The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

politics and timing….

D4 Gormley gets his stag hunt bill and dog breeding bill….. Rural FF gets its disenfranchised architects bill…….

politics and timing….

Deputy O’Donoghue has prepared the Bill to prevent hundreds of working architects from losing out on their official status because they pursued a different route to qualification.

Surely the issue with most ‘working architects [sic]’ is that they knowingly and intentionally, for whatever reason thus far, haven’t pursued any route to qualification… I’m not necessarily against a Grandfather Clause but doesn’t the existing Act essentially have one already? Cost, admittedly does seem to be an issue with the assessment at the moment though but it’s hard to have any sympathy for any one who thinks it ‘too time consuming’. As far as I know it takes a year to complete which is very short in comparison to the 8-9 years for the official route (with the associated high costs of this route too). I’d have serious concerns under this Bill about what evidence would be deemed satisfactory to show that someone has ‘worked practically as an architect for 7 years or more’ and who assesses it.

Bit more expansive background to be had here

http://www.ruairiquinn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Registration-of-Architects.pdf

heres an excerpt from the above link

“Mr. O’Dowd: This is an important issue. The Bill concerns qualification and people who are deemed to be architects and practising as such. I have received representations from the Group of Independent Architects in Ireland, GIAI, which, with the Architects and Surveyors Institute, ASI, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, IAAS, and the Irish Architects Society, IAS, has contributed to a document entitled A Framework for”

So in addition to the RIAI , we now have the following ( newly sprouted?) groups of individuals in the fray who ‘represent the Profession’…

the GIAI, the ASI, the IAAS, the IAS, the Architects Alliance, perhaps 3 or 4 Architectural technician groups also.8 or 10 groups who ‘represent Architects’ in a country of 4 million ( im subtracting a few hundred k emigrants and returning immigrants )

All competing with various Engineers of varying levels of competence from semi retired expert down to a few months in the local tech college , construction technicians , project managers ( in some cases a 2 or 3 day course confers a title of ‘project manager’ ) , Chartered Surveyors , Quantity Surveyors etc

throw in the odd auctioneer, govt planning official, accountant, estate agent , tech drawing teacher , garda, milkman, taxi driver parish priest and whoever else can manage to raise 20 quid to photocopy a house plan from the county councils files and resubmit. No wonder the general public is confused.

@Rourke wrote:

So in addition to the RIAI , we now have the following ( newly sprouted?) groups of individuals in the fray who ‘represent the Profession’…

the GIAI, the ASI, the IAAS, the IAS, the Architects Alliance, perhaps 3 or 4 Architectural technician groups also.8 or 10 groups who ‘represent Architects’ in a country of 4 million ( im subtracting a few hundred k emigrants and returning immigrants )

Don’t forget the PFLP.

And what did the IAAS ever do for us (apart from the roads obviously..)?

Bloody splitters

PFLP ?

Peoples Front for the Liberation of Professionals?

I have heard it suggested that the legislators were frightened by the possibility of several David Grant types crawling out of the woodwork.
This is despite there having only ever been one David Grant.
Nor are we seeing the profession infested by a plethora of people calling themselves architects but who are incompetent.

There is of course the usual sour grapes from Wearnicehats & Co [thanks for that Ruairí Quinn link, BTW] but they have no clue about the real world.

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn’t get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

I have known several MRIAIs or more years who were not competent to inspect, never mind certify, yet they are given a pre-eminent position based on an assumption of their competence.
Many practically trained architects can run rings around them, but they cannot legally use the title?

One guy I met recently used to mentor aspiring Part II’s doign their Part III’s but the new act prevents him doing so any more, after several years doign so with the blessing of the RIAI?

That’s a TOTAL disgrace!

There is an awful lot of bullshit about this.
However if the powers-that-be want to play hard ball so be it.
The RIAI are offering assurances based on a technical assessment.

Why then did they and the government take away the right of Graduates to use the Title Architect?
A right first agreed in 1985 abd again in 2005 by the European Commission?
Was it to trade on fear and set up the Assessment Franchise?

There is a whole lot of back story not being yet told here.
Eventually the story will be told and the truth will out.
Then you may see some red faces.

ONQ.

@Rourke wrote:

heres an excerpt from the above link

“Mr. O’Dowd: This is an important issue. The Bill concerns qualification and people who are deemed to be architects and practising as such. I have received representations from the Group of Independent Architects in Ireland, GIAI, which, with the Architects and Surveyors Institute, ASI, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, IAAS, and the Irish Architects Society, IAS, has contributed to a document entitled A Framework for”

So in addition to the RIAI , we now have the following ( newly sprouted?) groups of individuals in the fray who ‘represent the Profession’…

the GIAI, the ASI, the IAAS, the IAS, the Architects Alliance, perhaps 3 or 4 Architectural technician groups also.8 or 10 groups who ‘represent Architects’ in a country of 4 million ( im subtracting a few hundred k emigrants and returning immigrants )

All competing with various Engineers of varying levels of competence from semi retired expert down to a few months in the local tech college , construction technicians , project managers ( in some cases a 2 or 3 day course confers a title of ‘project manager’ ) , Chartered Surveyors , Quantity Surveyors etc

throw in the odd auctioneer, govt planning official, accountant, estate agent , tech drawing teacher , garda, milkman, taxi driver parish priest and whoever else can manage to raise 20 quid to photocopy a house plan from the county councils files and resubmit. No wonder the general public is confused.

There is a lot in what you say Rourke, but you need to open your mind a little.

I have met MRIAIs who were incompetent at soem things and practically trained architects who were very competent at msot things

I have met MRIAIs who were barely competent when they qualified and for whom no amount of CPD can help them keep up with current developments.

This is the current Big Lie beign peddled by the RIAI – that CPD will keep you competent.

Competence is a state of mind, like checking over the latest design mags, reading the latest legislation and case law, visiting buildings, talking with the people installing the newer forms of construction, visiting the latest sites.

There are very few grey heads on the AAI site visits I have attended, yet they too are automatically registered by this Buildign Control Act.

Plus about 20-25% of the RIAI were at one time unqualified,
Conveniently I think the last of them retired a year or so ago.
Which jsut leaves the sweet deal they did with the GIAI and IAS.people.
Perhaps you should direct your ire there if standards are what gets you going.

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

There is a very great danger here that any future half baked law change will simply give the message to the younger generation (if the message be needed) that they need not bother with education at all

Why should they bother?

The Building Control Act 2007 took away their right to call themselves architects.

Despite the Graduate Degree being recognised in two EU DIrectives as entitling them to call themselves architects.

Write to the RIAI about that while you’re at it.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

I have heard it suggested that the legislators were frightened by the possibility of several David Grant types crawling out of the woodwork.
This is despite there having only ever been one David Grant.
Nor are we seeing the profession infested by a plethora of people calling themselves architects but who are incompetent.

There is of course the usual sour grapes from Wearnicehats & Co [thanks for that Ruairí Quinn link, BTW] but they have no clue about the real world.

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn’t get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

I have known several MRIAIs or more years who were not competent to inspect, never mind certify, yet they are given a pre-eminent position based on an assumption of their competence.
Many practically trained architects can run rings around them, but they cannot legally use the title?

One guy I met recently used to mentor aspiring Part II’s doign their Part III’s but the new act prevents him doing so any more, after several years doign so with the blessing of the RIAI?

That’s a TOTAL disgrace!

There is an awful lot of bullshit about this.
However if the powers-that-be want to play hard ball so be it.
The RIAI are offering assurances based on a technical assessment.

Why then did they and the government take away the right of Graduates to use the Title Architect?
A right first agreed in 1985 abd again in 2005 by the European Commission?
Was it to trade on fear and set up the Assessment Franchise?

There is a whole lot of back story not being yet told here.
Eventually the story will be told and the truth will out.
Then you may see some red faces.

ONQ.

There is of course the usual sour grapes from Wearnicehats & Co [thanks for that Ruairí Quinn link, BTW] but they have no clue about the real world.

Actually, I do – and, while we’re at it, why should you have the right to cry foul and not me?

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn’t get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

I did a 6 year course and have 19 years experience in 4 different countries. I passed my exams 2 years after leaving college – so that makes me a muppet? I have a recollection that you yourself chose not to register? – apologies if in error

I have known several MRIAIs or more years who were not competent to inspect, never mind certify, yet they are given a pre-eminent position based on an assumption of their competence.Many practically trained architects can run rings around them, but they cannot legally use the title?

As do I but I know many other non-qualified persons who, if they worked for me, would not be allowed near a site or a contract either. They can’t use the title and rightly so. There’s a certain mainland European person who has been very vocal in pressing for the “Bill” on another thread. Judging from what I’ve seen; whilst this Bill may loosen the shackles on many competent non qualified persons, it will evidently also throw open the doors of the odd asylum

If parity is the goal then I have every right to expect those people who have been under the radar to be subject to the same rules as me retrospectively. In my case that’s the cost of 6 years of study, the cost of the subsequent professional exams and the cost of 17 years of professional fees and PII. I am also entitled to my opinion that third level education is as important to a person’s growth as the school of hard knocks

I don’t know. Some people can give it but when it comes to taking it……………

@onq wrote:

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn’t get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

Onq, just pass the exam and that’s your registration sorted. Afterall, it’s pretty handy, apparently even muppets can get through it!

@wearnicehats wrote:

There is of course the usual sour grapes from Wearnicehats & Co [thanks for that Ruairí Quinn link, BTW] but they have no clue about the real world.

Actually, I do – and, while we’re at it, why should you have the right to cry foul and not me?

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn’t get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

I did a 6 year course and have 19 years experience in 4 different countries. I passed my exams 2 years after leaving college – so that makes me a muppet? I have a recollection that you yourself chose not to register? – apologies if in error

I have known several MRIAIs or more years who were not competent to inspect, never mind certify, yet they are given a pre-eminent position based on an assumption of their competence.Many practically trained architects can run rings around them, but they cannot legally use the title?

As do I but I know many other non-qualified persons who, if they worked for me, would not be allowed near a site or a contract either. They can’t use the title and rightly so. There’s a certain mainland European person who has been very vocal in pressing for the “Bill” on another thread. Judging from what I’ve seen; whilst this Bill may loosen the shackles on many competent non qualified persons, it will evidently also throw open the doors of the odd asylum

If parity is the goal then I have every right to expect those people who have been under the radar to be subject to the same rules as me retrospectively. In my case that’s the cost of 6 years of study, the cost of the subsequent professional exams and the cost of 17 years of professional fees and PII. I am also entitled to my opinion that third level education is as important to a person’s growth as the school of hard knocks

I don’t know. Some people can give it but when it comes to taking it……………

I have no problem with taking it and I used the title legally for 18 years.

What gives you and teh RIAI the right to tell me I can’t use the TItle I earnt?

Haw many FRIAIs do you know who have a clue about the current regs – most will have the good grace to admit in private that they don’t.

Many came from an era when faced with a difficult detailing problem they said “give it to a technician”.

And that is the rick they will perish on when someone who knows the law takes this mess in front of the Hight Court.

Technicians carried the bulk of design responsibility in relation to complaince, yet most MRIAIs think they are on another planet when it comes to design.

There is a lot of gross unfairness in the segregation that exists and just like in England either it gets addressed fairly or its goign to blow up in the RIAI and Government faces.

ONQ.

@BenK wrote:

Onq, just pass the exam and that’s your registration sorted. Afterall, it’s pretty handy, apparently even muppets can get through it!

I know – I see the evidence of it here.

ONQ.

The MRIAI bashing is getting quite tiresome ONQ. Labelling someone a muppet because they had the foresight to commence and complete professional practice exams seems odd to say the least.

@onq wrote:

What gives you and your muppet club the right to tell me I can’t?

The gloves come off now smartie-pants.

ONQ.

what age are you again?

I qualified from a five year course, have twenty years experience behind me post qualification and I didn’t get automatically registered whereas some muppet with two years who passes an exam can?

That makes you at least 25 by my reckoning

a mere 13 years before JohnO was a twinkle in the milkman’s eye

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0026/S.0026.194201140006.html

@sean blerkin wrote:

That makes you at least 25 by my reckoning

18 years to third level
5 years course [normally with a minimum of 1 year out]
20 years post graduate

And you think that that adds up to 25.

Wait, don’t tell me – you’re a Member of the Institute!

*bwahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahhahahahhaaaaaaaaa!!!!11!1!1!!*

M.

@BenK wrote:

The MRIAI bashing is getting quite tiresome ONQ. Labelling someone a muppet because they had the foresight to commence and complete professional practice exams seems odd to say the least.

If the caps fits BenK.

Clarification : If you read the post you’ll see I was bitching because they were “automatically” registered, despite having vastly less experience than me and despite me holding the same qualification that in the EU Directives entitles me to use the title architect.

I’ve noticed this thin-skinned preciousness in other MRIAIs.

To busy polishing their badge and their qualification to even debate the substantive issues.

Thats a muppet by any definition.

Tall, me BenK in an effort to reach some common ground, what’s the difference between a guy who’s completed a two year run up and just got his part III’s and a guy in practice for twenty years – in terms of giving assurance to the public.

Try not to embarrass yourself by dodging the question and I’llagree to try and not call you a muppet.
Dodge though, and you’ll be labelled a muppet forever.

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

a mere 13 years before JohnO was a twinkle in the milkman’s eye

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0026/S.0026.194201140006.html

The substantive piece is this:

[167] “This knowledge can be acquired only by a course of specialised education enabling him to develop his artistic gifts by suitable artistic training, to learn the technical means available for carrying out his ideas, to assimilate a sufficient knowledge of public and administrative law, social and economic science, and general culture, to enable him to fulfil his duties, and finally to acquire experience of his profession by practical training.

“If it is admitted that the architect should also possess sufficient authority and sense of professional duty to defend the often important interests entrusted to him and to carry out satisfactorily the duties as an adviser or arbitrator with which he is often entrusted, it will be realised that it is only by suitable training that he can reach the desired intellectual standard, and that no mere tests of ability can guarantee his possession of these qualities.

“At present, anyone in any place is free to exercise this profession in any way, and it must be recognised as undesirable that activities of such importance for the public welfare should be entrusted to anyone prepared to undertake them without some previous check on his abilities.”

The problem is, this is both right and wrong if interpreted literally.

The course reference immediately predicates one to think in terms of third level courses, yet it cannot only mean that, for at the time an architectural apprenticeship was recognised as a legitimate – and for some, a preferred – way of attaining competence.
Thus a “course of training” could mean other than a third level course of training.

In relation to the training itself, it makes a very valid point:

“…only by suitable training that he can reach the desired intellectual standard, and that no mere tests of ability can guarantee his possession of these qualities”

In other words, merely passing an exam with limited experience may not adequately assess the person – I have no argument with this.

But grandfathers are so-called because they are NOT only a wet week out of college – most I have met have in excess of ten years providing services commensurate with those of an architect.
Nor did they “teach themselves” – many served long years as draughtsmen or technicians or junior aprentice architects before taking a decision to practice on their own.
Its not THAT lucrative a profession – most archtiects who have made money have dabbled in development or some other revenue stream – you don’t set up to get rich.

To suggest without any empirical proof that someone two years out of a college who has passed an exam is somehow superior to someone who has earned his living for ten years as an architect seems to be rank hypocrisy, spurred perhaps by the concerns expressed elsewhere centring on the pocket of those paying the fees.

Its ironical to me that this call should issue since many I met in college had Mammy or Daddy pay their fees – they certainly never had to put their hands in their own pockets, so whinging about the cost of fees seems oddly inappropriate.

Not once have any of the whingers stopped to consider the economics of the matter – is there any substance to my assertions, and if so why are we paying for a five year course of study when people like Tadao Ando, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Michael Scott didn’t attend formal schooling in architecture.

You need to stop and question this, because apprenticed and practically trained talented people will always seek enter the profession and I would hate to think a giant talent would be browbeaten into submission or prevetned from practising because he didn’t follow the RIAI rulebuke.

Constantly referring to David Grant is mere convenience – you’d almost wonder did the RIAI invite him over, because without him they have little evidence of incompetence on the part of grandfathers to rely on – whereas many grandfathers have evidence of RIAI members’ incompetence.

It should make an interesting day out in court, when we’ll finally see what marvellous standard the Part III ensures – integrity and honesty isn’t part of the syllabus, they are qualities you either have or not – they cannot be learned.

Except, perhaps, by example.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

If the caps fits BenK.

I’ve noticed this thin-skinned preciousness in other MRIAIs.

To busy polishing their badge and their qualification to even debate the substantive issues.

Thats a muppet by any definition.

Tall, me BenK in an effort to reach some common ground, what’s the difference between a guy who’s completed a two year run up and just got his part III’s and a guy in practice for twenty years – in terms of giving assurance to the public.

Try not to embarrass yourself by dodging the question and I’llagree to try and not call you a muppet.
Dodge though, and you’ll be labelled a muppet forever.

ONQ.

I’ve noticed this thin-skinned preciousness in other MRIAIs.
To busy polishing their badge and their qualification to even debate the substantive issues.
Thats a muppet by any definition.

You can call it thin-skinned if you like but if I was called a muppet by anyone in any walk of life I’d be questioning it. The issue doesn’t seem to be debating the substantive issues as I can see, it seems to be more about having to agree with your point of view. I have given an opinion on the Grandfather Clause already so I won’t repeat it.

Tall, me BenK in an effort to reach some common ground, what’s the difference between a guy who’s completed a two year run up and just got his part III’s and a guy in practice for twenty years – in terms of giving assurance to the public.

In terms of giving assurance to the public (of which we are both members) I would argue that the difference is one has been formally assessed to a certain standard and the other one hasn’t. You could be a great architect, the best one out there, but you expect me and others just to take your word for it that you have completed the right type of practical experience. In your particular case, I’m sure if your practical experience is as good as you claim you could easily pass the exams and put the issue to bed once and for all. The exams are based on practical applications of the building regulations, contracts, planning etc. after all.

Try not to embarrass yourself by dodging the question and I’llagree to try and not call you a muppet.
Dodge though, and you’ll be labelled a muppet forever.

Label me whatever you like ONQ, whatever works for you.

@onq wrote:

18 years to third level
5 years course [normally with a minimum of 1 year out]
20 years post graduate

And you think that that adds up to 25.

Wait, don’t tell me – you’re a Member of the Institute!

*bwahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahhahahahhaaaaaaaaa!!!!11!1!1!!*

M.

allow me to quote you – directed to me – from another thread

After jobs, this matter is the most important issue facing architects today.
Disrupt this thread and I will report you for TROLLING.
Others seem interested enough to read it.
There are [on that thread] 20,715 views and counting
Contribute or please ignore it.

