Re: Re: Architect Registration

Teak,

You seem to have put a lot of thought into your reply to Paul and I agree with most of what you said.
I would also suggest we a more transparent complaints process and a publication of the results.
I realise this may restrict freedom of expression for some in a conflict resolution process.
So I’m not looking to give unfettered access to minutes of negotiations, just the results.

There are far too many “old boys” who seem to rely on incompetent underlings to do their work.
This inevitably leads to problems down the line when such creatures cannot stand their ground when certs are asked for.
Then gloss over the resultant costly mess that their clients have to pay for by engaging in “confidential alternative dispute resolution.”

I think we have to give our “highly educated workforce” the credit they deserve and stop treating them like mushrooms.
If there are practices whose work is consistently below par then then they need to be restricted or mentored or both.
Or else there is no logical follow-on to their RIAI’s suggestion that restriction of use of Title protects the public.
It shouldn’t be left to a public interest group to publish this information now we have a competent authority

I’m not saying we need some sort of corrupt ratings agency like Standard and Poors applied to Architects.

But the public does needs to know who the relative incompetents and cute hoors are in the profession.
Eventually this will expose those who win competitions and achieve permissions by undue influence.
This will lead us towards a merit-based profession and restrict the operations of the chancers.

Which in turn will clear the way for vibrant new companies to step forward and prosper.

ONQ.