Re: Re: Architect Registration
I would also suggest we a more transparent complaints process and a publication of the results.
Agreed. Appropriate for most every other profession too.
The problem with behind closed doors resolutions is that all parties involved – the professional, the
client, the professional body and certain members of that profession – all have an interest in trying
to spread rumours about the final decision made so as to support their own positions on that issue.
Innocent members of the profession may then have their view of the conflict influenced by the sly
leaks and public affectations of each of these parties.
Transparency would eliminate much of this carry-on.
There are far too many “old boys” who seem to rely on incompetent underlings to do their work.
Professionals may well farm out routine technical or donkey work to the underlings, according to
their level of training.
But there is no legal way that they may pass down the overall supervising responsibility.
If there are practices whose work is consistently below par then then they need to be restricted or
mentored or both.
Well, it’s damn nice-sounding to offer the ‘mentoring’ option.
But, apart from those few who erred non-maliciously due to inexperience/ignorance/misinterpretation/
mistraining, the vast bulk of the offenders will have done so in a hard-nosed whatyagonnadoaboutit way.
There cannot be any doubt in the mind of any decent professional as to what must be done with
the latter cases.
And there ought be no denial of due moral support to those in the profession whose duty is to apply
those standards : those wanting the benefits of the profession ought share its responsibilities, tough
as these may be on the delicate architecture of their community relations.
One more thing.
Many professional bodies have a small sub-committee that is supposed to sensitively deal with the
matter of support for members under particular distress or hardship.
In my ex institute – a UK body but this potential hazard is universal, surely – a dangerously ambitious
(in its worst connotation) member got himself onto this sub-comm, him already being on other comms
of the institute. This enabled him to
a) Get the low-down on various senior members’ personal situations;
b) Dispense funds budgeted to this sub-comm without any serious oversight or audit.
The moral hazard consequent to senior members who received such benefits and whose own decisions
could benefit the career of that sponsoring sub-comm member is obvious.
While I accept that detailed auditing of such applications of funds is not desirable, it seems basic
organizational sense therefore that any such sub-comm ought comprise :
a) Some members of the profession in question whose lifestyle are painfully honest to a (wo)man;
b) Some members of the general public whose circumstances, background and knowledge of
the world and all its vicissitudes befit their appointment to this type of sub-comm work.