HAND

ONQ

I don’t really know what’s got into you Onq but it would be appreciated if you’d stop being a prick

@wearnicehats wrote:

allow me to quote you – directed to me – from another thread

After jobs, this matter is the most important issue facing architects today.
Disrupt this thread and I will report you for TROLLING.
Others seem interested enough to read it.
There are [on that thread] 20,715 views and counting
Contribute or please ignore it.

HAND

ONQ

I don’t really know what’s got into you Onq but it would be appreciated if you’d stop being a prick

Thank you for yet another incisive well thought out contribution to a thread.

Blerkin suggested i was t least twenty five when even a quick tally would nearly double that.

I corrected him and gave him a gentle and humorous reminder about posting prematurely.
Can we presume you sided with him because you are mathematically challenged?
Or are you just looking for someone to support you having a go at me?

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Thank you for yet another incisive well thought out contribution to a thread.

Blerkin suggested i was t least twenty five when even a quick tally would nearly double that.

I corrected him and gave him a gentle and humorous reminder about posting prematurely.
Can we presume you sided with him because you are mathematically challenged?
Or are you just looking for someone to support you having a go at me?

ONQ.

I think Blerkin knew that. and the only person who’s having a personal “go” on here is you

and yes, if it makes you happy, you’re absolutely right

@wearnicehats wrote:

I think Blerkin knew that. and the only person who’s having a personal “go” on here is you

and yes, if it makes you happy, you’re absolutely right

I know.

[bliss]

And we’re only on our second page – my, my…

Oh frabjous day!

ONQ.

@BenK wrote:

In terms of giving assurance to the public (of which we are both members) I would argue that the difference is one has been formally assessed to a certain standard and the other one hasn’t.(snip)

No, BenK.

The difference is that one is giving an assurance that the work he WILL do in the next ten years will be up to scratch.

The other can point to the work he HAS done in the past ten years as proof of not only his competence, but also his integrity and professionalism.

I’m not saying one is intrinsically better than the other, both views have their merits, but only one person gets automatically registered, and I have met many of them trading on that paper assurance that border on criminals, with sharp practice and trading on the badge the least of it.

The fact that this is still evident will be borne out by the building failures and loss of life we are yet to discover in RIAI certified buildings.

I accept your other comments – this will come to fruition in the fulness of time.

However as to the right to use the title – this is something conferred by two EU directives on Graduates that the RIAI and this Minister have seen fit to take away – unjustly.

As for dealing with this gross undermining of the primary degree – spannungsbogen.

[which should also tell you something about my mis-spent youth and early twenties]

ONQ.

I must admit i had forgotten about the years of one’s life preceding qualification. maybe they should be put towards achieving a masters from the school of hard knocks as well?

@sean blerkin wrote:

I must admit i had forgotten about the years of one’s life preceding qualification. maybe they should be put towards achieving a masters from the school of hard knocks as well?

(chuckle)

We all tend to forget them for various reasons – I cannot believe I am pushing fifty – where did that time go?

Many practically trained architects will point out that new Graduates know very little about building a building, and I don’t mean a lack of contract or detailing knowledge.

They are clueless about how people from different backgrounds get on and communicate, establish a pecking order, command respect, speak authoritatively while still holding not alienating your audience – all this is on the curriculum of the “school of hard knocks”.

In Bolton Street – I cannot speak for UCD – some rapport at least with trades was engendered with our studies with the Linen Hall or School of Trades.

My meagre efforts at sand-casting, carpentry and brick-laying left with with a then new found respect for people who could building in real life with their hands what I had designed.

We were also encouraged to get work on building sites to see how buildings were actually built, and perhaps find out the shortcomings of the “assemble it from a catalogue” school of working drawings.

Finally we were encouraged to take at least one year out to work in offices – oftenr between 3rd and 4th year, or 2nd and 3rd, learning the ropes and finding out what office like was like, in a smaller office, so that we would be exposed to every level of the job.

Those years were essential to my understanding of the limitations of paper and later digital design in terms of materials use in wet climates – such as ours – and detailing to avoid water penetration and control cracking and weathering.

I don’t rely on technicians to solve my problems – I sometimes consult with them to reach better solutions, but I know my way around a detail and a new regulation.

If you cannot raise yourself above the level of mere compliance to that of foreseeability you won’t last long as an architect – the regs aren’t written by architects, I can tell you that.

Your comment about those years being wasted shows your silver spoon – never deride the school of hard knocks.

As an aside, I heard recently that footballers, often pilloried for their lack of education were assessed for their use of brain power versus a commensurately equipped theoretical robot.

Even at the current levels of sophisticating and processing speed, the designed robot couldn’t match the sloppiest proponent of the game when it came to dribbling a ball past a set of opponents.

Something you might want to bear in mind the next time you’re tempted to diss those with SOHN after their name.

🙂

ONQ.

can an MRIAI give me one good reason why the introduction of this grandfather clause, as outlined by JD, is not a good idea????

is there a fear out there, and if so why??

Most professions structure themselves along the lines of student member, associate member i.e. recognised degree but not examined by the industry body, member (examined), fellow (made contribution though exemplary service) and vocational member i.e. grandfather clause but must pass a less academic test based on experience.

I could be wrong but JoD’s proposal seems more like an amnesty than a controlled intake to the professional body as you would hope would be the case. You want all professions to have those using the title to be subject to regulation done through manditory practice statements and guidance notes that establish industry standards in tests of ‘reasonableness’ in this case the RIAI are best place to regulate.

I do agree that the sudden regulatory change from no public protection to the ARB may have been a move that didn’t consider many individuals who are competent; however who decided that they were competent in their professional careers (ONQ college is not the real world) However it is vital that the entire profession are required to do cpd and must follow practice statements to preserve the good mane of the profession.

A balance would be to fast track an examination that a competent practitioner could pass but that is not academic in its leading and award ArchTech status.

To grant an amnesty sends exactly the wrong message out to students; why bother getting professionally qualified when a future politician will declare an amnesty. The real pity is that someone didn’t regulate this 20-30 years ago.

PVC….I have to say that’s probably the most logical post I’ve read in the two threads!

@PVC King wrote:

Most professions structure themselves along the lines of student member, associate member i.e. recognised degree but not examined by the industry body, member (examined), fellow (made contribution though exemplary service) and vocational member i.e. grandfather clause but must pass a less academic test based on experience.

I could be wrong but JoD’s proposal seems more like an amnesty than a controlled intake to the professional body as you would hope would be the case. You want all professions to have those using the title to be subject to regulation done through manditory practice statements and guidance notes that establish industry standards in tests of ‘reasonableness’ in this case the RIAI are best place to regulate.

I do agree that the sudden regulatory change from no public protection to the ARB may have been a move that didn’t consider many individuals who are competent; however who decided that they were competent in their professional careers (ONQ college is not the real world) However it is vital that the entire profession are required to do cpd and must follow practice statements to preserve the good mane of the profession.

A balance would be to fast track an examination that a competent practitioner could pass but that is not academic in its leading and award ArchTech status.

To grant an amnesty sends exactly the wrong message out to students; why bother getting professionally qualified when a future politician will declare an amnesty. The real pity is that someone didn’t regulate this 20-30 years ago.

Pity you don’t actually research what you pontificate about.

A Grandfather Clause is an amnesty – an amnesty from new laws that are not appropriate to apply to some groups of people.

You’re CPD waffle stops far short of giving any assurance – its a post-facto cover up measure without any objective reality.

Only an independent exam administered every five years to allow Members retain their status will do that – do you see the RIAI rushing to give THAT assurance?

No – and you are highly unlikely to see it in your lifetime – too few of the older Members in the existing Membershio would pass it.

The Part III’s thirty years ago were different than today, and the people who passed them areunlikely to match current standard yet the law suggests they are competent and deserving of being on the register automatically.

In this regard, the automatic registration of persons who got their part threes more than twenty years ago should beseen as what it is – the RIAI version of the Grandfather Clause.

ONQ.

@henno wrote:

can an MRIAI give me one good reason why the introduction of this grandfather clause, as outlined by JD, is not a good idea????

is there a fear out there, and if so why??

You may be waiting a long time for an answer.

Brian Montaut of the AA put it succinctly when he stated that Registration in the way it was done amounted to an anti-competition measure introduced by the RIAI intended to prevent competitors accessing the marketplace.

The JOC on 18th May 2010 asked whether the RIAI were in fact operating a Franchise.

They are offering – in a recession – a test which costs €13,500 and can only be attempted once – a hurdle imposed on hundreds of people who have been providing services reliably and with integrity for decades.

The RIAI have no empirical evidence to suggest any benefit to the public will arise – their reasoning is the kind spread by PVC King –

“Believe in us [and pay us lots of money] because we passed a self-administered test, because we passed any test and because we have letters after our names.”

Look at Michale Lynn solicitor if you want to see the intrinsic value of tests, registration and qualifications when it comes to keeping the public safe from criminals – totally useless.

A far more objective and reliable test is the person’s track record – how have they behaved in their career to date?

If they have behaved competently, with integrity, even handedly and honestly, then Register them and let them continue their good work.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Pity you don’t actually research what you pontificate about.

A Grandfather Clause is an amnesty – an amnesty from new laws that are not appropriate to apply to some groups of people.

You’re CPD waffle stops far short of giving any assurance – its a post-facto cover up measure without any objective reality.

Only an independent exam administered every five years to allow Members retain their status will do that – do you see the RIAI rushing to give THAT assurance?

No – and you are highly unlikely to see it in your lifetime – too few of the older Members in the existing Membershio would pass it.

The Part III’s thirty years ago were different than today, and the people who passed them areunlikely to match current standard yet the law suggests they are competent and deserving of being on the register automatically.

In this regard, the automatic registration of persons who got their part threes more than twenty years ago should beseen as what it is – the RIAI version of the Grandfather Clause.

ONQ.

This is where I have a problem with your argument; you as opposed to examining ways of bringing vocational practitioners into the profession structure simply attack the existing structure which is based on International best practice in your attempts to justify creation of an entry point that is not regulated. Are you really suggesting that all motor drivers who have acheived a full driving license should also be retested every 5 years?

Please clarify post Granfather clause how you propose the beneficiaries of the amnesty would be regulated in respect to industry led practice statements and guidance notes, please clarify how the beneficiaries will maintain relevant life long learning and who will provide it and check that they are compliant with industry standards.

Please clarify who will adjudicate professional complaints at industry body level for these beneficiaries should any arise.

As opposed to attacking those who graduated and then completed further study you need to realise that the sympathy that exists is not for people who have the degree and just didn’t bother completing the part 3 examination; it is for those who either did a different qualifiaction or did not possess the resources to go to third level and have through sheer hard work pulled themselves up to the level of competent practitioner and that to date may not have had an entry route into membership of the industry body.

As you well know only one professional body has the structures and resources to credibly regulate the industry along International best practice lines; this is the case with all other professions in Ireland.

@PVC King wrote:

This is where I have a problem with your argument; you as opposed to examining ways of bringing vocational practitioners into the profession structure simply attack the existing structure which is based on International best practice in your attempts to justify creation of an entry point that is not regulated. Are you really suggesting that all motor drivers who have acheived a full driving license should also be retested every 5 years?

Given the 400+ deaths annually on Irish roads – more accruing every ten years than the entire 30 years of The Troubles you’d have to be stupid not to understand that retesting is required.

Or does you espousal of best practice not extend to matters that directly affect you?

Please clarify post Granfather clause how you propose the beneficiaries of the amnesty would be regulated in respect to industry led practice statements and guidance notes,

I expect they’d read them, just like other industry members do, just like they already do.
[was that a serious questinon…?]
Do you think the RIAI or some project manager looking for an alternative revenue stream INVENTED CPD?
I’ve been doing CPD for twenty years – you have to keep up or fall behind.

please clarify how the beneficiaries will maintain relevant life long learning and who will provide it and check that they are compliant with industry standards.

That stops beign a problem once you’re registered and a member of the registration body or another professional organisation.
As for testing and compliance, while the RIAI run CPD courses, they’re not directed to particular sectors, jsut as archtiects may sepcialise in different sectors – the RIAI CPD is only offered [FORCED learning, is that your cant?] and a minimum number or hours required each year.
Other bodies and groups may run courses which the RIAI accredit.
I am a member in good standng of the Architectural Association of Ireland, which concentrates on promoting architecture through design and runs RIAI-rated CPD rated events.

Please clarify who will adjudicate professional complaints at industry body level for these beneficiaries should any arise.

You need to address this to the RIAI, not me – they are the regulatory body – but I think no one does at the moment – I understand that the RIAI Good Practice Committe is not sitting at the moment although I know at least one person who used to be on it.

The issue is whether these cmopliants will be adjucated transparently or behind closed doors, and whether there will be a “crank” complaint filter applied.

As opposed to attacking those who graduated and then completed further study you need to realise that the sympathy that exists is not for people who have the degree and just didn’t bother completing the part 3 examination; it is for those who either did a different qualifiaction or did not possess the resources to go to third level and have through sheer hard work pulled themselves up to the level of competent practitioner and that to date may not have had an entry route into membership of the industry body.

That’s where your sympathies lie.

I didn’t attack them per se – I begrudge them their automatic registration when I already have a qualification that is recognised throughout EUrope as entitlnig me to practise ans an architect – this is a very simple position to understand, isn’t it?

I’ve already made the rebuttal that just because someone passed their part III’s twenty years ago doesn’t mean they are competent now – this is clearly true.
I’d also be happy to take your point except that for in Europe – as opposed to British Commonwealth Countries and their clone, America – Graduate was the minimum standard which entitled someone to use the Title and practise as an architect.

As you well know only one professional body has the structures and resources to credibly regulate the industry along International best practice lines; this is the case with all other professions in Ireland.

I don’t see much result for this “best practice” of which you speak.
What is is good for except keeping those from poor social demographics out of the professions?
A closed shop by any other name masquerading as setting standards and protecting the public?
Do your research on recent building failures and see how many of those were RIAI designed buildings

And you know what their fig leaf then is?
“We weren’t retained to administer the contract or carry out inspections.”

But they’ll still come in when its all coverd up and certify for money based on “visual inspection” only – not bloody good enough by a long shot.

Don’t assume you know anything about the Architectural Profession or how Members of the RIAI behave.
Learn before you post.

ONQ.

I am not going to reply to most of your post; the answers were not straight other than to clarify the self declared mandate of the AAI

‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’

How can you possibly construe that as an industry body; that would make Paul Clerkin an FAAI without ever joining…..

@onq wrote:

That’s where your sympathies lie.

I didn’t attack them per se – I begrudge them their automatic registration when I already have a qualification that is recognised throughout EUrope as entitlnig me to practise ans an architect – this is a very simple position to understand, isn’t it?

The Dail architectis on record as saying the following

As indicated above the so-called grandfather clause in the Building Control Act 2007 was introduced in order not to exclude individuals who had been working as architects for some considerable time in the State but had not undergone any formal architectural training. It was strongly felt that limiting the architectural profession to graduates of the various third level institutions would be unfair on those individuals who had gravitated into architectural practices from quantity surveying, technical drafting or trade/apprenticeship backgrounds.

The intention of those who seek to protect the weaker party is to help those with vocational backgrounds not those who simply couldn’t have been bothered doing professional exams.

@onq wrote:

And you know what their fig leaf then is?
“We weren’t retained to administer the contract or carry out inspections.”

But they’ll still come in when its all coverd up and certify for money based on “visual inspection” only – not bloody good enough by a long shot.

Don’t assume you know anything about the Architectural Profession or how Members of the RIAI behave.
Learn before you post.

ONQ.

Having wasted 10 minutes trying to deal with your spinning above I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.

1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checks

The grandfather clause is simply a free for all by another name; a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.

@PVC King wrote:

I am not going to reply to most of your post; the answers were not straight other than to clarify the self declared mandate of the AAI

Translation: I am clearly out of my depth and I’m backpedaling like mad.

‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’

How can you possibly construe that as an industry body; that would make Paul Clerkin an FAAI without ever joining…..

Oops! Does this sort of thing not fit in with your carefully manicured world view – quelle surprise! That’s the thing about facts, damned uncomfortable to face if your forté is arguing from first principles without doing any research.

Are you having a go at me for pointing out the RIAI have repeatedly accredited AAI events as suitable for CPD points or are you just pissed off that someone – once again – pointed out that you have no clue about what your posting about?

The Dail architectis on record as saying the following

*bwehehehehehehehe*

Oh thank you, thank, you thank you for being the one to bring that into this thread!

So sweet that you did this and not me!

LOL!

Here, catch:

“It was strongly felt that limiting the architectural profession to graduates of the various third level institutions would be unfair on those individuals who had gravitated into architectural practices from quantity surveying, technical drafting or trade/apprenticeship backgrounds.”

I added the bold emphasis to show that the Graduate Standard was the original standard entitled to use the title architect in the bill, and one I had no problem with – of course this is exactly what a self-opinionated muppet like you who does no research typically fails to see or accept.

And there’s more

However, at variance with the approach proposed in the Framework Document the RIAI (the proposed designated Registration Body under the Building Control Bill 2005) are determined to impose a technical assessment based on Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). The Competition Authority’s Report states that, the RIAI will face a clear potential conflict of interest between representing the interest of its members on the one hand and regulating in the public interest on the other.

It continues

Including this reference does not undermine the integrity of the Bill or its application. As we upgrade and improve our standards, we should not allow a group of people who have worked honestly all their lives to find themselves and their identities threatened.

Then there’s this bit.

The procedure for architects applying for registration on the basis of training acquired by practical means is set down in section 20. It will be the function of the technical assessment board to provide for the assessment of such applicants. The RIAI will not set the standards. The board appointed by the Minister will set them.

Of course, this was always pie-in-the-sky – in a panel composed partly of architects, the architects will tend to have the say on such matters.

The intention of those who seek to protect the weaker party is to help those with vocational backgrounds not those who simply couldn’t have been bothered doing professional exams.

I’d say you’re dangerously close to defaming me and others, but I’m big enough to let you prattle on and hang yourself further or just to see if you have anything else in your repertiore besides lame ad hominem attacks.

Having wasted 10 minutes trying to deal with your spinning above…

Translation: I have no clue what I’m talking aboutm and have found no way to rebut you but I’ll quote “best practice” at you until I’m blue in the face.

…I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.

1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checks

You’re making a point for some other thread perhaps.
I didn’t mentione any of these issues, which read like the justifications put out by some institute to cover the outrageous fees they charge their members.
I haven’t attacked the RIAI outright on all these fronts, except for them and the BC2007 not acknowledging my right to call myself an architect based on my degree being recognised in two EU Directives.

But the one point you utterly miss – and you and the RIAI share a blindspot on this – is that only by sitting externally audited exams every five years or so can any assurance be offered that Members are keeping up.
Does diddums not have that on his liddle list – no?

