Re: Re: Architect Registration
This situation is much more complex – legally, politically and (not least) socially amongst architects in general –
than an outsider like you or me could immediately grasp.
There are a few other threads on this forum outlining the various positions.
Read them (not for too long !) and you’ll get some sort of handle on it.
But let’s be fair to the architects.
No professional body is without its smelly stuff.
Not yours and not mine either — also an engineering “Institute” like yours, affecting to
combine the twin responsibilities of professional regulatory body with that of a learned
society providing CPD and other library/publications services to members.
You know outrageous clowns and rip-off artists in the very bowels of your profession’s
regulating body. I know some in mine.
Why it is that some people press for riding point in an organization when their natural
position is bringing up the drag ?
More importantly, why do the ordinary members of that organization who see the wrong
types entering positions of power never feel so animated about it to say or do anything
worthwhile about it ?
I’d be in favour of state imposition of a new paradigm for all professional bodies.
– Decentralisation of local chapters to facilitate convenient membership activity
– Total democracy in selection of representatives
– Quotas to restrict representation of members from sectors tending to dominate
official roles (one thinks particularly of the over-represented academics here)
– Sensible and relevant committee structure
– Minimal use and strict control of in-house professionals, e.g. lawyers, marketing people,
PR, “administrators”, economists, etc
– Strict division of professional regulatory matters from other functions.
Applicants for membership of this section be subject to strictest vetting.
– Full participation of community selected members in the decision-making processes of
professional malpractice committees