Dear Young Architects

@trace wrote:

OrderArch: You’re right about the competition authority’s initial views but they backed off after examining the evidence. Do please cite your source for an undertaking, if you can. You’re all wrong. No deal, no compromise, no backing off by RIAI in representing architects. Submissions on legislation, etc, are regularly made. I’m no friend of theirs but I admire how they fight the profession’s corner – fairly and very well.

Hi trace,

In rebutting OrderArch, you’ve made the same error he did, asserting something without citing a source.

On this forum, to raise the tone of the proceedings, I’d ask for online references, even if they’re only in the 4th estate.

I can see Order Archs’ point quite clearly – there was little if any change – so either the RIAI backed off or they failed to be effective, a family form argument which paints them as cowards or incompetents.

But to be fair to the RIAI, the pressure from Brussels to not look like a gravy train for builders is huge, and one way to do this is rein in the designers to fix the design before proceeding to site.

It means front-loading the design and detailing and ensuring that public servants are on top of the brief to allow this to happen.

The architect is naturally reluctant to do this unless its a very simple programme, because getting decisions out of public servants is a tedious exercise in itself.

Coming back to the GCCC contract, the CIF had intensive discussions in relation to this with the department over several years and you can still hunt out several of their submitted documents online.

And since I’d hate to end up hoist by my own petard [or is it yours], here. catch;

http://www.cif.ie/uploads/2275.pdf

I believe I and OrderArch are making a similar comment – the RIAI should be in there doing similar things for Architects, both on the Law Commission forum and elsewhere.

Whether this reflects a lack of ability in the RIAI since David Keane’s much lamented recent passing or its something more systemic I don’t know, but it needs addressing.

ONQ.

@OrderArch wrote:

ONQ I’m not sure we are in agreement. While critical of the RIAI you seem to believe them necessary while I, at some point, have started to question whether we in fact need them at all.

The function of maintaining a professional standard can be fulfilled by an (objective) Registration Board.

I am unhappy with the principle of non-architects regulating architects.
I have no problem with an independent person deciding on the censure.
I would like someone who knows our limitations deciding on the case itself.
I think we have had quite enough legal eagles setting outrageous precedents.
You might have missed the jump there – who do you think would “lord” it over us?

The function of providing a forum for professional architects to share knowledge and experience can be provided by the AAI.

(nods)
I’m a Member of the AAI – affordable Membership and high quality CPD Lectures.

The function of communicating with the public can be provided the Architecture Foundation.

Really?

IAF Board of Directors

* James Pike, Chairman
* John Graby, Secretary
* Tim Bouchier-Hayes
* Laura Magahy
* Declan McGonagle
* Shelley McNamara
* Gary Mongey
* Antoinette O’Neill
* Colum O’Riordan
* Victoria Thornton
* Klaus Unger
* Rónán Whelan

Which part of this does not like like the RIAI to you OrderArch?
I’m something of a purist on this: work with the RIAI to effect change.
Occam’s razor suggests “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”

The only item left to the RIAI is representing architects legislatively and as we have noted they are not fulfilling this function in any way. More worryingly the focus of the Institute is decidedly on maintaining economic independance to the detriment of its members.

Well, I’m not sure, but I think the balance is about right.
But to be honest, you don’t see the discussions here geting any air time.
We’re little people, serfs, deluding ourselves that our opinion matters, in the political and financially motivated world of Irish Architecture today.
Certainly this thread and “The sensitive issue of architect’s registration …” thread isn’t front and center on the “new look” homepage – although other threads are highlighted.
Perhaps its the site owners way of keeping CK safe from the Overmaster’s all-seeing eyes…

ONQ.

@OrderArch wrote:

Maybe the issue is redundant though- before the agreement was made with the competition authority they failed to push through any changes to the GCCC (new government contracts) despite the total reshaping of contract law that that document represents and its apparent weaknesses.