The grandfather clause is simply a free for all by another name;

You sound like someone under stress PVC King.
Faced with facts you cannot assimilate you fall back on parroting lines from some document you once read on guidelines for the professions.

A Grandfather Clause is not a free-for all.
For a start not that many people want to be architects as your “free-for0all” comment seems to suggest.
Like the RIAI before you, you paint a picture of a beleaguered governing body trying to protect the virtues of the profession from some unqualified horde.

This is RIAI’s wet dream.
But its just that, a dream or a well work piece of spinning for those of us who;ve had ot listen ot them over the years.
This simply isn’t happenning and has never happened, even in all the years when there was no restriction on who could practise as an architect.

a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.

Yep – that’s called a closed shop.
Exactly what the EU Commission and Competition Authority are mandate to prevent.
Did liddle wifey not explain that to diddums when lending you her bukes on how to bring best practice to the Professions?

Poor diddums, I wonder why?

ONQ.

‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’

Stay with the point; they do not profess to be a regulatory organisation.

Graduate Standard

Is exactly that; name one other fee based profession in Ireland where once you graduate you are not required to join the industry membership organisation to use the title.

The Competition Authority’s Report states that, the RIAI will face a clear potential conflict of interest between representing the interest of its members on the one hand and regulating in the public interest on the other.

It is interesting that the competition authority has not moved against solicitors, accountants and surveyors if their view was that the RIAI’s role was incompatable. You will note it is a potential conflict and not an unacceptable conflict.

…I come back to the structure of all professions and ask you to address who will carry out the following functions.

1. CPD for members
2. Examination of part 3 candidates and arch techs i.e. vocational candidates
3. Formulating practice statements
4. Deciding tests of reasonableness through guidance notes
5 Complaint procedures
6. Checking PI cover of members
7. Regulating client money handling through spot checks

You’re making a point for some other thread perhaps.

The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects?

a controlled intake into the industry body to preserve their ability to earn a living and protect the public simultaneously is a very different process.

Yep – that’s called a closed shop.

Explain how allowing people without degree’s in architecture to be given membership of the RIAI based on long service is a closed shop?

@henno wrote:

can an MRIAI give me one good reason why the introduction of this grandfather clause, as outlined by JD, is not a good idea????

is there a fear out there, and if so why??

Obviously the current situation suits those MRIAIs engaged in the one-off houses & house extension sector of the market, especially those self-employed. They can exploit the “protect the public” side of it to elbow non-MRIAIs out of the way. The amnesty will only mean that those over 35 will enter into a level playing field, however.

I’m not in the above group and I don’t have a problem with the theory of it Henno – I just would like more clarity on how it is going to happen – I also see an opportunity for some of the better ideas to have come out of all of this being incorporated and applied to MRIAIs also – in terms of continued assessment etc. There are those who appear to know more about the process but unfortunately do themselves no service with childish responses and petty antagonism to the point that I don’t bother to read their prattle. Because of this we don’t actually get an idea of the stance of the disenfranchised – except that if they don’t get their way they’re obviously intending to take their ball and go home.

The reason I started this thread is that I object to the whole thing being an amnesty. There are routes within the RIAI registration procedure to take care of those currently unregistered. Onq, for example, can use Route 2 – one of the easiest – and it makes me wonder how many others are simply avoiding doing the exams and spending the money that those registered did – To quote JOD “There is a process for these architects to secure the necessary qualifications through the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland however this is too expensive and too time consuming for many working architects”. Oh well if you’re too busy lads

I agree that the RIAI registration routes for anything other than Route A are extortionate but I also have a real issue with this “the world owes me something” attitude. Onq, for example could qualify for a sum equal to that paid in MRIAI fees by someone who registered 2 years ago. I think there might be a Groucho Marx side to him though. I also understand that the exams may be tricky for some people – all those questions and everything. There is no reason why, as PVC points out, a more relevant exam, coupled with an appropriate and reasonable fee could not be fast-tracked to suit. I would also like clarification on how the “ evidence of having worked practically as an architect for 7 years or more” will be assessed. For example, who will assess it and who pays for the assessment?

And before the dummy spitting brigade get up in arms I think that anyone already MRIAI who would otherwise not qualify should also go through this process. In this case there would be no fee if total MRIAI membership fees already paid exceed the cost of the exam.

Where I am totally unsure though is where all of this leaves those people currently aged under 35 as the old boys jump on the boat and sail away. I have asked this question in another thread and received the answer “The plan is to get the rights of Irish Graduates restored to the level enshrined in the EU Directive” which pointedly seems to ignore non-Irish graduates. I would, therefore, like clarity on how those left waiting on the quayside are to be treated

Agreed it is unfair to people who say graduated at 22 in another discipline or entered the industry straight after school and spent 4 years as an apprentice draughtsman. Potentially excluding people with up to 16 years in the industry who have under their employers been afforded additional recognition for quality work would be unfair.

A fair structure would be to have different levels that recognise attainment at specific levels as each level is acheived; the consumer has a right to know what level they are dealing with.

The question is how logistically you deal with those with incomplete qualifications and provide them with a right to practice that is robust enough to fulfill the intention of the legislation i.e. to protect the public.

The split into 4 grades seems to be the only method of protecting individuals practicing and the public;

1. Student
2. Associate
3. Member/Fellow
4. Arch tech

It is further vital that when people acheive these grades that their ongoing participation is regulated through the membership body.

Given the number of unemployed architects the cost base of examining vocational canditates may be lower than in a supply constrained market.

@PVC King wrote:

Stay with the point; they do not profess to be a regulatory organisation.

If that was your point, you made it badly, and you seem unable to run with the ball.
The RIAI are not – ulp! so far at least – anywhere near as regulatory as you make them out to be towards their own members.
Where matters are dealt with AFAIK they are done so in camera and confidentially.
No-one actually knows how they are dealt with – you are just making your usual unfonuded assumptions and pontificating – and the Good Practice Committee is not sitting and may be superseded – again, no one seems to know.

Is exactly that; name one other fee based profession in Ireland where once you graduate you are not required to join the industry membership organisation to use the title.

You seem to be deliberately missing my point PVC King.
I have a qualification that entitles me – merely by possesing it – to use the title architect and practise as an archtiect throughout Europe – the BCA 2007 does not recognise this.
Nor dos it recognise the standard of Graduate as the appropriate standard.

You can perhaps see that the additional hoop to jump through while being prevented by a draconian law from exercising rights as you have for the past twenty years looks to some like a protectionist policy for RIAI sole practitioners.

It is interesting that the competition authority has not moved against solicitors, accountants and surveyors if their view was that the RIAI’s role was incompatable. You will note it is a potential conflict and not an unacceptable conflict.

My understanding is that the Competition Authority are not in a position to move against statutory bodies.
If they cannot move against the RIAI/Registrar and the matter rests on an unjust law not bad pracitce, they cannot move against the others.
I understand its a matter of law, so perhaps before you take any more cheap shots at them or me, you could check out the position with your other half.

The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects?

I have already explained to you – many times now – that the legislation cannot achieve its purpose, any more than medical registration protected the publc from that bastard up in Drogheda General who performed the unnecessary symphysiotnomies {sp} or the roge solicitor Michael Lynn – both were qualified and Membershipped up to their eyeballs.
So the worst effects of rogue operators – criminal actions against the public – cannot be regulated.

Now let’s turn to the substantive issue of competence and assurance of good service.
You seem ot be forgetting the properties of the two groups whose rights I am seeking to have restored.
Gradautes are the products of a a full time five year course listed in the Directive, which listing entitles them ot use the Title Graduate, to which listing Jim Horan contributed documentation [Jim is Head of BOlton Street School of Architecture].
Grandfathers are people whose abilities have been tested over a minimum period of seven years in the marketplace working with that statutory matrix operating in this country to protect the public.
At no point has the RIAI or the governmetn undertaken any resarch to show that either Graduates without Part III’s or Grandfathers with 7+ years are a risk to the public in terms of competence.

More importantly, my time spent reading questions and posting advices on Boards.ie, Askaboutmoney.com and here have shown me that there is a certain degree of antipathy to Architects in general, not just RIAI members.
They have bene portrayed as arrogant, overpriced, unwilling to listen to their client’s wishes – and sure can’t a technician or an engineer do the job as well anyway.
One priceless exchange involved a guy whose engineer was clearly out of his depth designing a once-off residence – and he gets another engineer to sort it!

Its hard enough dealing with public perceptions like that without dealing with the Registration issues on top of that, but as I said before – I support registration.
I just don’t supportthe way its being done by the Government and the RIAI and this looks like its going back to the Dáíl or if not the High Court and the EU.

Explain how allowing people without degree’s in architecture to be given membership of the RIAI based on long service is a closed shop?

Its a closed whop because its out of reach of most people on several levels.
One is cost – the cost is outrageous, and prompted by the level of difficulty it takes to prove anything to the RIAI – its is not a cost of the fee alone.

Two is fairness – we have had a report of an AAoI Member being refused because the RIAI formed a view that the work was not their own – fair enough, I have not assessed the particular application, there may be truth in it.

But I tell you a little secret – no-one of any seniority on any job does all the work, not even all the design work – including MRIAI’s.
To reject an application based on an assertion like that would constitute a terrible defamation unless it was proven by witness statement or corollary evidence.
I hope to be in a position to investigate this shortly and then we’ll see what’s what with the Registrar – until then, and only until then – he gets the benefit of the doubt.

I just know that under your apparently defamatory best practice martinet persona there lurks someone desperately trying to be fair minded, so I’ll raise these issues with you.

#1
I asked the RIAI after the JOC Meeting on 18th May 2010 to allow AAoI Members [this isn’t the AAI BTW] to see a redacted copy of the succcesful applications they had offered to show the JOC.
So far, over two months later there has been no sign of something that could easily have been done to allay fears of both Grandfathers and Graduates alike.

#2
Margaret Hynds O’Flanagan asserted in the JOC Committee on 18th May 2010 that EU Commission had stated that th Graduate standard had been included in the Directives “erroneously”.
I challenged her on this and she retracted her statement entirely although I understand its still on the written record.

Either she address this or I will, and if I do it it may prove embarrassing for her, the RIAI and the Register.
After all John Graby had presented her immediately prior to her making this statement as the RIAI expert on matters dealing with the Directive.

I would hate to think she deliberately tried to mislead the JOC just ot rebut my point that the Graduate standard was the standard in the Directive.
I prefer to think her comments were wishful thinking on her part, but 19 years of a Directive entitlement doesn’t get washed away by lobbying and wishful thinking.

But with a possibly unconscious [and I’m stretching this to give her maximum benefit of the doubt] bias like that, you can perhaps understand that the pedestal you put the RIAI doesn’t seem secure to me and many others.
Is it any wonder that people worry that the RIAI are favouring their members and will not play fair with them?

ONQ.

The stated purpose of the legislation is to protect the consumer from rogue Architects, QS and Building Surveyors. THE SCS regulates Surveyors along the lines above; you consistently run away from explaining who is going to do it for Architects.

One rogue doctor does not give a rationale for a free for all in an entirely unrelated profession; at national level who is going to protect the public in the same manner as all other professions are regulated. If you can’t address that issue then you should leave the stage…..

@PVC King wrote:

Agreed it is unfair to people who say graduated at 22 in another discipline or entered the industry straight after school and spent 4 years as an apprentice draughtsman. Potentially excluding people with up to 16 years in the industry who have under their employers been afforded additional recognition for quality work would be unfair.

A fair structure would be to have different levels that recognise attainment at specific levels as each level is acheived; the consumer has a right to know what level they are dealing with.

The question is how logistically you deal with those with incomplete qualifications and provide them with a right to practice that is robust enough to fulfill the intention of the legislation i.e. to protect the public.

The split into 4 grades seems to be the only method of protecting individuals practicing and the public;

1. Student
2. Associate
3. Member/Fellow
4. Arch tech

It is further vital that when people acheive these grades that their ongoing participation is regulated through the membership body.

Given the number of unemployed architects the cost base of examining vocational canditates may be lower than in a supply constrained market.

Oddly enough PVC King – here we are agreed in principle.

Before I joined the AAoI, I posted a suspiciously similar worded proposal to the Oireachtas [omitting Technicians].

I included the proviso that Associates could work independly as architects, up to a certain level of cost and complexity.
I felt that this fairly reflected the standard and conpetence attained by both Grandfathers and Graduates.

Technicians would either be Technicians or else would be working as Associates.
About 25% go on to become work as an Achitect or Architectural Technologist [CIBT?] by the estimation of he boys over on the Planning Forum on Boards.ie.

However the Associate level involves a devolution for me and some other Graduates and for some Grandfathers, given what we’ve worked on already.
To accommodate this I suggested that the Part III exam be made available for those who have had more than 7 years in practice, after which they became Members.

The term I used was Chartered, to reflect the understanding prevelant in many other professions of the standing of the Part III qualification – personally I don’t think “member” cuts the mustard.

Oops! A whole post without a single ad hominem – I must be slipping.

ONQ.

So you accept that a level of examination is required as well as ongoing monitoring of the entire profession.

For what its worth I think €9,250 for an examination and the limiting of the in take to 40 places in 2010 is expensive in financial terms and will not bring many competent practitioners in from a regulatory vaccum; if you concentrated your arguments on getting a justification of the scale of fees for what should be at most 5 papers sat over 2-3 weekends at DIT or UCD and corrected by the examiners of part 3 exams for traditional route entry then I think your arguments would come across very differently.

As was said to me before I qualified in an unrelated profession the entry process is a balance between technical ability and convincing the examiners that you would not bring the institute into disrepute over the course of your career.

I would check contacts in your allumni association to ascertain if enough skills exist among current staff and graduates to put together an alternative equivelent exam that is recognised by the RIAI as stated they have no financial interest in the ARAE; competition is the life blood of all commercial sectors. What would be critical is that any exam operated by an alternative provider would need to have an external examiner provided by the RIAI as you would imagine is the case with the ARAE route.

I realise that our new found bonhomie might be a bit heady for you, so I’ll take this reaaaaal slow.

@PVC King wrote:

So you accept that a level of examination is required as well as ongoing monitoring of the entire profession.

In other posts – not the one above, I pointed out the need for ongoing examinations to give credible assurance to the public on an ongoing basis for all archtiects – including MRIAIs.
No one else has suggested this level fo testing and its not in place in any commonwealth countries either – they rely on the soft option of CPD once the door has closed behind you.
Let me expand on that.

*If* regulation is to be about protecting or assuring members of the public, the Part III alone cannot do this, a self-administered CPD course cannot do this.
An independent examination taken every five years seems to be the only way to do this credibly without cries of “croneyism”.
This seems to be a relatively straightforward thing to do, but you’ll notice the RIAI are not promoting this.
This calls into question the bona fides of their whole operation in terms of protecting the public.
This costly operation has been referred to as a franchise by members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Envirnioment , IIRC.
I think we are in agreement up to this stage, but here is where we may diverge.

Should matters remain as is, then no, I don’t agree to an examination – in principle, and for the following reasons.

I fail to see why; –

– should be required to “prove” themselves beyond what they have already done.

The Graduates have the requred degree, the Grandfathers have seven years of work behind them to be shown as piroof of establishment for the purposes of quantitative assessment.
In case you’re wondering, no AFAIK you cannot simply walk into Merrion Square with a degree or 7 years behind you and sit the Exam.
In reply to your anticipated question – ask the RIAI – its their closed shop.
In reply to your other unasked question – yes I would.

🙂

For what its worth I think €9,250 for an examination and the limiting of the in take to 40 places in 2010 is expensive in financial terms and will not bring many competent practitioners in from a regulatory vaccum; if you concentrated your arguments on getting a justification of the scale of fees for what should be at most 5 papers sat over 2-3 weekends at DIT or UCD and corrected by the examiners of part 3 exams for traditional route entry then I think your arguments would come across very differently.

Once again we seem to be in total agreement.
The 40 places might be an artificially restricted number to allow people running the assessment to find their way without incurring too many casualties or court cases if it all goes wrong for a large number of people.
The fact is that this number of woefully inadequate if the projected 1,000 unregistered architects [not my figure BTW] is a realistic figure – it would take 25 years to clear the list, with no transitional period allowed for in the legislation putting them at a huge disadvantage in the marketplace.

As was said to me before I qualified in an unrelated profession the entry process is a balance between technical ability and convincing the examiners that you would not bring the institute into disrepute over the course of your career.

This is actually a strong point in favour of the Grandfathers – while a two year Part III has most of their career ahead of them, a Grandfather with a minimum of 7 years has a track record they can point to saying “this is how I have worked and behaved”.

Despite the assurance the RIAI claims to give, and with the best will in the world, on balance I don’t think this is about protecting the public or giving them assurances so much as disenfranchising the RIAI’s competitors.
There is always an element of that when regulation comes into a profession, but setting the bar beyond an existing legislative minimum gives the game away to any focussed observe.
The end game here appears to be the RIAI being able to say to to commonwealth countries who use the Part III’s to restric access to the profession, “look, we match you in every way.”
Well one of teh ways the middle classe control the professions – an you should check hte demograhics on this – is by makign it more expensive to practice.
Thsi doesn’t promote standards per se, it just means people from poor social demograhics have a very poor chance of becoming professional.
This is an extension of the “keep builders in their place” mentality that has poisoned relations in the buildng industry for hundreds of years.

I would check contacts in your allumni association to ascertain if enough skills exist among current staff and graduates to put together an alternative equivelent exam that is recognised by the RIAI as stated they have no financial interest in the ARAE; competition is the life blood of all commercial sectors. What would be critical is that any exam operated by an alternative provider would need to have an external examiner provided by the RIAI as you would imagine is the case with the ARAE route.

[/QUOTE]

Thank you for this PVC King – and that’s a genuine thank you.
That is the most incisive thing I have read on this matter since I started posting here.
It mirrorscurrent discussions amongst the AAoI Members where concerns are high about whether or not members will get a fair crack of the whip from people they see as their competitors, namely the RIAI.

The RIAI have repeatedly said that the ARAE process is independent of them and their regime was not intended to be a franchise, but rather its set up to be self-financing.
AAoI Members sourcing an alternative testing body to be accredited by the RIAI will put that to the test.
I will put your suggestion to our Members for their consideration.

I think some may want to get further away from the RIAI.
They may want prefer to use European Architects to conduct an external examination or assessment of evidence of establishment.

In closing I want to clear up something that may be causing some confusion to readers of recent posts to this and the other “interminable” thread.

AAI = The Architectural Assocaition of Ireland, currently chaired by Hugo Lamont.
AAoI = the Architects Alliance of Ireland, with Brian Montaut as its Spokesperson.

There is no link between these organizations.
I am a Member in good standing of both organizations.

