed you in the direction of the RIAI website and the vision statement is there on the top right hand corner of the page as noted in my previous post."Promoting, supporting, regulating - Architecture".
In relation to what you think you read on the page you linked to
, once again you seem to be be mistaken.
The first part of the blurb states as follows:"The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), founded in
1839, is the representative body for professionally qualified architects
A carefully worded statement, to be sure, but the next one clarifies the meaning."The objectives of the RIAI are the advancement of Architecture
and the associated Arts and Sciences, the promotion of high standards
of professional conduct and practice and the protection of
the interests of architectural training and education"
It is quite clear that the objectives as listed above do not include representing the individual members themselves.
The RIAI represents its Members en masses - as a body - and the term "professionally qualified" refers to their Part III assessment, not the Graduate Qualification.
Back when I qualified, Graduates like me with Part II's were only admitted as Associate Members and could not vote on matters of policy, so there is no way they could have represented me.
Separate from this it is my clear understanding from speaking with a competent person that while the RIAI may have described itself as "the representative body for professionally qualified architects"
, it does not represent individual members
You may think this is hair-splitting, but the Objectives are clearly statecd on the page you linked to and they don't include representing individual members or defending their interests. The RIAI web page is aligned with this.
I have never known the RIAI to represent an individual member on any matter since I first came into awareness of the RIAI in Fourth Year, nearly 22 years ago.
As for my "new position" on qualitative as opposed to quantitative assessment, I'm not sure where you learnt my "old" position from.
My oft-stated position was that I did not have a problem with being registered, I just felt that with a prescribed qualification and 20 year behind me I should have been automatically registered.
However, when it came down to Grandfathers being Registered, and them not having a prescribed qualification I took the position that they should be assessed, and I supported the first draft of the Amendment which included this comment; -"(iv) has presented a portfolio showing examples of his work for
quantitative analysis by the Registration Body and attended an
interview with the Board."
This wording is not in the current Building Control (Amendment) Act 2010.
It wasn't me -
- who substituted "analysis" for "assessment" in the section above or
- who required that "analysis" should be further limited to "quantitative" in the section above, or
- who substituted "verfication purposes" for "analysis"in the Amendment, or
- who removed the requirement to attend an interview from the Amendment.
Other people did those things.
So my position on this hasn't changed CK.
Grandfathers must show their work as evidence - evidence by its nature must be judged.
You appear have assumed things about me and jumped at conclusions - you say I have chenged my position, but that's not the situation.
I argued strongly for assessment and the showing of work in front of the massed ranks of the AAoI [you were there] and also on their Bulletin Board and in private e-mail.
Concerns have been expressed on this forum about Grandfathers apparently being unwilling to be assessed properly - I supported and still support the above wording to ally those concerns.
Without being seen to be willing to be assessed, Grandfathers cannot show the necessary bona fides to face down the Registrar and give adequate assurances to the public and the consumer.