You do know what happened there? There were meetings in the RIAI headquarters who were given draft forms of the GCCC contracts – with the guys who drafted the contracts and the various DoF people who controlled them.
The DoF people listened and nodded very carefully to what was said, promised to keep it in mind, then completely ignored anything said when they.

What more do you expect the RIAI to have done? Or the CIF? Or IEI? etc.

Also it is not a “total reshaping of contract law”…

@OrderArch wrote:

I’m not sure what you mean? I’m simply suggesting an independant body similar to the ARB. I think it’s actually a seperate arguement as to whether that body would be staffed and run by architects. Professional self regulation does not have a very edifying history in Ireland so I presume a third party registration system would actually be enriched by the involvement of non archs.

I take your point and surprisingly I find myself agreeing with it in principle.
The Competition Authority’s main concern was that architects should not have to become members of the Institute in order to qualify, but the assessments require this, more or less.
Considering the standards of the Members I meet in Court, on Appeals, on Observations, on Inspections, none of them should be placed ahead of anyone else practising competently.

I take your point (snip)

(Bows)

I think the level of disquiet in the profession at the moment would suggest that the balance is decidedly off. The question becomes can the issues be rectified within the current systems and frameworks. My personal feeling is, given the size and nature of the industry in Ireland, it cannot. I think the problems with the RIAI are pretty fundemental and far from being brought about by the economic crash they have simply been staved off by the boom.

Well, there is a lot to what you say, but I would prefer to work from within the existing framework to expose wrongdoing and incompetence.
We do not need yet another body – like the IAF – pretending its new and squeaky clean and getting the benefit of the doubt from the Ministers and Public and Press, when in reality its the same ol’ same ol’ stuff from the same ol’, same ol’ people.
You cannot help feeling that the really, really good people are teaching or out there doing it or both, leaving some kind of self-serving beaurocracy to run the RIAI.

Oh wait.
“…self-serving beaurocracy…”

That’s a tautology, isn’t it.
And staffing it by people who are unqualified and who may feel insecure because they think they don’t have the professional competence or experience to make judgement calls on qualified and competent designers may not be the best way to raise standards.

That will just mean we’ll get conservative and possibly dogmatic decisions on cases for regulation, for example, particularly if these “laypeople” are from the legal profession, where they arrive thinking they know about everything, but in fact are entering an arena of debate and decision with a very steep learning curve.
.
In reality it deosn’t really matter who is the beaurocracy – its be crap and suck up huge resources and delivery zero in improvements – unless their decisions are held to account rigorously by Members and the public and the Press alike for high standards to be maintained.

With the Members in Post-Financial-Crisis-Stress-Management, a 4th Estate with neither objectivity or competence and that prostituted itself to developers during the boom, and the general public on their knees trying to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, I think that having a layperson-controlled Registration Board as opposed to Co-regulation Board would not work to the benefit of any stakeholders.

I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to yourself and CK.

Its not a conspiracy theory when the automatic registration is written into law.

That is known as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of a conspiracy.

Did you know that one of the lines in a DRAFT version the CODE means you cannot criticize another architect’s work?

Obviously written by the same clown who used thing that advertising shouldn’t be allowed or that we should all keep to a scale of fees or have a minimum [and outrageously high] level of P.I.

That all seems to benefit larger offices that produce poor quality commercial designs, as does the current €250K threshold on turnover before you can enter the e-tender Thunderdome – it seems to be a form of price-fixing.

I suspect that any Member crossing path of anyone in CK’s AA [see the “sensitive” thread for CK’s outing of himself as their webmaster] who fails to live up to their standards will be named and shamed, both in the relevant forum in which any dispute may occur and elsewhere.

I don’t see that this will do the profession any good, but the RIAI seem to have thrown the first rocks with the Ad that got censured by the BCA and the Golden Pages debacle.

Already its clear their assumed vice-grip on the profession isn’t absolute, because the ILS will still accpet Certs from persons practising in the profession for more than ten years.

That’s because most of the ILS are Solicitors who understand the law and they have a good idea what the result of the first Court challenge to the BCA 2007 may be and they don’t want to be up for a defamation suit.