The former is a stimulating and informative forum as well as a source of ongoing CPD points.
The latter is the body I helped represent before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment on 18th May 2010.

FWIW

ONQ.

RIAI have no one to blame but themselves.
They lost the moral ground when they tried to use Technical Assessment to:-

• Earn lots of easy free money – €6,500 fee is a disgrace.
• Cull 50% of their existing competition.

The pilot scheme had a 75% failure rate before Appeal.
Not recognising “Domestic Design” as Architecture?
I don’t believe office blocks, box metal warehouses or retail parks can be as complicated as a one off well design house – just ask Tado.

The radio adverts were a disgrace and totally backfired.

@RKQ wrote:

RIAI have no one to blame but themselves.
They lost the moral ground when they tried to use Technical Assessment to:-

• Earn lots of easy free money – €6,500 fee is a disgrace.
• Cull 50% of their existing competition.

The pilot scheme had a 75% failure rate before Appeal.
Not recognising “Domestic Design” as Architecture?
I don’t believe office blocks, box metal warehouses or retail parks can be as complicated as a one off well design house – just ask Tado.

The radio adverts were a disgrace and totally backfired.

no-one to blame but themselves for what?

@wearnicehats wrote:

no-one to blame but themselves for what?

For what’s about to happen.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

For what’s about to happen.

ONQ.

spooky

What’s about to happen hopefully is that the 2500+ members of the RIAI are going to get up off their arses and start lobbying their local TD’s and senators. Instead of feeling impotent about John ‘Expenses’ O’ Donoghue’s ludicrous Private Member’s Bill do something about it.

You would be surprised at how empowering it is talking to your local T.D. about your worries and concerns on an issue such as this and how responsive they can be to the personal story. As someone involved in lobbying on the Civil Partnership Bill I’m amazed at how effective it was.

T.D.’s also respond to potential voters and there are a lot more RIAI members and potential members than there are AA members if we get out and lobby.

Instead of baiting ONQ et al on here get out to your local constiuency office this weekend.

Good luck!

You seem to forget that the object of the legislation was to protect the public from rogue traders; do you really expect your arguments to be afforded respect when you directly seek to exclude people with sufficient practical experience who are prepared to pay a reasonable fee to sit a professional exam and be bound by the rules of the profession going forward.

There is a middle ground that protects the public, recognises professional competence and does not exclude hard working taxpayers whether or not they were lucky enough to be able to receive a third level education in a career they have managed to be lucky enough to select at attempt one.

Recognition of YOUR qualification and registration under threat
John O’Donoghue T.D.’s Private Members’ Bill proposes admission to the Register of Architects without:

assessment of competence
independent verification
compliance with minimum EU standards

Dear Colleague,
I am writing to you regarding the Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010 Private Members’ Bill recently tabled by John O’Donoghue T.D.
The Amendment Bill proposes an additional ‘grandfather clause’ exemption for unqualified persons aged 35 or older who have provided architectural services for seven years or more, but who are unwilling to verify their standard and quality of work through independent assessment as already provided for in the legislation.
The Amendment Bill is unnecessary as the existing legislation already provides for the registration of those who do not have formal qualifications. The process, operated by the independent Technical Assessment Board is fair, accessible, structured and based on expert assessment of professional competence and experience unlike the process in the proposed amendment which specifically excludes any qualitative assessment or independent verification.
This proposed Bill would:
• undermine consumer confidence and protection;
• invalidate the existing Register for Architects;
• damage the reputation of Irish architects and architecture;
• discriminate against those who have worked for and invested in a qualification in architecture and a professional practice examination;
• undermine the validity and acceptability of all architectural qualifications in the State;
• only serve those who are unwilling to have their knowledge, skill and competence assessed by an independent Government statutory body.
The RIAI has grave concerns about this Bill. It is imperative that Irish architectural standards, reputation and processes stand up to international scrutiny. To highlight these important issues, we are issuing a media statement today and will be communicating these concerns over the summer.
While having grave concerns about the proposed amendment, the RIAI as a registration body, can understand the action taken by John O’Donoghue T.D. given the amount of mis-understanding, mis-information and mis-representation about the Building Control Act 2007.
Over the coming months you may have an opportunity to express your opinion or liaise with your local representative on this matter. You can download an information sheet giving an overview of the issues, along with the statement we issued today, a copy of the Private Members’ Bill, and a contact list for Dáil representatives.

Yours sincerely,

John Graby
Director, RIAI

An email I received from the RIAI on the matter yesterday for anyone who’s interested…

there is a lot of mistrust among the ‘excluded’ that the technical examination procedure is or will be deliberately ‘front loaded’ so as to be unfair and not representative of the standards commonplace among registered architects currently practising in ireland.

A transparent and simply process would be to have a sample registered and unregistered architects sit the same exam / interview and have the results published. The sample selection would obviously have to be done on a lottery basis and should reflect a good cross sample of existing practising registered architects.

I too agree that an amnesty is not the way to way to go… im mean, if the definition of “work commensurate to that of an architect” is to be based on the EU definition of traits which includes urban planning, structure etc, then many will not be able to argue that their work is commensurate to that if an architect. Similarly, it should be recognised publically by RIAI that there exists a sub section of registered architects who consider themselves “design” architects only and do not deal at all with technical analysis or solution. Questions could be asked of these architects too, as to how they comply with the definition of Architect as held by the EU…..

Having looked in on this thread a few times it seems that debate has become very diffuse.
It is not simply one single issue – how to deal with people not possessing formal academic training who want to use the term architect to describe their services – that is involved here.

But I’ll be brief.
If the grandfathers really are competent to do the work of an architect then they should have nothing to fear from either a review of their own actual works or an appropriate exam on their expertise.

The question of review/exam fees is another matter.
As is the sourcing of the reviewers/examiners.

@wearnicehats wrote:

spooky

Well, I suppose it is – but its a two edged sword.

It could mean – what’s about to happen to *me* – ulp!

Still, onwards and upwards and some good may come of it.

ONQ.

@BenK wrote:

An email I received from the RIAI on the matter yesterday for anyone who’s interested…

Thanks Henno,

There was a piece on Drivetime and a piece in the paper during the week.

Amazing the reaction you can get from people who take your right to use the Title away , when it looks like they might be merely blunted or delayed in their ambitions for the profession.

There were a number of inclusive ways Registration could have been done – without aping the British – that didn’t need to have involved setting up a monolothic professional class based solely on the RIAI Part III exam.

Workable, layered solutions that promote integrity and appropriate levels of responsibility commensurate with qualification and ability have been expressed both here on Archiseek and to the Oireachtas.

They would only appeal to someone who gives the public credit for understanding things – which they do – and not to someone whose vision of the profession is “one size fits all”.

Of all the professions in which to try to pigeonhole people, one based on insprational artistic ability and resting for its best exponents on native talent, has to be the least suitable.

And to place a paper qualification at the forefront, with little or no regard for a five year full time course recognised by successive EU directives, or 7 or more years giving competent practice and service to their local communities, has to be the mist ignorant ham fisted way to do it.

At the same time to allow people of mixed competence and ability, many of whom took their part three exam thirty or more years ago, to become automatically registered surely cannot credibly be claimed to be good governance, and smacks of croneyism and vested interests.

But to see the Registrar wearing his RIAI Director hat and putting out this scaremongering nonsense has to take the biscuit.

His credibility to comment on this matter fairly or impartially seems to be on a par with his ability to approve advertisements.

But the real question whether it is appropriate that the Registrar comment publicly in any manner at all.

Too many hats and too many jobs to do – that’s gotta be a vested interest issue.

This is a question for the Minister.

Hopefully he will address it with more integrity, competence and common sense than he has the foreshore license holding up the Incinerator – currently putting Ireland at risk from millions of Euros in compensation claim so Gornley can ensure his re-election.

ONQ.

@teak wrote:

Having looked in on this thread a few times it seems that debate has become very diffuse.
It is not simply one single issue – how to deal with people not possessing formal academic training who want to use the term architect to describe their services – that is involved here.

But I’ll be brief.
If the grandfathers really are competent to do the work of an architect then they should have nothing to fear from either a review of their own actual works or an appropriate exam on their expertise.

The question of review/exam fees is another matter.
As is the sourcing of the reviewers/examiners.

The matter of showing proofs “for quantitative verification purposes” is addressed in the Building Control Bill 2010.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2010/4110/B4110D.pdf

Its a comprehesive wording, given the remoteness of the period of time involved from which prospective Registrants might be requried to produce documents.
This could be more distant in many cases than the 6 years companies are required to retain documents under the Data Protection Act.
In my own case, should I intend to proceed down this route, I would be looking to show documents from 1990-1997.

My tender, formative years. 🙂

ONQ.

@vca wrote:

What’s about to happen hopefully is that the 2500+ members of the RIAI are going to get up off their arses and start lobbying their local TD’s and senators. Instead of feeling impotent about John ‘Expenses’ O’ Donoghue’s ludicrous Private Member’s Bill do something about it.

You would be surprised at how empowering it is talking to your local T.D. about your worries and concerns on an issue such as this and how responsive they can be to the personal story. As someone involved in lobbying on the Civil Partnership Bill I’m amazed at how effective it was.

T.D.’s also respond to potential voters and there are a lot more RIAI members and potential members than there are AA members if we get out and lobby.

Instead of baiting ONQ et al on here get out to your local constiuency office this weekend.

Good luck!

You’ll need more than luck.

You’ll probably find a Member of the Architects Alliance of Ireland has already made their case.
Better still, it may be that they haven’t been there before you – that you’re coming to the the elected representative “cold”.

Imagine the fun you will have trying to explain to them that the person who designed their nephew’s house and certified it is a risk to the public and a menace to the profession.
The elected representative will look at you as if you have two heads, then they may either politely ask you to leave or, thinking that you’re a raving lunatic, call the guards.

One can only imagine the defamation cases that are going to arise out of this foolishness.

ONQ.

Mmmmm – quick question – when is an alleged independent register competent body , not a independent register competent body – yeah! that right , (yes I know , I’ve answered my own question !) its the one that openly lobbies the brotherhood to mobilise against a proposed legislative amendment that does not suit its other day job or its members!! Could another independent competent body have been on the ball with its warning that the RIAI would have a clear conflict of interest, if awarded the role of register, competent body, and figurehead for a professional body, such an unholy trinity. The competition Authority must be wagging the metaphorical finger with a smug self satisfied look on its metaphorical face, saying to the ministers “aha, we told you so!!”
John Boy must have many internal conflicts to know which hat to wear when he rises from the scratcher every sunny morn. I must also wonder if this will compromise the position of the RIAI as the competent body now as it has openly cast off its shackles of its “faux pas” independent role. What would the legal issues if any be??? all food for thought. Also by an by ,,, some additional reading whilst on the white throne…

Competition Law – Abuse of Dominance
If a business has a dominant position in any market then it must not abuse that dominant position. Competition law places a special responsibility on anyone who has a dominant position in the market.(RIAI) However, it is not a breach of law merely to hold a dominant position, it is the abuse of the dominant position which is the breach of the law.(radio bias advertising registered over non registered – peddled under auspice of only being informative – and officially endorsed as biased by the BAI)

It is possible to have a dominant position in a relatively narrow market and many companies are surprised to find that they are dominant. If there is any doubt then legal advice ought to be obtained as to the compatibility of conduct with competition law.

Abuse of dominance consists in such activities as predatory pricing, abusive acquisitions by dominant businesses, unjustifiable refusals to supply, fidelity rebates, unjustified discounts, “exclusionary tactics or similar unfair conduct.”(would / could this be an other area of concern)

It is not possible to obtain an exemption or a licence in respect of an abuse of dominance. Therefore all abuses of dominance are breaches of competition law.
The European Commission and the Irish courts will punish abuses of dominance more severely than anti-competitive arrangements. Abuses of dominance attract the highest fines.

open up your chequebook brothers, and expect higher annual subscription fees to cover the costs of the cases for compo and others, as the tax payer will not be picking up the tab for this gaffe, me thinks, “Sigh “– I really disappear at the leadership’s actions on this issue, getting knickers in a severe twist comes to mind. There are many ways to carck this nut, but not the sledgehammer approach as being swung on this occassion.

Spoilsport – by name and nature

@spoilsport wrote:

Mmmmm – quick question – when is an alleged independent register competent body , not a independent register competent body – yeah! that right , (yes I know , I’ve answered my own question !) its the one that openly lobbies the brotherhood to mobilise against a proposed legislative amendment that does not suit its other day job or its members!! Could another independent competent body have been on the ball with its warning that the RIAI would have a clear conflict of interest, if awarded the role of register, competent body, and figurehead for a professional body, such an unholy trinity. The competition Authority must be wagging the metaphorical finger with a smug self satisfied look on its metaphorical face, saying to the ministers “aha, we told you so!!”
John Boy must have many internal conflicts to know which hat to wear when he rises from the scratcher every sunny morn. I must also wonder if this will compromise the position of the RIAI as the competent body now as it has openly cast off its shackles of its “faux pas” independent role. What would the legal issues if any be??? all food for thought. Also by an by ,,, some additional reading whilst on the white throne…

Competition Law – Abuse of Dominance
If a business has a dominant position in any market then it must not abuse that dominant position. Competition law places a special responsibility on anyone who has a dominant position in the market.(RIAI) However, it is not a breach of law merely to hold a dominant position, it is the abuse of the dominant position which is the breach of the law.(radio bias advertising registered over non registered – peddled under auspice of only being informative – and officially endorsed as biased by the BAI)

It is possible to have a dominant position in a relatively narrow market and many companies are surprised to find that they are dominant. If there is any doubt then legal advice ought to be obtained as to the compatibility of conduct with competition law.

Abuse of dominance consists in such activities as predatory pricing, abusive acquisitions by dominant businesses, unjustifiable refusals to supply, fidelity rebates, unjustified discounts, “exclusionary tactics or similar unfair conduct.”(would / could this be an other area of concern)

It is not possible to obtain an exemption or a licence in respect of an abuse of dominance. Therefore all abuses of dominance are breaches of competition law.
The European Commission and the Irish courts will punish abuses of dominance more severely than anti-competitive arrangements. Abuses of dominance attract the highest fines.

open up your chequebook brothers, and expect higher annual subscription fees to cover the costs of the cases for compo and others, as the tax payer will not be picking up the tab for this gaffe, me thinks, “Sigh “– I really disappear at the leadership’s actions on this issue, getting knickers in a severe twist comes to mind. There are many ways to carck this nut, but not the sledgehammer approach as being swung on this occassion.

Spoilsport – by name and nature

Excellent food for thought, thanks.

ONQ

@PVC King wrote:

You seem to forget that the object of the legislation was to protect the public from rogue traders; do you really expect your arguments to be afforded respect when you directly seek to exclude people with sufficient practical experience who are prepared to pay a reasonable fee to sit a professional exam and be bound by the rules of the profession going forward.

There is a middle ground that protects the public, recognises professional competence and does not exclude hard working taxpayers whether or not they were lucky enough to be able to receive a third level education in a career they have managed to be lucky enough to select at attempt one.

This is your second thank you this month.

Don’t lose the run of yourself.

ONQ

This is the current updated lin on the RIAI Web page.

http://www.riai.ie/news/article/riai_questions_need_for_additional_grandfather_clause_in_building_control_a/

ONQ.

Why not take this opportunity to amend the whole act.

But this time include a provision for the equally deserving “apprenticeship” route.
Just seen the Canadian scheme online and it is impressive.
http://www.raic-syllabus.ca/public/index.html

Many other professions retain this route to qualification.
Engineers in the UK may still qualify this way.
Even lawyers in California, NY, DC and Maine can qualify this route — with neither a college primary degree nor law school attendance.

This route to qualification clearly has advantages in those professions where both study and work-skills need to be acquired prior to being free to practice under one’s own name.
It allows both freedom to independent spirits and a half-decent lifestyle to persons who meet the love of their life at a young age and want to retain their professional ambitions.
Having met a few engineers in the UK who went down this route I found them both very familiar with the implementation realities of product development.

As an outsider, I find it odd that the RIAI, or whoever is finally agreed on to decide on acceptability of qualifications, cannot see the good sense of including this avenue to qualification within Ireland — yet at the same time they are happy to accept Canadians who might well have attained their primary qualifications by this route . . .
Is it another case of a profession being led by its vocal academic minority ?

@teak wrote:

Why not take this opportunity to amend the whole act.

But this time include a provision for the equally deserving “apprenticeship” route.
Just seen the Canadian scheme online and it is impressive.
http://www.raic-syllabus.ca/public/index.html

Many other professions retain this route to qualification.
Engineers in the UK may still qualify this way.
Even lawyers in California, NY, DC and Maine can qualify this route — with neither a college primary degree nor law school attendance.

This route to qualification clearly has advantages in those professions where both study and work-skills need to be acquired prior to being free to practice under one’s own name.
It allows both freedom to independent spirits and a half-decent lifestyle to persons who meet the love of their life at a young age and want to retain their professional ambitions.
Having met a few engineers in the UK who went down this route I found them both very familiar with the implementation realities of product development.

As an outsider, I find it odd that the RIAI, or whoever is finally agreed on to decide on acceptability of qualifications, cannot see the good sense of including this avenue to qualification within Ireland — yet at the same time they are happy to accept Canadians who might well have attained their primary qualifications by this route . . .
Is it another case of a profession being led by its vocal academic minority ?

Teak,

This is becoming and embarrassing habit this past month – thanks for the excellent link
Sorry about the delay in my responding – there is a lot happening behind the scenes just at the moment.

This Canadian Route was unknown to me before your post – as well as the principle of a commonwealth country continuing the apprenticeship route – this is hugely information and supportive.
No doubt the RIAI will say this is already included in the Act, but the failure rate of 16 out of 18 entrants previously suggest they might have set the bar too high.

But the fact is that the apprenticeship route – unlike the self-limiting Grandfather Clause – caters for an ongoing need that recognises not everyone can go to college as well as the fact that an “assessment” that tries to cram a five year design course into one year is a non-runner – it takes students in a five year full time course years just to learn the lingo, despite already in many cases having the ability to design – there’s many a mediocre scheme been “talked” into a pass, where without teh verbal/written/intellectual net supporting it, it might well have failed to sufficiently impress.

And this of course is the big fear of apprenticed/practically/traditionally trained architects – their assessors think differently about design than they do.
The designs may not be all THAT different, but assessors are as gullible as anyone to a smooth talker, and frequently the “wow” factor design gets the nomination just for pushing the boat out, despite it being a less mature or cost-effective response to the brief.

While there are pros and cons for full time vs part time learning, there is no substitute for doing what you do best, whether it be in design projects or real world
In academia, for example in the Bolton Street full-time course, a typical year will have at least four significant projects, sometimes six, with the major one usually after Christmas but before the Easter tests.

The benefit of full time education can be the assessment and development of the designer without the pressures of workload deadlines and professional liability arising – the con can be people don’t take it seriously, or “cog” other designs or simply work less well with a totally blank canvas – many people appreciate design constraints that are a given with RL projects.

The benefit of on-the-job study and training is that you are grounded in the RL practice of the profession – while your design choices are necessarily more limited, you are also learning from an early age about the cost implications of a particular “look” or “wow” feature, something many members of the profession seem to miss even after decades in practice.

A well rounded practitioner of say ten years standing has worked with both these goad – the spur to excellence in design to either win competitions or satisfy demanding development plans and planners, while maintain the balance of the other spur – ensuring that the work is a measured response, judging cost against amenity and standards as well as the regulations.

Anyway, good link – passed on to relevant parties.

ONQ.

At the JOC Environment Meeting held at 3.00 pm on 18th May 2010, the RIAI said that the EU Commission had previously stated that the inclusion of the Graduate Standard as the minimum required to practice as an architect throughout the EU was “erroneous” – this is a misleading statement and utterly without foundation.

The RIAI also suggested that its Members Part III offers an assurance to the public

Some members of the public know just how far that certificate takes you.

There was the Shangan Hall Apartment debacle.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

The section on Shangan Hall starts at timestamp 38:50 and in particular 44:14 – it finshes at 48:28

There was the Priory Hall/Coalport disaster.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/mar/07/dreams-go-up-in-flame/

Both were certified by an RIAI-registered architect firms.

FWIW

ONQ.

I suppose I’d better bring a bit of balance to this thread and say that there are likely to buildings out there that have been certified by persons who aren’t registered with the RIAI.

That could include
persons using the title
persons not using the title
persons who hold academic qualifications
persons who have attended courses but not completed and /or not qualified
persons who have not attended any courses in relevant building professions
persons who have degrees in the fine Arts, Languages or Geography or Literature
persons who have worked for many years in architectural offices
persons without any formal academic training

The fact that we don’t hear about any mis-certification by such persons suggests one of two things

Such persons don’t certify – simply untrue
Such persons don’t make mistakes – highly unlikely
Such persons when challenged, suggest they are not architects and people fail to pursue them – possibly
Such persons are not members of the institute and heretofore the institute would only hold members of the institute to account – without a doubt.

How then does registration only of persons using the title protect the public?
Registration solely of the title architect, in and of itself provides no protection at all.
In a jurisdiction which does not restrict the provision of architectural services, protection is impossible.
Even in principle, registration of architects cannot protect members of the public from persons who do not use the title architect.

It is mere hubris to assume that there are no Rogues and Chancers in the Architectural profession, just as it is unwise to assume Michael Lynn Solicitor was unique.
“Rogues and Chancers” can exist in every category of persons providing such services, including errant Members of the institute, i.e. Registered Architects.
Only proper and independent regulation of the provision of architectural services can protect members of the public from Rogues and Chancers.

The Institute has to my certain knowledge occassionally purseud MRIAI Rogues and Chancers – but done so in a confidential manner.
The main problem with this approach is that the public don’t get to see the Institute in action on their behalf, which is regrettable.
Thus we have no figures on how many MRIAIs required attention, nor how many unqualified persons needed a “quiet word”.
The RIAI’s own stats suggest that the level of complaints they get splits 20% MRIAI – 80% Others – no total numbers.

Let’s accept that a registered architect is complained about and is censured by the Institute that vigorously pursues their brief.
This may involve an intervention, an admission of liability and full restoration [let us hope] – well done, great result – the public is protected.

But what happens when someone not registered and not using the title Architect makes a cock up of a building – the Registrar cannot act – the public remains at risk.
Even where the person has committed an egregious, fraudulent certification leading to possible injury or death, the Registrar cannot act – the remedy lies with the police and the Courts.

Follow this logic – the persons most likely to become registered at this point in time will be the best of the unregistered practitioners out there, so dear and difficult is the process.
In other words, those least likely to make a cock up in the future will become registered and so fall under the governance of the Registrar – these may not ever have committed an error.
Those that are least likely to seek to become registered, those who habitually trade on the public’s inability to obtain satisfaction in the Courts, are the ones who are left outside the control.

Suggesting that they use Title Building Designer might be acceptable, but this merely allows the Rogues and Chancers to continue in practice.
We need to independently regulate the provision of architecture of services to ensure they are only provided by persons who are competent to do so.
We need a means of protecting the public from the Rogues and the Chancers of any kind who are unwilling to undergo an independent assessment.

How can we target Rogues and Chancers if they are hiding behind a fig leaf of unreasonable cost or difficulty or a long-past test – we have to regulate the provision of services.
What might happen if you take the cost out of it for one test run, with some preparation of the candidates, and you employ an external assessor agreed by both sides?
[No-one would think an assessment by competitors or someone promoted by their competitors was likely to be fair or equitable and you do need to prepare]
But let’s also hold a test run assessment of an RIAI of the same age at the same time as a practically trained architect – that would be fun to watch.

Possibly on Front Line some evening with Kenny asking the questions before a “Jury” of Architects and Technicians [and Translators] from EU countries.
I think that might put the matter squarely in front of the the public who are supposedly to be both served by and protected from Architects.
It would also allow a fair comparison of the competence of both MRIAIs and those they like to think of as the Unqualified Successes.

ONQ.

I must admit that my only reaction thus far to this lunacy termed a bill, was to shut off completely – in other words I’m sick of this utter lunacy and haven’t the energy for it. However, I would like to ask one question: just how much of an Open Shop are we talking about now? can any technician over the age of 35 according to John O Dumbbat’s bill now apply to call himself an architect? any technician at all? and then all the other pretenders along with him? he doesn’t even need to show he has any design experience, let alone learning? I think I’ll crawl back into my shell; it’s saner there…

————————
AN BILLE UM RIALÚ FOIRGNÍOCHTA (LEASÚ) 2010
BUILDING CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 2010
————————
BILL
entitled AN ACT TO AMEND THE BUILDING CONTROL ACT 2007.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS FOLLOWS:

1.—Section 14(2) of the Building Control Act 2007 is amended by
the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (i):

“(j) A person who, on the date of coming into force of this amendment—

(i) is at least 35 years of age, to be confirmed by production of a passport or birth certificate issued by the relevant authority in the country of origin, and

(ii) can show evidence of establishment comprising of having had practical experience of providing services commensurate with those of an architect in the State for 7 years or more, whether—
independently:
or with other competent building professionals;
or with persons who were or are eligible to become registered;
or with registered architects;
or in conjunction with architects who were members of the registration body; and

(iii) has presented a portfolio of work undertaken
during the relevant period of 7 years or more
for quantitative verification purposes to the Admissions Board; and

(iv) has provided a sworn declaration in respect of the age, the evidence of establishment, the practical experience, and the portfolio of work referred to in paragraph (j), (i) to (iii) above,”.

2.—Section 21 of the Building Control Act 2007 is amended by 5
the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):
“21.—(1) The registration body shall establish a Technical
Assessment Board to consider applications for registration in
the register from persons who do not fall within any of paragraphs
(a) to (g) and (i) and (j) of section 14(2).”.

3.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Building Control
(Amendment) Act 2010.
(2) The Building Control Acts 1990 and 2007 and this Act may
be cited together as the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2010 and shall
be read together as one. 15

Wouldn’t be too bad if it was only for technicians.
But the way I read it, it’s a loosely defined screen enabling all the usual builder’s draughtsmen to carry on robbing John & Mary Murphys and carry on ballsing up the countryside with ugly and stupidly laid-out houses.

@PlanE wrote:

I must admit that my only reaction thus far to this lunacy termed a bill, was to shut off completely – in other words I’m sick of this utter lunacy and haven’t the energy for it. However, I would like to ask one question: just how much of an Open Shop are we talking about now? can any technician over the age of 35 according to John O Dumbbat’s bill now apply to call himself an architect? any technician at all? and then all the other pretenders along with him? he doesn’t even need to show he has any design experience, let alone learning? I think I’ll crawl back into my shell; it’s saner there…

why are you referring specifically to technicians???

thanks to teak for the above post….. These persons can have any qualification or none…. im confused as to why you think it is solely architectural technicians??? in my opinion it is much more applicable to persons with draughting qualifications during the 60’s and 70’s. Also, imho, i think persons under which this bill falls would be a lot older than 35 yo…

Architectural technicians can practice quite easily in their own right without any requirement for registration as “architects”. A chartered MCIAT member holds the same professional standard as an MRIAI or MRIBA

@PlanE wrote:

I must admit that my only reaction thus far to this lunacy termed a bill, was to shut off completely – in other words I’m sick of this utter lunacy and haven’t the energy for it. However, I would like to ask one question: just how much of an Open Shop are we talking about now? can any technician over the age of 35 according to John O Dumbbat’s bill now apply to call himself an architect? any technician at all? and then all the other pretenders along with him? he doesn’t even need to show he has any design experience, let alone learning? I think I’ll crawl back into my shell; it’s saner there…

I realise the distinction may be lost on some, but no, ANY technician cannot avail of the terms of this Bill.

Firstly, as another poster has pointed out the CIAT accreditation and the Architectural Technologist Title are well established as of this moment, and allow someone so accredited to take a building from inception through to certification.
So long as Architectural Technologists carry the same liability and responsibility as Archtiects, they can paddle their own canoe in my pond. Otherwise, if there is a difference between the degree of responsibility of one over the other, the difference needs to be pointed out for the benefit of the consumer.

Secondly, the Bill only allows persons who have been “providing services commensurate with those of an Architect” to become registered. At face value, your mind may wish to transpose this to “providing architectural services” – but that’s not what it says.
And my understanding is that the wording was carefuly chosen to prevend any old [sic] Tom Dick or Harriet Draughtsman or Technician waltzing into the RIAI demanding Registration as an Architect.

Thirdly, the bill also speaks of Establishment, and this goes to the heart of it – it means unless the applicant for Registration can show they have been practising for 7 years or more as an architect in the state, they are not eligible. You are either acting as an architect or you are not.
This involves the full gamut of services from initial Client Briefing to Developing the Design, which should show an awareness of context and culture, to Certifying Monies to issuing Opinions of Compliance.
Someoneworking down the back of an office during the week and doing “nixer” applications for house extensions on the weekneds and getting someone else to certify them is not acting as an architect.

It is the Title Architect that defines the provider of services.
It is the certification of built work as an architect that defines the responsibility.
One cannot be hiding under a rock or a bush and be an architect.
The responsibility of the Title lays heavily on the shoulders of the beare and exposes him or her to liability to their estate, which means they can be sued after death and their family’s wealth stripped from them.
It is this level of responsibility, a level that dwarfs any other profession, that raises the Title from the mud of the building site where limited liability companies grub for profits.
This allows my profession to rank equal with any other profession and IMO places it before many of them.
When did you last see a banker or a barrister sued?

The implication of the terms in the Act is clear.
You have to show a distinction between what you are doing as an architect in terms of the depth of knowledge, years in the field, professional level work including legal work, office governance, responsibility and firness ro practice generally. And you have to show clear quantitative evidence of this, either in your own name or in another’s (but attested to by someone responsible and competent to do so) where you may have provided service at that level within a larger practice.

Factual evidence is what is required.
This need not be evidence that you designed your buildings brilliantly, because to be a member of any profession, you only have to be able to act as befits an ordinary competent member of that profession.
But within that definition, you have to be able to point out evidence of you having done competent work.
And yes, “competent” implies that you can design beyond the level of the man in the street.
If would be a poor showing of evidence if it only proved you were a terrible designer.

The acid test for responsibiliyt and competence isn’t a qualitative analysis by a team of designers, but a quantitative review of persons and bodies of legislation with whom any architect might come into contact

• client referrals
• evidence of statutory approvals achieved
• certificates and opinions accepted by Banks and Solicitros over the years
• expert witness testimony in court cases
• legal disputes resolved on the steps of the court of the law library building.

This is the stuff that draughtsmen and technicians who work for others simply do not do.
It excludes work specific to engineers in relation to structural, civil and services work on larger commercial work, but may include domestic scale of smaller work within the training of a competent practitioner in architecture.

FWIW

ONQ.

ONQ, thats by and far the best post of your 500+ that you’ve made on this subject. Its focused, defined and rationalised. Well done sir!

MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE REGISTER – AND THE FACTS

THE TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS IS NOT INDEPENDENT

Answer: The process is completely separate from the RIAI.

RIAI, as Registration Body, does not have a role in the assessment of those not having architectural qualifications or the decisions
taken. The responsibility is that of the independent Technical Assessment Board which has four non-architects appointed by the
Minister for the Environment, three architects nominated by the RIAI and a Chairperson/Barrister nominated again by the Minister. The
Board has appointed panels of expert architects to provide an opinion on the submissions received but the Board has the right to
accept, reject or to seek further information on any application.
There is also full independent appeals mechanism. This includes an internal independent Statutory Appeals Board, again with a
majority of non-architects and a Chairperson who is required to be a Barrister or retired High Court Judge. Appeals can be made on
procedural or substantive grounds.

IT TAKES TOO LONG / IT IS TOO DEMANDING

Answer: It can be done in your spare time in as little as two months. You can also take as long as you need.

The RIAI ran a pilot study in late 2007 and 2008 in order to test procedures. A period of two months was given to prepare submissions and those who participated did not find this particularly difficult but gave the view that four months would be preferable. This was at a
time of an unprecedented level of activity in the construction industry; all those who submitted were working full time, so the applications were prepared in their spare time. The application forms, information papers and standard C.V. templates have been available on the
RIAI website since November 2009.

TOO EXPENSIVE

Answer: This is law and is necessary. While there is a cost, there is nothing extra being charged.

Assessment of those not having architectural qualifications, as a once off exercise, is necessarily a complex process with the need for a whole range of checks and balances, audit trails etc. A detailed report on costs has been submitted to the Minister as all costs have to be approved. The cost being proposed, of the order of €6,300 is the actual cost to the RIAI as the Registration Body. RIAI receives no State funding; the process is required to be self-funding. The costs have been investigated and audited by an independent firm of Accountants experienced in forensic work and this has also
been submitted to the Minister for his decision.

THIS IS ELITIST AND ARCHITECTS ARE LOOKING AFTER THEMSELVES

Answer: This is completely incorrect. It is the Amendment that seeks to serve special interests.

Far from being elitist, the process is completely inclusive. It already has a grandfather process to accommodate good competent non
qualified persons. The Technical Assessment is completely independent and does not disadvantage anyone in the process. In fact, the
only people worried about this are those who are unwilling to have their work independently assessed. This is not in the public interest.

THE BAR HAD BEEN SET TOO HIGH

Answer: Again incorrect. All the process looks for is minimum architectural standards.
The bar is simply that of equivalence with an architect and this is defined as:

• Whether the applicant has performed the duties commensurate with that of an architect.
• Whether the work submitted in equivalent to the work of an architect, having regard to the scale complexity and quality.
• Whether or not the work submitted was realised by the applicant and if not totally responsible what responsibility could be
established.
• Whether the applicant can comply with the competencies specified in Article 46 of the Professional Qualifications Directive.
What is required is compliance with the average level of the work of an architect not award winning architects but simply the general
average and no more than that. Articles 46 sets out the basic requirements for the formation of an architect across the EU.
Assessment criteria are not absolute in that the Technical Assessment Board comes to a reasoned judgment; for example not
necessarily all the competences set out in Article 46 have to be covered in full.

IT PUTS PEOPLE OUT OF BUSINESS

Answer: This will not prevent anyone working, whether they are registered or not.

The Act does prevent those not on the Register from using the title architect but it does not limit or control in any way the functions of those providing services in the field of architecture. Quite a number of firms that might have described themselves as engineers and architects have changed titles to titles such as engineers and building design professionals or building and planning design consultants
etc.
The Technical Assessment process is completely independent and any competent professional, who is willing to have that competence independently assessed has nothing to fear.

It is the Title Architect that defines the provider of services.

You’ve got to remember that using the title Architect has been the “privilege” of anyone with the brass neck to claim it until recently.
Go to any town down the country and you’ll see them in smokey laneways —
JJ Chancer ~ Architectural Design Services.
Some of them even claim 3 titles — Architect ~ Engineer ~ Quantity Surveyor.
Look at the local weekly papers and see them putting PP ads in for their naive clients.

In a good few cases these boyos won’t even have a proper draughting apprenticeship to their names, never mind a full technician course.
But as long as they been masquerading for 7 years (from which they’ll easily extract a few bungalow or dormer “projects” for the RIAI examiner) and are over-35 then they are now to be architects for life . . .

There really is NO comparison between someone with a technician’s degree or architect’s degree and that lot.
But Donoghue’s legal drafting will allow them to be put back on the ark.

ONQ, you say you are in business for ~ 20 years.
You are too old not to be able to see through this charade.
The very fact of Donoghue’s sponsoring that bill should make you smell a rat there.

In fact, there is a common tendency of architects in general towards running shy of making public declarations on incompetents presenting themselves to the innocent public as architects. Yet this duty is a core part of an architect’s general social responsibility : you just cannot claim to protect the public from dangerous, wasteful or ugly building design if you do not play your part in sorting out the incompetents locally.
Lobbying governments through the professional bodies, articles in journals, letters to the irish Times, venerable sighs on hearing people’s real stories at the hands of these cowboys — all these are just secondary responses.
The primary response from any responsible, properly-qualified architect who needs to put bread on the table towards any local chancer ought be immediate, visceral and public.
If it isn’t, how else could the public put their trust in your services ?
There is no nice way to deal with bad guys.
Your own everyday reputations in the eyes of your community depend on your demonstrated attitude to these people.
And your livelihoods depend on your standing in the community.
A bit less JFK airs from you people.
A bit more of the LBJ approach would be more effective.