With the stink from mishandling the advertisement still in the air, its making me relucant to engage with the RIAI at all.

Such as how you have to hold the reins of power LIGHTLY or else you’ll see them slip out of your hands.

Such as how NOT to word a radio advertisement.
Such as how to price for small works.
Such as how to be humble.

ONQ.

@Bob Dole wrote:

You do know what happened there? There were meetings in the RIAI headquarters who were given draft forms of the GCCC contracts – with the guys who drafted the contracts and the various DoF people who controlled them.
The DoF people listened and nodded very carefully to what was said, promised to keep it in mind, then completely ignored anything said when they.

What more do you expect the RIAI to have done? Or the CIF? Or IEI? etc.

Also it is not a “total reshaping of contract law”…

Any decision by beaurocrats requires review, particularly in the building industry and associated professions – give this a few years and you’ll see this shake out.

This originally started out as an executive desire to not allow Europe and the Government to become gravy trains for outrageous profits – it remains to be seen if the pendulum as swung too far in one direction.

In the meantime professionals should schedule their fees to reflect their work and put a cap on the work they will do for the fees paid – otherwise they will bankrupt themselves.

ONQ.

Dear RIAI,

Please explain how ensuring that your Members are automatically registered, whilst people holding the Degree from UCD and the Diploma of Degree Standard from Bolton Street are not entitled to be automatically registered, protects the use of the title “Architect”.

DIR 85/384/EEC conferred on me the entitlement to use the title “architect” throughout the EEC as it then was.
Statutory Instrument No. 15 of 1989 wrote it into Irish law and I practised legally AS AN ARCHITECT for almost twenty years prior to 1st May 2008.

Please explain how the Building Control Act 2007, by failing to respect this provision of the law, does anything other than promote existing RIAI Members whilst failing to recognise statutory rights of persons holding the qualifications referred to above but who are not MRIAI’s.

Thanks in advance.

ONQ.

@C Flower wrote:

Very helpful posting ONQ, thanks. It sounds as though everyone on this thread is based in Dublin. Spare a thought for those who aren’t 🙂

C Flower,

I am posting on a point of law, not excluing the other schools of architecture 🙂

If you read the Directives and the Statutory Instrument to which I referred, the legislation specifically mentions the qualifications from Bolton Street and UCD, and ONLY those qualifications.

This is because the Archtect’s Directive was written into EU Law in 1985 or thereabouts, when there were only two schools of architecture in the country.

The only other Irish Faculty at the time, Queens University, is in Northern Ireland, not the Republic.

Around that period [1985-1995] these affixes [called “Certificates of Membership” by the ILS] along with the Memberships of several other organizations including

The Irish Architects Society
The Irish Branch of the Architect’s and Surveyor’s Institute
The Irish Branch of the Incorporated Association of Archtiects and Surveyors

were not accepted in and of themselves as entitling persons who held them to have their certificates accepted by the Incorporated Law Society, [ILS] because of concerns raised in relation to the fact that there were technician and student members in some of the named organisations and confusion migh arise.

This was defined in the Practice Note to Members dated 26th October 1994 Published in the October 1994 edition of the Law Society News.
The full list inter alia included persons of 10 years or more providing architectural services in Ireland, but excluded the ARIAI and MRIAI affix-bearers.

This was held to be a great endorsement of the schools at the time and enhanced the standing of their qualifications throughout Europe.

That results in; –

(i) a form of indentured servitude to Members of the Institutes by Graduates in order to get “approved work” leading to the Part III’s
(ii) undermines originality in design available to the public, since large practices seldom take risks in design leading to greater things.
(iii) limits the choice of architects available to the public during a recession, when small office/ sole traders can undercut large practices.

Are we seeing a pattern of protectionism here for RIAI Members and in particular larger offices, whether by design or default [sic], which are – co-incidentally – also full of fee- paying MRIAI’s, in the name of protecting the public?