Yippee, I must pack my bags and head for the CPD course, to spoon feed me how to lobby politicos, against the JOD’s amendment to the BCA. I hope we get double points allotted for this course, since its nothing really to do with Continuing Professional Development – Again the question has to asked, in how the RIAI, as “competent body / independent registrar” are now running so called CPD courses, and allegedly remain insular and independent in thier role as competent body.- please somebody do something!! that’s right no one can do anything, as the RIAI can not be taken to task by the CA, because one competent body, can not take a case against another competent body, for abuse of dominance – what a stroke of cute hoor genius by the Brotherhood ..

tut tut RIAI, this stroke is very unprofessional, and smacks of desperation, in that you seem to think that the grass root members can not organise a trip to their local TD / Senator clinics and outlay our fears, without sitting through CPD seminar. I hope its more interesting than most of the other CPD seminars, ( i barely can keep my eyes open during these monotone, power point droning of some manufacturer trying to instil why his product is superior to that of the previous manufacturers monotone droning considering the superiority of their product — yawn ..zzzzzzz ) you know!! the ones that keep us informed of new and up to date building materials, technologies, regulations, codes of practice, contract issues etc… yes that old boring stuff that could be construed as akin to professional development.

vca (John) your are sounding like the “Josef Gumballs” (can i say his real name on this forum ??- I remember some politician being knuckle rapped for such an utterance years ago – was it Mickey O Dowell ??) propaganda minister of the RIAI, and carrying out a Blitzkrieg of posting, the usual boring rhetoric of the Brotherhood, when properly dissected and counter argued by CK and ONQ, looks very flimsy and one dimensional – mine gott!! you must do better brother, and do not let these wannabees, get the upper hand. für Volk und Vaterland

In my humble opinion, I think FF will close ranks around JOD, and his private members bill will make it past the Dail, but will be spiked in the Seanad just like last time, so stop over reacting to this issue, and lobby away, and may the best man win. If the RIAI looked at this issue as business venture, they should simply buy out the competition.ie absorb the few hundred members or whatever their numbers of the AA with minimal fuss, they mostly will die off and retire within 20 years tops, and by then the register will have been running and established long enough, to ensure it will not be changed. They done it with the ministers list 10+ years ago.

This whole sorry saga, is quite embarrassing for the profession and the RIAI, and there will be blood spilled on both sides before the end of the story. As a paid up member of the Brotherhood through necessity rather than choice I see the integrity of the RIAI being permanently stained on this issue, and wish they could use a bit more tact and common sense, rather than the histrionics shown..- For GAWDS SAKE – a CPD course on lobbying against an amendment to the BCA. , – yeah, yeah, real professional ….

Spoilsport – by name and nature (not the other greatly esteemed – spoil_sport)

@henno wrote:

ONQ, thats by and far the best post of your 500+ that you’ve made on this subject. Its focused, defined and rationalised. Well done sir!

(bows)

“If I stand tall its because I stand on the shoulders of giants.”

My time on Archiseek has improved the signal to noise ratio.

No point posting endlessly and failing to address core issues.

Took me a while to see that others weren’t seeing what I knew.

Thanks to all you guys and gals who helped get my act together.

ONQ.

@teak wrote:

(snip)
ONQ, you say you are in business for ~ 20 years.
You are too old not to be able to see through this charade.
(snip)

Lot of emotive waffle there Teak – most unlike you.

I see no charade.

I would prefer everyone to be registered automatically on day one.
This would bring them all under the auspices of Registration
Then I would require everyone to present their stuff.
I would listen to all the complaints against them.
Then I would weed out the incompetents.
This might included some MRIAIs.

But that’s my dream, not the reality – the reality sucks.

Can you spell

P R O F E S S I O N A L – C O N D U C T – C O M M I T T E E

Still not appointed.
Minister still finger tapping.
So much for protecting the public.

The Act has led to an increase in RIAI Membership.
No change to the morass of cleverly titled chancers out there.
No independent regulation of the profession and thus no real protection for the Public.

The Bill can’t make this sad situation any worse.

The Bill will bring some older practitioners into the net and make them subject to the PCC.
It will make them subject to the requirement to engage in structured CPD – a measure I wholly support.
It will allow them access to good practice notes, which is a means of dispersing competent advice – a good thing.

So I see no charade Teak, apart from the one continued by those who claim this Act and Registration actually protect the Public.

ONQ.

Bring everyone, mavericks and all, into the herd just for the purpose of throwing them out ?
No other profession that I know acts in that way.
Experience tells us that it’s always easier to exclude these chancers in the first instance rather than allow them into the fold. Otherwise they’ll soon be networking with other chancers, finding weaknesses within the system, using all due processes and procedures developed for genuine decent members and wailing like babies all the while so as to attract sympathy from outsiders . . .

Make your job handy.
Keep eminently unqualified – by training on or off the job – out of the organisation.
Then adopt a whole new charter for the restablished profession.
Lay down requirements for CPD, practice management, client relations, professional fees and so on.
Then cull.

………….

@teak wrote:

Bring everyone, mavericks and all, into the herd just for the purpose of throwing them out ?

The present Act is worded so you cannot assess anyone unless they apply to be registered.
The alternative is High Court Action and neither the government nor the RIAI are well-funded.
Its simpler and more cost-effective to invite submissions voluntarily and open discussions.
Its easiest to discuss things with members of your organisation – they can be expelled.

After all, what’s the worst that could happen?

Unqualified successes would be trading as Architects
They are doing that already.

They would be seen have the imprimatur of the RIAI
The RIAI have affectively given them this imprimatur by not prosecuting them

The public will be at risk or at greater risk
Utter nonsense and unsupported scare-mongering – how could they be – unqualified archtiects are already in practice here and have been for decades

And none of this addresses the great wrong done to Graduates by the RIAI and the Government.

No other profession that I know acts in that way.

The first statement

Experience tells us that it’s always easier to exclude these chancers in the first instance rather than allow them into the fold.

The contradictory follow up.

You can’t make both statements and expect to be credible.
You either have experience of a profession acting this way or you don’t.

You cannot go from a totally unregulated profession to exclusive registration in one jump.
There needs to be a transistion clause and clauses recognising establisehd practitioners and those with rights.

The present act has none of these.

Otherwise they’ll soon be networking with other chancers, finding weaknesses within the system, using all due processes and procedures developed for genuine decent members and wailing like babies all the while so as to attract sympathy from outsiders . . .

Thsi is mere hysterical fear mongering.
At the moment the RIAI stands at risk of defaming these people and unfair advantage in the market place though its dominant position.
These are hugely seriosu offences in professional and market terms and they don’t evebn see their peril, relying on their supposedly invincible position enshrined by the Act.

Make your job handy.
Keep eminently unqualified – by training on or off the job – out of the organisation.
Then adopt a whole new charter for the restablished profession.
Lay down requirements for CPD, practice management, client relations, professional fees and so on.
Then cull.

Nope, thanks all the same, Teak.
I have no fear of moths flickering around the same flame as I do.
If thery are not brought in you are creating enemies whom you cannot regulate
If they are, they’ll either assume up, in which case we have strengthened the profession.
Or they will flutter, flicker briefly and burn out, in which case they will remove themselves willingly.
The important thing is to offer them the use of another title, to operate at a less exalted level with some honour and standing in the profession.
This way they may choose to remain allied to and supported by the RIAI which allows the Registrar to be in a position to ensure good practice is supported and followed.

Mine is an inclusive approach as opposed to an exclusive approach.
I don’t think the RIAI is capable of making such a sea chage in attitude.
I hope I will be pleasantly surprised by a creative, intuitive leap on their part.

FWIW

ONQ.

After all, what’s the worst that could happen?

1. Stupid, ugly, uneconomical – and possibly dangerous – houses and workspace units will continue to be put upon our landscape.

2. Homesteaders and employers will be charged achitects’ rates for dumb-ass buildings.

3. Gombeen types will be seen to triumph yet again, depressing honest members, esp. young ones who will leave their country for a fairer social landscape.

@teak wrote:

After all, what’s the worst that could happen?

1. Stupid, ugly, uneconomical – and possibly dangerous – houses and workspace units will continue to be put upon our landscape.

2. Homesteaders and employers will be charged achitects’ rates for dumb-ass buildings.

3. Gombeen types will be seen to triumph yet again, depressing honest members, esp. young ones who will leave their country for a fairer social landscape.

Teak,

You’re on very shaky ground here.

1. The most spectacular building failures in the Tiger were down to RIAI practices.
Shangan Hall Apartments, Carrickmines Apartments, Ballinteer Apartments.
People can live with traditional design – neo-rationalism is something else.

2. MRIAIs typically charge higher fees than non-Members.
This is one of the benefits of allowing Grandfathers to continue in practice.
A cheaper competent alternative, allegations of incompetence not having been proved, only inferred from an inappropriate comparison

3. Who has lobbied to disenfranchise Graduates and prevent them using the Title?
You seem to forget that until May 2008, Graduates could set up in practice and sign certs.
The RIAI-sponsored Building Control Act 2007 prevents them being able to sign certs as architects.

Perhaps you think you can lay that at the feet of non-MRIAIs too?

ONQ.

I’m not defending the RIAI commandeering the term “architect” in any way.
But that’s an internal professional issue for you that are involved in it.
Not for outsiders like me to say what’s best there.

All I say is that non-graduates and those who are neither self-educated to an equivalent standard ought be allowed to use the term architect or architectural design services to describe their occupation.

Sure there are others who are graduates, perhaps even also longtime members of some architectural professional organisation, who may also deserve the long drop.
A proper professional body ought deal firmly with them also in the public interest as well as for the good standing of honest members.

Now, I hope that all that is finally clear to you, ONQ.

I may be biased as I live close to the country.
But I do regard the 98% of new houses designed by “engineer”/”builders draughtsman”/”construction economics technician”, etc as by far and away the bigger shame left by the last 12 years.

Let’s not labour the point.
I’m old enough by now to have well recognised professionals’ agile avoidance of conflict with other members on the matter of work standards. 🙁

@teak wrote:

I’m not defending the RIAI commandeering the term “architect” in any way.
But that’s an internal professional issue for you that are involved in it.
Not for outsiders like me to say what’s best there.

Fair enough, but just so you know.
I’m an architect who values “outsiders” input.
“Outsiders” are the end users of my buildings.
Stray too far from their mindset and I risk losing myself in hubris.

All I say is that non-graduates and those who are neither self-educated to an equivalent standard ought be allowed to use the term architect or architectural design services to describe their occupation.

Teak, please re-read the above sentence.
I think you meant to say something like the opposite, correct me if I’m wrong.

Did you mean to say:

“All I say is that non-graduates who are not self-educated to graduate standard ought not be allowed to use the term architect to describe their occupation.”

I know I’m putting words in your mouth and you might clarify your position.

Sure there are others who are graduates, perhaps even also longtime members of some architectural professional organisation, who may also deserve the long drop.
A proper professional body ought deal firmly with them also in the public interest as well as for the good standing of honest members.

Now, I hope that all that is finally clear to you, ONQ.

Clear and broadly in accord with my assessment of the state of the profession.
The RIAI has no monopoly on excellence, the AAoI are not full of incompetents, raw talent needs to be nurtured, not discriminated against, indentured or exploited.

I may be biased as I live close to the country.
But I do regard the 98% of new houses designed by “engineer”/”builders draughtsman”/”construction economics technician”, etc as by far and away the bigger shame left by the last 12 years.

I think you’re absolutely correct.

• The Councils were staffed by an oversupply of engineers for years.
• Some planners designing towns think in terms of hectares zoned only.
• Some clients measure design only by “how much do the drawings cost to do”.
• Many users of commercial buildings fail to see the intrinsic value of excellence in design.
• Many self builders are concerned with how many bedrooms they can get on the site for their money.

If design standards are not being required by Local Authorities, clients, end-users or self-builders – then mediocrity will tend to be the result.
If you follow this argument to its logical conclusion, the reason we have non-architects designing many of our rural buildings is partly the so-called free market.

No restriction on the provision of architectural services in the building industry to persons trained in design – in an industry where every project is unique.
Compare this with the car industry – €5 Billion to develop a new model, with professional design testing – in an industry where a model sells millions.
Even in terms of housing estates, an approximation of the car industry, its usually only Council requirements by that raises standards.
Admittedly there have been high standards set in some of the housing schemes around Ireland recently, but not enough.

Let’s not labour the point.
I’m old enough by now to have well recognised professionals’ agile avoidance of conflict with other members on the matter of work standards. 🙁

I’m not sure I know what you mean by that last point, but its seldom you’ll get one architect to call the work of another “crap”.
This is ironic in the context of this exchange becasue the rise in standards of the car industry was only brought about by vigorous debate.
Vigorous debate, reporting in the media of lax safety standards, imposition of minimum safety requriements, type approval for components and testing.
We are a ver ylng way fom any of that in the building industry, but the least we can do is reqiew teh designs of architects and comment on them.
Don’t expect a consensus in terms of design though – beauty really *is* in the eye of the beholder – Nissan Leaf anyone?

FWIW

ONQ.

I mean when a building has pretty obvious functional failings – obvious even to non-users of the building – and other architects only smile knowingly during references to it rather than come out and attack the design and the slack-arsed professional who did it.
Functional failings in a home would be things like :

– Foolish house orientation on a site
– Awkward linkages (e.g.doors and hall) between spaces best placed adjacent
– Utility space too small
– Wasteful hallway design
– Hotpresses, etc
– Mickey mouse sized windows
– Embarassing layout of bedrooms

etc etc

I do not want to have you people replace one monotonous design template with another – albeit far more usable – one.
There has to be allowance for individuality in design, as well as acceptance of differing priorities of homeowners.

But so many of the above features are still so common that it is high time genuine architects stood up and said something about it so that bad design per se would become as likely a cause of PP rejection as location or scale.

@teak wrote:

I mean when a building has pretty obvious functional failings – obvious even to non-users of the building – and other architects only smile knowingly during references to it rather than come out and attack the design and the slack-arsed professional who did it.
Functional failings in a home would be things like :

– Foolish house orientation on a site
– Awkward linkages (e.g.doors and hall) between spaces best placed adjacent
– Utility space too small
– Wasteful hallway design
– Hotpresses, etc
– Mickey mouse sized windows
– Embarassing layout of bedrooms

etc etc

I do not want to have you people replace one monotonous design template with another – albeit far more usable – one.
There has to be allowance for individuality in design, as well as acceptance of differing priorities of homeowners.

But so many of the above features are still so common that it is high time genuine architects stood up and said something about it so that bad design per se would become as likely a cause of PP rejection as location or scale.

I don’t know what you mean when you say “you people”.

Repetition of a tried and trusted form was the design template for rural housing for decades – pitched slate roof and rendered masonry walls.
The whole of Ireland was bound by this “homage” to what the planners thought would be nice for tourists to see.

I have issues with the appropriateness of some materials – the current swath of overdone thatched roofs do little for me.

However, a limited palette of form and materials encourages a vocabulary for establishing a county-wide identity.

On some of the matters you noted above; –

• Small windows to the north are going to become more prevalent for BER /cost purposes.
• If you prefer open plan layouts its a matter of choice – larger families might disagree.
• I don’t know whether its the disposition of bedrooms or or the internal layout of furniture that you find embarrassing

Just remember – so long as the rack, the nipple clamps and the ball gags are put away after you’re finished, no-one will know will they 😀

Oops! Busted!

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Shangan Hall Apartments, Carrickmines Apartments, Ballinteer Apartments.

Would love to know some more details on these ONQ and who was found guilty/incompetant?

Hi Doc,

Ask and ye shall receive.

Actually, the protection of the public didn’t extend to anything being done to the architects who may have misicertified these buildings. The below links may or may not relate to the blown roof incidents – not enough detail

The Ballinteer apartments I know by reputation through an engineer colleague who, after conducting a visual investigation found that there were simply an unadequate number and kind of restraint details holding on the roof. He inspected, issued recommendations for remedial work and left it at that. He was called back again the second time the roof blew off to find his recommendations still hadn’t been prroperly implemented. I think the residents are hoping its “third time lucky” for the roof fixing points. I don’t know who the architect was on that one, but I’ve inspected enough buildings to know that you cannot simply rest on an engineers assurance and you don’t get off the hook when the lack of something is visually apparent.

http://www.dublinpeople.com/content/view/2669/57/

Jim Pike may have been the architect on the Carrickmines scheme.
He was citred in one piece to camera referring to “unusually high winds” as the reason for the disaster.
We have been aware of global warming and increasingly severe weather conditions for several years now.
Tthese were very low pitch roofs with humoungous overhangs.
I don’t think blaming unusually high winds is an appropriate or particularly credible response for an architect of national standing to make.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1125/carrickmines.html

Tony Reddy & Associates certified Shangan Hall Apartments.
Admittedly there was a Fire Safety Consultant involved, so TRA might be able claim a hand overof responsibility there, but the RTE programme led me to understand that the gaps in the fire doors were evident to visual inspection.
I’ve been involved in a Hight Court case on work I originally certified, where even after som nutter had kicked in the door – long after certification.
We had to form an opinion on the original work, any warping notwithstanding.
Lucklily the original door was well fitted so that our fire expert had no problem backing up my testimony that it STILL compllied (!)
So unless TRA’s fire safety consultant had specific responsibility for assessing the fire doors and certifying the built work – as opposed to merely the design of the FDA system – this doesn’t appear to absolve the architect from his responsibility to inspect and certify competently and raise any building regulation non-compliance issues with the builder for rectification prior ot occupation.
Safety of Occupants from Fire isn’t a snag item or minor item under the Contract.
Tony’s Reddy’s comment when questioned in the programme was “I was directly involved in that” or words to that effect.
I can accept that, with an office of 200 or so individuals, Tony Reddy might not have been personally or directly involved, but its his name on the headed paper.
That’s another spectacularly inadequate response to a situation where people’s lives were put at risk.
This was covered in a Prime Time exposé in Fire Safety [or the lack of it] in Dublin buildings that issued on 22nd May 2006.

And finally there is this little gem.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0719/coalport_prioryhall.html

and

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/mar/07/dreams-go-up-in-flame/

In the case of Priory Hall, the architect was the long-established firm, Oppermann Associates. The firm signed off on Priory Hall in March 2008. Included in the compliance document is a clause with regard to the fire safety regulations. It is unclear whether anybody from the architects actually inspected the facilities that the council subsequently found to be dangerous.

Stephen Oppermann says that he has had absolutely no indication from Coalport that he is being held responsible for signing off on the development.
“I want to be clear about this,” Oppermann said. “I inspected some of the units and we issued certs of compliance for those units. We did not issue compliance certs for the common areas, the carpark or the overall development.”
The question thus arises about the extent of the certification process.

There you go – clear as mud.

Apartments aren’t part of a housing estate where you can certify houses individually but not the estate.
Houses don’t require fire certs – a housing estate doesn’t require a fire cert.
Apartment developments on the other hand DO require a fire cert and guess what?
Fire Certs must be obtained for an apartment BLOCK, you can’t get one for an individual apartment, because it relies on the common areas in the block for its means of escape.
It would seem that you cannot therefore certify that an individual apartment complies with an apartment block fire cert unless you can escape through the common areas to the public domain/ place of safety.
For someone to appear to suggest that you can certify that an individual apartment complies with a fire safety certificate without AT MINIMUM implying that the rest of the building complies, seems to be a strange this to say.
To point out that he didn’t certify the common areas makes no sense at all – where is the escape to the public domain – by helicopter, from the roof or balcony?

No one was apparently “found” negligent, incompetent or guilty of wrongdoing in any of the above incidents – perhaps that’s because they didn’t have me inspecting.
More than likely people just want to get the work remediated and corrected as cheaply as possible and with the minimum of delay and expense.
They have no time to pursue an architect under tort and negligence where a simpler contractual remedy exists with the builder.

I would have no hesitation in preparing a case against any firms involved in mis-certification, because that’s the only way to ensure the public is protected from rogue architects.
Or worse, protected from otherwise good firms some of whose employees have apparently undertaken one or two sloppy inspections and certification.
Rogue architects you can see coming, but you don’t expect the above non-performances from well known firms of otherwise good reputation.
This is serious stuff – peoples lives were put at risk in all of the above incidents.
Issuing improper certifcation where there are clear visual defects may amount to criminal fraud depending on the intent [legal eagles feel free to comment].

My above comments are based on matters already widely reported in the public domain and not rebutted by any named firms/ individuals.
Of course, if any of the firms or persons named in this post want to have a right of reply in a public forum the gate is always open here, unless Paul Clerkin bottles it.
But I have been careful to avoid defaming people while drawing the obvious conclusions necessary to make a robust comment that will stand up to scrutiny.

And I’d be only too delighted to give courses and lectures on what reasonable foreseeability means and how to inspect apartment buildings.
Not being RIAI-registered YET, I may not be able to get the lectures CPD-rated, but then I understand not all RIAI approved CPD-rated lectures are by MRIAI’s
And you’ll note above that, apart from Ballinteer which I can’t pin down – these all appear to be RIAI registered practices as well – not just individual architects.

Its embarassingly ironic, isn’t it – the RIAI claiming that protection of the Title protects members of the public and who has certified the most egregious faults? – MRIAIs.
BTW, that’s not to suggest all MRIAI’s are incompetent “golf playing alcoholics” as VCA might allege – I know many competent MRIAI’s – but these above incidents shouldn’t have happened.

ONQ.

………..

@onq wrote:

No one was apparently “found” negligent, incompetent or guilty of wrongdoing in any of the above incidents…..

Thanks for the detailed reports ONQ.

It’s obvious it suits your purpose for you to find the MRIAIs guilty of incompetence!

In many of the incidents you outline above – there would appear to have been some sort of structural failure involved – the architect is simply not qualified to certify structures.

No mention at all of the relevant consulting structural/civil engineering firms in your reports?

As you may be aware, an architcets opinions on compliance relies on the confrimations of others (e.g. the structural engineer, mechaical/electrical engineer, fire safety consulatnt, etc.) that their designs and relevant work carried out complies with relevant building regulations, codes of practice, etc., and generally they have inspected same to ensure the contrcator has carried out the work correctly.

Please note that I am not suggesting for one minute that MRIAIs are holier than thou (there is one firm you have mentioned that I have always had my doubts about!) but I do feel both yourself and CK are really on a s**t stirring campaign and any little nuggets of information you have are being twisted to suit your own purposes.

ONQ

Bear with me I was getting ahead of myself on Thursday with regards to getting into the weekend mood as I was having a day off on Friday to prepare for my CPD course on political lobbying.

Maybe you too should lighten up a little or take some time away from this forum (570 postings and counting) as you seem very bitter or is that in the nature of online threads such as this? I am also trying to deal with several posts of yours on separate threads in one response – is that allowed?

I am also going to ignore the ad hominem straws in my postings as alleged by you when you fail to realise the ad hominem planks in your own not to mention your argumentum ad popoulum appeals to the Dinosaurs / Grandfathers. I am actually beginning to suspect that you are actually a pro-BCA 2007 candidate as your claims become more extreme that even CK is starting to argue with you! LOL

Anyhow to follow up on some of your assertions:

In relation to the Technical Assessment Scheme:

“the unworkability of a totally new system without redacted successful submissions, specimen exam papers, specimen answers, or graduates and past exam papers to advise”

Can you not spare some slack for a totally new system of this complexity? How can you have redacted successful submissions on a pilot project and for the record there are no exam papers with specimen answers involved in the Technical Assessment Scheme.

In relation to Grandfathers, the simple fact that they were not automatically registered despite decades providing competent services should scream at any right-thinking [as opposed to ass-covering] MRIAI that this is not a level playing field”.

In relation to the ‘Dinosaurs / Grandfathers’ where is the empirical evidence of “decades providing competent services”? Where exactly is the level playing field that you are looking for?

“the most spectacular building failures in the Tiger were down to RIAI practices”

Do you have any empirical evidence for this claim? I note your attempts to play down your claims above. I could give more examples of spectacular building failures attributed to unqualified people claiming to be architects during the Tiger but it would not be empirical evidence.

“MRIAIs typically charge higher fees than non-Members”

Do you have empirical evidence for this claim? Are you comparing like with like? Is there not a justification in charging a higher fee for a higher level of service if a higher level of service is being offered as may be verified, if required, by empirical evidence?

Sometimes when you pay peanuts you get monkeys (or Charter Chancers).

How is a client to compare like with like when comparing quotations between consultants who may be offering widely divergent levels of service and qualifications without some reference to the definition of the title of architect and what that should mean?

“Who has lobbied to disenfranchise Graduates and prevent them using the Title?
You seem to forget that until May 2008, Graduates could set up in practice and sign certs”

There is nothing in the BCA 2007 that prevents qualified / unqualified people setting up ‘architecture-light’ practices. It is just that they may not call themselves architects.

May I respectfully ask what wording have you been using on the certificates of compliance etc. that you have been using to date if you are not an RIAI member? Is it in the form of the wording as agreed by the RIAI and the Law Society? Or have you been using a ONQ hybrid certificate?

Is it copyrighted and / or available to third parties? Has it been approved by your insurers?

“When I said that it also irritates me intensely that almost every reference on this thread to “self-taught” people is coupled with allusions to Le Corbusier …

you replied:

“The truth hurts, ehhh?

do you really believe that every “self-taught” person is a Closet Corbusier?

You then said:

What would you do if I added Michael Scott [blessed be his name, blessed be his holy works] to the mix

I wonder why you are quoting all of these people from a previous generation who are all now deceased and operated in a completely different professional era.

Remember “one swallow does not a summer make”.

@DOC wrote:

Thanks for the detailed reports ONQ.

It’s obvious it suits your purpose for you to find the MRIAIs guilty of incompetence!

I went out of my way to suggest that these failures were not typical of the offices named.
On several occasions I have confirmed that I know many competent MRIAIs.
Your comments look like the product of a political lobbying course.
Not based on a factual analysis of what I actually posted.
Sloppy work, Doc and not up to your usual standard.

In many of the incidents you outline above – there would appear to have been some sort of structural failure involved – the architect is simply not qualified to certify structures.

The the rigorous standards of your analysis is slipping Doc.
This isn’t about certification or assuming the role of an engineer.
This is about visually inspecting and noting the absence of roof fixing bolts or straps or whatever
My point what that matters amenable to visual inspection by the architect should not have been accepted as being compliant merely because an engineer had certified them.
[and we don’t know that an engineer had certified them – I was reporting on the facts that I knew to be true, not speculating on the structural engineer’s role].
I have rejected structural elements certified by an engineer as structurally sound because they were of particularly poor appearance or because it was clear that they did not have sufficient cover of concrete to show prima fascie that they would acheive their required fire rating.
Engineers always dodge the Par B aspect of structure – some day one of them will be nailed on it.

No mention at all of the relevant consulting structural/civil engineering firms in your reports?

Nope. See above. There may have been none for all I know, but hiding behind a structural engineer if there were visually apparent defects is pretty lame for someone posing as an architect. I don’t know about Jim Pike, but on the Ballinteer job it was apparently clear there were inadequate strap fixings, even by domestic house standards.

As you may be aware, an architcets opinions on compliance relies on the confrimations of others (e.g. the structural engineer, mechaical/electrical engineer, fire safety consulatnt, etc.) that their designs and relevant work carried out complies with relevant building regulations, codes of practice, etc., and generally they have inspected same to ensure the contrcator has carried out the work correctly.

Doc, as an architect, you cannot hide behind a Schedule A assurance when there are visually apparent defects. Latent, yes – patent, no. Don’t they teach this in the schools any more?
Its your job to decide whether or not to accept Schedule A assurances, not to accept such assurances blindly on faith, any more than you would accept guarantees from a window supplier for windows with faulty hinges.

Please note that I am not suggesting for one minute that MRIAIs are holier than thou (there is one firm you have mentioned that I have always had my doubts about!) but I do feel both yourself and CK are really on a s**t stirring campaign and any little nuggets of information you have are being twisted to suit your own purposes.

I am not shit stirring in this matter Doc, I am calling the RIAI to account.
I – as a graduate – have been prevented from using the title by a private body which has stated that only its members are professionally competent to be called architects.
It has bamboozled and lobbied members of the Oireachtas into passing a law supporting this position while cheerfully ignoring the most egregious faults in buildings certified by its own, supposedly competent, members.

On the face of the evidence above whoever the people were who certified the buildings referred to above aren’t fit to tie my shoelaces when it comes to inspections and certification of the built work, yet they get to swan around pretending they are competent Architects while I am prevented from using my title.

Right now I’m outside the tent pissing in. I intend to be inside the tent pissing out in due course. At that point a lot of things will change in the RIAI or I will know the reason why. I’m not sharing a membership with frauds and incompetents, and you shouldn’t be happy to do so either.

As someone I know who generally gives excellent advice and is an MRIAI, you should be hopping mad at what’s gone on – and you should be far more annoyed than I am. It says a lot that you aren’t. Its an indictment that most RIAI members seem disinterested in promoting architecture by seeing that standards are maintained in the profession.

Perhaps they like leaving it to John Graby. Who did Graby choose to sit beside him at the JOC on 18th May 2010?

Yeah. Right.

ONQ.

@vca wrote:

ONQ

Bear with me I was getting ahead of myself on Thursday with regards to getting into the weekend mood as I was having a day off on Friday to prepare for my CPD course on political lobbying.

Ho, ho, ho.

Maybe you too should lighten up a little or take some time away from this forum (570 postings and counting)

This is a serious matter for me and for every Graduate.
You seem astonished at my prolific writings – wait until you see my Option C Self-Assessment Matrix.

…as you seem very bitter or is that in the nature of online threads such as this?

Whoa! A backhanded ad hominem disguised as concern? Ho ho ho.

I am also trying to deal with several posts of yours on separate threads in one response

Not trying – that is succeeding.

– is that allowed?

Nope, its mere laziness on your part and the sign of a disorganised mind.

I am also going to ignore the ad hominem straws in my postings as alleged by you when you fail to realise the ad hominem planks in your own not to mention your argumentum ad popoulum appeals to the Dinosaurs / Grandfathers. I am actually beginning to suspect that you are actually a pro-BCA 2007 candidate as your claims become more extreme that even CK is starting to argue with you! LOL

I admit to getting an “A” in Latin in my Intermediate Certificate wayyy back in 1977 but there is no excuse for your logical mangling of the terms and the facts noted above.

Ad Hominem Attack – attacking or insulting the poster, not necessarily addressing the argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem

Straw Man Argument – proposing an argument of your own not raised in teh debate by others and knocking it down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I haven’t made appeals to the Grandfathers/Dinosaurs and I have been arguing with CK almost since I joined this thread.

Anyhow to follow up on some of your assertions:

You can start any time you like

In relation to the Technical Assessment Scheme:

“the unworkability of a totally new system without redacted successful submissions, specimen exam papers, specimen answers, or graduates and past exam papers to advise”

Can you not spare some slack for a totally new system of this complexity?

Nope. Its a totally unnecessary system. A grandfather clause requiring the showing of evidence of providing services commensurate with those of an Architect would have simply and equitable separated the chancers from the competent. It would take me an hour to process one person in a face-to-face review of their portfolio. Any MRIAI should have been able to do this without special training.

How can you have redacted successful submissions on a pilot project .

That’s MY point – you cannot.

and for the record there are no exam papers with specimen answers involved in the Technical Assessment Scheme

And your point is what – that its totally unknowable and unworkable?
This is worse than spending millions on the damned voting machines that nobody trusted.

In relation to Grandfathers, the simple fact that they were not automatically registered despite decades providing competent services should scream at any right-thinking [as opposed to ass-covering] MRIAI that this is not a level playing field”.

In relation to the ‘Dinosaurs / Grandfathers’ where is the empirical evidence of “decades providing competent services”? Where exactly is the level playing field that you are looking for?

I cannot speak for any other Grandfathers or Graduates of long standing like myself, but mine is partly in my built work, partly in my files and partly in shredded or dumped papers.
By waiting until after the onerous requirements of the Data Protection Act came in the RIAI have made it all but impossible for people of 10 years standing [for example] to prove their competence going back to their early days.
The level playing field is the market, which the RIAI have unfairly biased in favour of their own members, by abusing their dominant market position.
This kind of playing for position by monopoly holders is viewed pretty dimly by people who try to regulate the market for consumers.

“the most spectacular building failures in the Tiger were down to RIAI practices”[/B]

Do you have any empirical evidence for this claim?

Apart from published news accounts not rebutted by the persons or firms named?
These are primary sources, well publicised – the fact they were neither rebutted nor the subject of a defamation action against the papers is effectively an admission of truth.

I note your attempts to play down your claims above.

There is accurate reporting and their is fair reporting.
I won’t smear Jim Pike, Opperman or Tony Reddy by suggesting these failures are typical of their work, however much it might push someone else’s agenda..
I also know for a fact they are not typical of the vast majority of MRIAI’s and I am happy to comment to that effect.
You’ve just criticised me for being fair to people.

I could give more examples of spectacular building failures attributed to unqualified people claiming to be architects during the Tiger but it would not be empirical evidence.

List them and be damned VCA.
I am happy to see the debate being broadened – more than you might suspect.
I know at least one potential defect in a house design which I took over in Tallaght, although that was just non-compliant design which I spotted and rectified.

“MRIAIs typically charge higher fees than non-Members”

Do you have empirical evidence for this claim? Are you comparing like with like? Is there not a justification in charging a higher fee for a higher level of service if a higher level of service is being offered as may be verified, if required, by empirical evidence?

Sometimes when you pay peanuts you get monkeys (or Charter Chancers).

No, you have me on that one fair and square.
I have only anecdotal evidence for that otherwise unfounded assertion.

How is a client to compare like with like when comparing quotations between consultants who may be offering widely divergent levels of service and qualifications without some reference to the definition of the title of architect and what that should mean?

That’s a difference matter.
Even with MRIAI’s there are widely divergent levels of specialisation and competence.

“Who has lobbied to disenfranchise Graduates and prevent them using the Title?
You seem to forget that until May 2008, Graduates could set up in practice and sign certs”

There is nothing in the BCA 2007 that prevents qualified / unqualified people setting up ‘architecture-light’ practices. It is just that they may not call themselves architects.

Straw man argument again VCA.
I’m not interested in certifying as anything other than an Architect.
“Building Designer” may suit the likes of Brian Montaut – as revealed on a recent Drive Time interview with John Graby – but he doesn’t speak for me or any other Graduate.
It doesn’t suit any Grandfather that I know either – Montaut is out standing in his own field on this one.

May I respectfully ask what wording have you been using on the certificates of compliance etc. that you have been using to date if you are not an RIAI member? Is it in the form of the wording as agreed by the RIAI and the Law Society? Or have you been using a ONQ hybrid certificate?

I use whatever wording the solicitor will accept subject to it broadly complying with the agreed RIAI wording.
I never use RIAI Opinions of Compliance headed paper/booklets.
It has always been on the headed paper of the firm I worked for or my own.
I have never represented myself as a Member of the Institute on any of my certs.

Is it copyrighted and / or available to third parties? Has it been approved by your insurers?

No. Yes. Yes.
You see, unlike the RIAI, I don’t agree with hoarding knowledge as a means of wielding power in the profession.
That’s a way of trying to control people and its led to them taking their eye off the ball where fraudulent certification has occurred.
Far better they should concern themselves with mis-certification amongst their registered members.

“When I said that it also irritates me intensely that almost every reference on this thread to “self-taught” people is coupled with allusions to Le Corbusier …

you replied:

“The truth hurts, ehhh?

do you really believe that every “self-taught” person is a Closet Corbusier?

Another straw man argument VCA.
The implication was clear – you raised the matter not I.
Corbusier did not qualify from a recignised full time five year course.

You then said:

What would you do if I added Michael Scott [blessed be his name, blessed be his holy works] to the mix

I wonder why you are quoting all of these people from a previous generation who are all now deceased and operated in a completely different professional era.

Remember “one swallow does not a summer make”.

Architecture from thousand of years ago still speaks to us today.

Only a fool thinks you can educate people to be talented.
Or that registration will make them competent.
Or ensure that they act with integrity.

ONQ

The fact is that about 90% of countries have included a grand-father clause when implementing the registration of architects. Those countries, like The Netherlands which did not, have created an appropriate exam and have affordable evening courses available for any one who wish to learn and obtain a degree in architecture while working…

None of that is available in the ROI. The RIAI is defending the interests of architectural education and assessing self-taught architects in the same time. A blind man would see the problem here. Why aren’t you guys?

I am sure that the Building Control Act 2007 could have worked fairly well if the RIAI did not erect barriers around it, preventing a large majority of self-taught architects to access the register. If the RIAI had acted fairly, there would not be that many protests, the registration procedure could have run smoothly. There is an issue about a monopoly and about a form of protectionism which may be international in the field of architecture but which has been expressed through very extreme measures in relation to the registration of architects in this country.

If the government and the RIAI want to stop autodidactism in architecture, then it should be done fairly and gradually. A grand-father clause is the only way to do so.

onq you are loosing your time here… These guys are not looking for a fair registration procedure. They are not interested to solve an obvious problem. They are looking to keep the advantages given to them by a degree. They are frightened to loose these advantages if a grand-father clause is included in the Act.

They have nothing to propose to solve the actual problem. All they do is defend their privileges over self-taughts and technicians. As graduates they should propose alternatives. They should analyse and make efforts to solve the problems. None of them has really acknowledged the fact that it is not self-taught architects which are responsible for most of the bad buildings, but the absence of design itself, the absence of architecture. It seems that research, productivity and creativity was never part of the courses that they followed…

Hi Spoilsport,

Please let the RIAI know how you feel because I have told JG that who ever thought up CPD points for Lobbying dropped a real clanger and let the whole profession down. Not only did they damage the profession in the eyes of the very persons they were lobbying but they reinforced some of the accusations of them being biased and incapable of acting independently for the benefit of all. They assured the success of the adoption of the Private Members Bill being adopted by the FF party. If as is suspected the Senate will put an end to this Bill then as long as the RIAI lobby against when they are now the Competent Authority and should be impartial their lobbying will again work against them. The RIAI should just absorb the Grandfathers warts and all and use the yearly registration and Professional Conduct Committee to change or drop those who refuse to up their game. There should be a 3 or 5 yearly test to every registered Architect to be allowed to remain on the register. The battle lines are still being drawn and no good can come out of a public spat that drags on and on. Soon the Authority will be faced with taking a non registered Architect to the Courts for using the Title if they loose that case their authority will disappear completely and there are a number of non registered Architects ready to be that test case because there is a very real possibility that they will prevail.