I didn’t achieve my qualification twenty years ago – and work competently, diligently and honourably in the profession since then – to be told by a Legislature, whose only accountability is at the polls, and a Registrar, who seems to be accountable to nobody, that contrary to EU Directive and Irish Statute; –
(i) I’m no longer able to call myself an architect and
(ii) that I have no automatic right to be Registered

“Why have you allowed the standing of my qualification be undermined; –
(i) so I can no longer call myself an architect BY RIGHT and/or
(ii) so I am not automatically entered in the Register of Architects BY RIGHT?”

The present situation seems to be have totally re-written the law in relation to the legal rights formerly enjoyed by post-graduates of both courses.

The other schools should be pressing for equal standing with the Minister of the Day, Bolton Street, UCD and the RIAI as Competent Bodies under Irish Law and should be seeking formal EU Recognition of their qualifications.

The EU Directive has been updated over the years as more countries have joined the EU and existing countries have added new titles/qualifications to the list, but you have to lobby and seek representation for this.

For the record, I was at the AAI awards last Friday night and there was a great showing from the other schools in the 2nd Year Competition – in fact, I think a young lad from Limerick won it.

Fair dues to him.

ONQ.

@RIAI wrote:

– With 40% of architects unemployed, we do provide a limited number of free places on the RIAI’s own CPD events. Between January and March 2010, the RIAI provided approximately €9,000 to fund 30 places for members experiencing hardship for RIAI approved CPD.

this is the thing that makes my blood boil. This equates to €300 per place. WHY????. For example – let’s say some person rips the arse out of it and charges €300/hour for a day’s course. That’s 7 hours – €2,200. If this is attended by 50 poor downtrodden architects the profit for the day would be a staggering €12,800 (minus costs to hire venues etc). Where does that go??????????

In these times RIAI CPD events should be break-even ie €44 per head. More would attend, more would benefit. Personally I don’t even look at RIAI structured CPD options because i simply can’t afford it. And if I’m missing something and there’s no profit I’d dearly love to know where it goes

Put simply if you want to call yourself a qualified architect the RIAI sets the bar, if you want to state that you have an architecture degree you are free to do so. As a consumer I have purchased the services of someone with a qualification but who was not accredited; would I do that with someone elses money? No I’d need to know that they had completed the structured training and had ongoing monitoring of their CPD so that I could confirm that I had completed the necessary checks that they were appropriate to do the job to a designated standard. As good as any university is; all any institution can ever do is state that an individual passed or received honours in a course at a particular point in time.

Also the EU commission would if a complaint were made alleging that a valid accreditation were not accepted in another member state investigate; clearly no one has made any valid complaint to date. How you could think the most over zealous politically correct institution on earth would seek to be racist is beyond me.

Would the public be any safer in the case of debarred solicitor if all the solicitor needed was a degree versus a practicing certificate renewed annually? How many universities withdraw degrees unless specific wrongdoing is found during the examination process?

@PVC King wrote:

Put simply if you want to call yourself a qualified architect the RIAI sets the bar, if you want to state that you have an architecture degree you are free to do so.

I was a qualified architect from June 1990 until May 2008 and the school of architecture from which I qualified set the bar.
The RIAI had no function in setting the bar then, and I fail to see where its competence derives from now.
That is the problem.

As a consumer I have purchased the services of someone with a qualification but who was not accredited; would I do that with someone elses money?

Are you suggesting you’re stupid with your own money but not other people’s?
Are you being dismissive of someone who was qualified but unregistered because of incompetence on his part, or because that’s the RIAI party line?
Did he not in fact give you a good service, making your below comments about “assurances” illogical?
That is about as logical as your comments which appear to confuse Nationality with Race.

No I’d need to know that they had completed the structured training and had ongoing monitoring of their CPD so that I could confirm that I had completed the necessary checks that they were appropriate to do the job to a designated standard.

That is defined as making an assumption based on an assurance
Hardly the definitive route to corporate governance you appear to be suggesting is your preferred route.
Are you not aware that with so many indians and so few chiefs in the bigger firms, post-graduates who couldn’t get positions of seniority were reduced to looking over the shoulders of MRIAI’s to watch – the architect as voyeur?
Monitoring the project, I believe it was called.

You can call it what you want to, but I’d prefer someone with 10 years experience actually working on jobs as opposed to watching other people do it.
And in relation to the assurances of their work, there is a tried and tested method whereby you can have all the relevant assurances you want.

Can you guess what it is?
Not dependant on any “list” on the RIAI website.
Available to all for the price of a phonecall, usually reliable.
Gives a warts and all account of the professional you want to find out about.
Hint: its independent of any CPD course or “structured training” and is very relvant to the consumer.

As good as any university is; all any institution can ever do is state that an individual passed or received honours in a course at a particular point in time.

(Round of Applause)

This is precisely what defined every MRIAI in practice before May 2008.
There was no structured CPD course in place via the Instutute before that date – and guess what?
The profession didn’t collapse under the weight of its own ignorance because archtiects in general are quick studies.
This comment applies to post graduates, self taught practitioners and yes, even some MRIAI’s I’ve met – though some trade on the badge and fail to keep up.

Perhaps you’re suggesting all MRIAI’s have been scrambling to attend CPD courses to catch up on the last 20 years of “progress” in the building industry?
The class sizes run by the RIAI and tell a different tale.

Oh no, wait, you must be thinking of the online CPD course.
The online CPD course is largely self assessment, with no independent regular assessment of those “attending”.

When I see every MRIAI sitting annual externally reviewed examinations to assess his/her fitness to practice, then I’ll accept your comments above about the assurances you claim to be offered by the MRIAI affix.

Until then MRIAI’s are no different from me or any unqualified success who take their own steps to stay “current” in terms of the legislation, which is fine by me.
This involves reading the new legislation and practices, discussing them with colleagues and public servants and research on every project.
Some offices will attend courses on how to do new things like Disability Access Certs – some will work it out for themselves.

Every competent practice has to do this and MRIAI’s are no different than anyone else in their success rates.
Why do you think there were 60% failure rates for planning applications returned as invalid in 2002.
MRIAI’s have feet of clay just like anyone else and the much vaunted CPD won’t change that.

In other words, CPD is yet more window dressing.
Very expensive too, if you buy at the RIAI shop.

Also the EU commission would if a complaint were made alleging that a valid accreditation were not accepted in another member state investigate; clearly no one has made any valid complaint to date. How you could think the most over zealous politically correct institution on earth would seek to be racist is beyond me.

Your sentence doesn’t parse – I presume you meant to say:

“Also the EU commission would investigate if a complaint were made alleging that a valid accreditation were not accepted in another member state; clearly no one has made any valid complaint to date”

They have done so on numerous occassions.
I specifically stated AS FACT that the EU have already taken actions against Member states who imposed restrictive practices against citizens from othe rmember states.

Would the public be any safer in the case of debarred solicitor if all the solicitor needed was a degree versus a practicing certificate renewed annually? How many universities withdraw degrees unless specific wrongdoing is found during the examination process?

Apples and Oranges.
A disbarred solicitor is still a qualified solicitor.
His disbarment arises solely from criminal wrongdoing, behaviour likely to bring his profession into disrepute, or non-payment of his annual registration fee.

I have no problem paying an annual registration fee as long as its not extortionate and doesn’t oblige me to join the RIAI.
I am not guilty of criminal wrongdoing or behaviour likely to lead to discrediting the profession.
I am seeking recognition of my rights under the law – a commendable pursuit.

But to turm your own question back to you –
Would the public be safer if a private organization got every qualified Architect barred from practising because their qualification wasn’t gained through them?

In the case of the disbarred solicitor, there must be evidence he committed some wrong.

In the case of qualified architects no wrongdoing is assumed, and their right to call themselves “architect” is supported by an Irish Statute and two EU Directives.

This should translate to an automatic right to be registered unless there were interference in the process to benefit a private organization.

ONQ.