It was odd to see what I had understood to be our independent Registrar’s office apparently getting closely involved with political lobbying.

My prior experience in the political arena suggests that any kind of lobbying is a task best kept at arms length, and for architects it should be left to the client.

One exception to this general rule might be where you are representing a client by offering professional information in support of a development requiring to be voted on.

Another exception would be the Alliance position where you feel your livelihood has been undermined unfairly by the Oireachtas.

If you are a Registrar with the stated purpose of supporting the public good, then I’m not sure that political lobbying is an appropriate response.

Especially where you are also a director of a company that in some way benefits from maintaining the status quo.

Which brings us to the whole issue of private companies administering standards in a profession.

ONQ.

The Title Architect as interpreted by the software industry and Jobsrapido – not one amongst them, the Title has become an Adjective.

http://www.jobrapido.ie/?w=architect&l=&p=19

ONQ.

This will probably annoy some! ‘Illegal’ Architects

http://www.thepost.ie/news/ireland/audit-discovers-hundreds-of-illegal-architects-54223.html

Lucky CK isn’t around. 🙂

Thanks for the heads-up Doc.

I think I can hear my liddle frog friend intone :”We haven’t gone away, y’know…”
I’m sure he’s reading this forum occassionally and venting his spleen on some poor unfortunate elsewhere.

There is a sense of inevitability of Registration and I’m working towards it.
There is also a growing realisation that few graduates understand their position in law.

“Sources working in the profession said that the cost of registration, which may be as much as €1,200, and the major decline in contracted work, may have led to many architects opting to remain unregistered.”

Nice to see John Graby is listening re the cost of the process in a recession even for unregistered qualified persons.
Now if only he would realise the unfair position the BCA 2007 has put graduates in:

Since May 1st 2008 graduates cannot use their title even after five years of a full time course.
Technicians are trading in a market where architectural technicians are supplying architectural services to the public.
They are trading without restriction and after completing only three years of a full time course, little of it design centred.

Are the RIAI saying that all five year graduates are good for is presentation drones?
When the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Directive allows them to use the Title?
Ridiculous! This would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and something has got to be done.

ONQ

In relation to the slowly growing awareness [judging from the piece in the paper above] in the RIAI about the shit the profession is in I should mention that I had to persuade a colleague of mine – an award winning MRIAI of many years standing, to scrape enough money together to get registered this year. Remember the BCA 2007 has turned this into a franchise affecting the whole of the profession, not just their own members. Between the “registration fee” and PI cover, you need a minimum of €2,000 before you open your doors. He didn’t understand – or rahter preferred to look away from – the legal impications of practising without his certificate of registration.

As for the spectre of Architectural Technology which may be about to swamp or supplant the profession of architecture, I saw yet another take on this on Linkedin this morning:

This link shwos the wide range of persons with architectural qualifications “out there” and a layperson cannot be expected to sift through these.
A Part 1 [yes, that’s right O – N – E] “architect” who is also an architectural technologist.
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/passivearchie

I think qualified architects have to stop being distracted by this Grandfather nonsense [200-300 people].
We need to consider what an influx of 15,000 technicians becoming architectural technologists will do to the profession.

ONQ.

ONQ, I would suggest that your numbers are dramatically inaccurate. Where do you get your figure of 15,000 ? The best figures available between 2006 and 2008 suggested that there were approximately 3,000 Architectural Technologists working in the industry (as AT’s) That was before the crash, where many of these people emigrated.

RIAI and CIAT have about 650 to 700 Architectural Technologist members between them in Ireland.

CIAT claim to to represent just 7,500 AT’s worldwide. Could you clarify your figures / source ?

And secondly what exactly are your fears for the progression of these people from Technician to Technologist – a notional promotion at best ?

JB,

First let’s define our terms.

An architectural technician is someone who has progressed from one of the approved courses in DIT or elsewhere and has trained to provide support services to an architect.
This is in theory how it works for larger practices anyway.
In the real world many technicians operate independently of architects.
In Ireland, many architectural technicians carry P.I. Cover and are in direct competition with Sole Traders

An architectural technologist is part of a growing body of technocrats who assert their ability to take a building from inception to completion. This ability has been formally recognised in Britain where the bottom has fallen out of the profession, with Part II architects subsisting below the minimum wage and where RIBA accredited Part III’s are working as presentation drones in larger practices.
Architectural Technologists compete directly with architects.

I am not disputing your claims for the numbers of Architectural Technologists.
It is sobering enough that the number of registered architects has been equalled by persons with arguably a different qualification claiming to deliver the same service, but who ultimately may not be held to the same professional standards in a court of law.
I await the test case.

The figure of 15,000 architectural technicians is confirmed by a colleague who has been in discussions with the architectural technicians lobby groups over the past year and claims to know their numbers.
There may be some confusion in this if the numbers actually include building technicians as well as architectural technicians.
Even if half are wrongly counted, this plus the 3,000 Architectural Technologists is nearly four time the number of architects.

It is foreseeable that many of these architectural technicians who are also in independent practice as architects will – if put to the pin of their collar by the RIAI in relation to registration – take the shorter route of becoming Architectural Technologists rather than attempting to enter and complete the five year full time courses on offer here and in the UK with or without the First Year accreditation.

Your assertion that some technicians may have left for foreign climes may or may not be true – it doesn’t really matter.
Add to this the 200+ Graduate Architects progressing this year and you have a crisis.
Those kind of numbers will swamp the profession.
Most will be out of work by year’s end.

ONQ.

Thanks for the reply ONQ.
With regard to the numbers, your colleague is most definitely wrongly informed. I don’t know what lobby groups he or she has been talking to, but the numbers quoted are grossly exaggerated even if building technicians etc. are included. Even if the 15,000 were to include the woodwork teachers, retired planners, engineers and various others who are providing Architectural Services, that would lead to an average of c 465 such people providing services in each of the 32 counties – this doesn’t add up even a cursory glance at the phone book would support this fact.

The trend for graduating Technologists for the past 2 to 3 years has been towards emigration. The numbers here amount to say 40 graduates per course (max) from each of 8 courses – another 320 at most, with at least 60% of these leaving the country for greener pastures, and the majority of the remainder working outside of the industry.

A number of years ago a drive to promote membership of professional organizations among Architectural Technologists yielded what was believed to be a reasonable result, with numbers in CIAT and RIAI swelling by probably 100 members each at best.

As I understand it, CIAT’s Technologist membership in Ireland is currently somewhere around the 300 mark, RIAI’s Technologists number somewhere around 400. The only other lobby groups I am aware of are the IATGN (now all but defunct) which had some 1600 registered members of various levels, many of whom were also members of CIAT or RIAI, and then whatever cohort of Technologists are included in the AAoI. The latter could arguably be discounted in terms of the Technologist in the true sense of the word, as they appear to represent those who have already been practicing as Architects for 10 years or more, and indeed many will also have prior membership of one or both of the organisations mentioned previously.

The average time taken to complete the CIAT POP Record is normally 2 years, with only a small number having completed this task in the past number of years, albeit with more in the system. Given that the POP Record requires evidence to be presented of Projects which have successfully been completed on site, many who are in the process of completing this will find themselves in the same boat as Graduate Architects with no real world projects to submit, so no threat of inundation there. In any case the situation you describe in Britain is not reflected over here – there is no automatic recognition of the ability of an Architectural Technologist to provide services similar to those of an architect – quite the opposite actually.
With regard to the RIAI Technologist membership, no defined role exists as yet for the Technologist within the Institute, although last year did see the publication of the RIAI’s Technologist competences. These, while they raise the bar for what is expected of a Technologist seeking membership of the RIAI, certainly do not establish any right or ability to practice as an Architect, or even to stray into such territory – again no possibility of the flood you expect. While agree that there are technologists competing directly with Architects, there is nowhere even close to the numbers your colleague cites, nor will there ever be.

I hope this allays some of your concerns, and gives a truer picture of the situation as it actually stands. Too often the Architectural Technologist is portrayed as the bogey boy, when in actual fact, many others might more accurately be conferred with that title.

Hi JB,

I hear what you’re saying and on the face of it this looks good.
However the source I quoted is usually reliable, particularly when he makes claims which I would otherwise discount.
This has been proven time and again during my association with him and I have no reason to believe otherwise at the moment.
I will bring your rebuttal to his attention and ask him for a comment, although when I spoke to him yesterday about it, he confirmed the numbers I posted.

Now it *could* be that some people are feeding him false numbers, perhaps to bolster their cause for some obscure reason, and this will come out in the wash.
Equally, as your post seems to suggest at one point, these could be unqualified successes – those not using the title architect – who are calling themselves technicians.

Off the top of my head and without checking with him again on this, my understanding is that the figure for “nixer” merchants is far higher again, and I don’t want to be held to account on this one because my recollection is vague, but non AT’s providing architectural services could reach into the 35,000 range – a frightening figure.
This is a less well defined group, but excludes AT’s of all flavours, Graduate Architects, Architects etc.
It may include every draughtsman in the country, engineering technicians, engineers, technical drawing teachers, woodwork teachers, art teachers – all of whom may occassionally make a planning application.

As for my concerns JB, I’m not particularly concerned that AT’s are going to *become* architects.
I am concerned that by acting independently they are taking the work from architects in the market place.
A cursory glance over at the Construction Forum on Boards.ie shows that this is indeed the case on an ongoing basis.

To summarise:

15,000 AT’s hoovering up all the small work in a recession and certifying independently.
Graduates unable to certify using their title despite DIR 2005/36/EC’s entitlement.
Equal numbers of Architectural Technologists vying with Part III Architects.
Up to 35,000 nixer merchants offering up their services per year.
Next to no work around.

That looks like a Profession in Meltdown to me.
And as the recession bites deeper, even those AT’s who stayed will feel the bite of trying to compete against people using pirated software, paying no rates, working from their bedroom, perhaps back with their folks, who are undertaking work that is beyond them for drinking money, while competent professionals with offices and families to support go to the wall.

And just in case the RIAI are thinking I’ve forgotten about them – this mismanagement has gone on under their imprimatur.
By them ignoring the regulation of the provision of services in favour of the regulation of the use of the title, the benefit to the consumer in terms of the delivery of services is minimal in the face of what I describe above.
Meanwhile, even with the powers of the BCA 2007 to control use of the title “Architect”, the greatest joke of the century continues over on Jobs Rapido with the use of the title relegated to that of an adjective in every software “profession” you can imagine.

http://www.jobrapido.ie/?w=architect&l=&r=auto

FWIW

ONQ.

ONQ.

Thanks again for the response ONQ.

Maybe you’d keep us posted as to how the enquiries pan out in light of what I’ve outlined above. To be honest I just don’t see the huge numbers, but I am open to correction. The 35,000 strikes me as way off also, but it would be interesting to see how your colleague breaks it down. If those numbers bear scrutiny, then maybe the ferry or the plane beckons for more of us.

Hi smallscreen,

I have just looked over the posts as you suggested and on first glance the logic in the numbers being put forward by JB appear to be well thought out. I will double check the figures being given to me because as you say these could have been inflated to suit some agenda or other. Ordinarily I believe that I am well informed and I think you might agree I have relayed some information which at first appears to be far fetched however; proves to be correct.

I am aware of a number of technician types if I may make such a reference. Construction Technicians, Architectural Technicians, Engineering Technicians, Steelwork Detailers and Architectural Technologists and finally the dreaded Cad Technician. There are also drafts persons with no formal education part of full time.

So if we look at the formal colleges turning out 40 to 60 technicians in construction (3,500 or 175 per year) and architectural (4,000 or 200 per year) per college per year over twenty years you get a figure of around 8,5000. Add to this the technologists around 3,000, now add the no formal training around 1,000 (50 per year) and then add in the cad technicians churned out by every Fas outlet around 5,500 (275 per year) now add in the engineering technicians around 3,000 (150 per year) giving a total of around 21,000( around 1050 entrants into the industry from the various fields and courses). Allow for a margin of error in people leaving the country and or dyingretiring changing professions, poor initial figures or exaggerated of 33% still leaves 14,000 (reduces the figure to around 700 entrants per year).

All of the above are offering in some form or other planning and design services and in my many years in the industry I have personally come across many from a variety of training streams with dare I say it the Cad technicians (and I hate that description) being the most dangerous. Some of the above it has to be said offering a competent service however; many leave a lot to be desired. Many carrying no insurance paying no tax and working for cash in hand and that was in the boom times while holding down in some cases very well paid jobs. I know because I was often approached to sign off their certs as they could not. Just because the associations do not have members to suggest these figures this does not mean they do not exist. In the boom years membership of an association was unimportant and it is only since the recession and registration that such an issue has become more important as individuals attempt to improve their appeal to clients.

The figure I was being given was to cover all of these categories and bundles them all in as technicians and that figure was around 15,000. It is true to say that there are considerable less now due to the recession as these are often contract positions and the persons highly mobile. Having worked the circuits myself for a number of the agencies Hayes Montrose, Tech staff, Parc Workforce and then as an employer taking people from these agencies and others. They all have considerable databases.

I myself possess a database in excess of 180,000 cad users in Ireland and the UK alone so there are big numbers out there and the RIAI just haven’t got a clue. As you are aware I have had direct talks with all of the political parties and none and the RIAI. I can safely say that there is no real understanding of the problems that exist in this field or of the numbers that may be involved in the field.

Thanks for following up my call Dual Screen.

Let’s set aside the figure for the liquorice allsort technicians, which we may assume is in the 7,000-10,000 range
There are several other disciplines who design buildings who weren’t originally trained to do this.

Surveyors are one notable crowd, who have jumped from analysing buildings to designing them.
This seems like a critic trying to write an award winning play – not going to happen.
Then there are the engineers of several flavours who also turn out buildings.

That’s two whole professions muscling in on the Architect’s Act.
One assesses buildings, the other designs structures.
Neither are trained to design buildings for people.

The house extension two doors down from me was designed by an engineer.
He drove a coach and four through the local planning department.
Perhaps architects should start designing structures/services!

Even a cursory consideration of the situation presented above shows that architects are being shafterd in the marketplace.

RE the RIAI; –

The proportion of the 180,000 that applies to Ireland should inform the RIAI why there are so many unemployed architects.
If the ratio of Ireland’s population to the UK is 1:14 that equates to nearly 13,000 users, but in fact I suspect its a higher proportion.
Even allowing for wastage due to the recession and retirement, I suspect double that may be taking the bread out of our mouths doing nixers.

The only way to protect the public and administer the profession properly is to regulate services.
That includes making sure that architects remain independent of other professions.
It requires in addition that technicians supply their services to architects offices.

This shows up the restriction of use of the title for what it is.
A means of getting a leg up for members of the RIAI.
But it does not properly promote architecture.
Or protect members of the public.

ONQ.

In the past two months, I have come across civil engineers submitting planning applications for one-off houses. (More Turrets needed :wtf: )

I’ve even come across someone with no background in construction or design giving consultancy advice.

It’s turning into a minefield, but I can’t see anything changing in a longtime.

@parka wrote:

In the past two months, I have come across civil engineers submitting planning applications for one-off houses. (More Turrets needed :wtf: )

I’ve even come across someone with no background in construction or design giving consultancy advice.

It’s turning into a minefield, but I can’t see anything changing in a longtime.

We need to compse – dare I say it – a “register” of these people muscling in on work they are neither trained nor competent to do.

Then we need to expose them for what they are – some I dare say will have anough talent, experience or ability to make a good showing.

Most will not.

All the Building Control Act 2007 did was wipe the RIAI’s hands of these fools – “If only you’d used one of our members…”

The public is no more protected now that it was before the BCA 2007, the RIAI have just ring fenced the right of a private members club to use the title architect.

But here’s the deal – there is no exam to be taken to be a contractor. None. Zero. Oh, they have to be up to speed on Health and Safety, and legally they are obliged to comply with the building regulations, but the Technical Guidance Documents are just that – for guidance, they aren’t legally binding.

The Regulations themselves are the “cúpla focail” at the start of each booklet.

So never mind the Grandfather Amendment, that allows the status quo to continue, it doesn’t make things worse than went before and only affects circa 200 people according to the AAoI’s spokesperson.

What the consumer really needs is protecting legislation which expands on the “Goods and Services act” taking into account the provisions already in the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

We need a “Provision of Competent Services Act” which takes the wrongs committed by professionals, builders and tradesmens alike out of both the civil law [hard to prove] and the contract law and [limited redress, usually without consequential damages] and into the criminal law, which will allow for prosecutions for willful negligence, fraud and theft being undertaken by people with a duty of car to clients and employers [as in contractor-employer relationships in building work].

This will deter

-“professionals” who act beyond their competence or their qualification and restrict the provision of services to those competent and registered to carry them out.
– “builders” who think they can blythely wind up company after company from committing tort and negligent acts to screw their employers.
– “sub-contractor” and “trademen” who have not served their time, and/or have no skills training at all and/or do not have the necessary safety ticket.

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time since commenting here about the RIAI’s hubris and I started looking at what was going on in the profession generally.

I think after that we need to start looking at thsi whole Globalisation phenomenon and the mini-globalisation that’s going on in Europe at the moment with the movement of services;
People from countries with a per capita income and cost of living and standard of living way below ours competing directly with those of us who only sixty years ago pulled ourselves out of the tenements to climb towards First World Standards.
We have to ask who benefits from this and who benefits from the flooding of the professions with graduates in the middle of a recession.
Certainly not the professionals who are obliged to maintain certain standards to work and cannot get paid.

I was asked over on AAM recently what the €10K fee an architect might charge to planning for a listed building needing a full survey, 1:10 design details and an experienced conservation architect.

I dunno. Pin money? I ask you!

ONQ.

Placing third or second world countries indirectly competition with first world countres will drive down costs, but if the services are not being provided by people workign in teh same country it will tend to beggar those providing that service or profession.

You notice that those who mose advocate Globalisation are those least affected by it.
When did you last see a businessman, banker or politician suffer from being undercut by markets flooded with cheaper competitors?
When did you see a businessmen, banker or politician have to sit an exam before beign let ply his trade – its an old boys club networking situation.

This is the real crime against all classes except the élite and its being perpetrated on a daily basis.
Geez I’m starting to sound liek Brendan Doris!

ONQ.

From Sunday Business Post 20th Feb :-

“Proposed legislation to amend the rules governing the registration of architects would place Ireland in breach of EU law, according to the Attorney General.

Paul Gallagher SC gave his legal opinion to the government shortly after the Private Members Bill, proposed by former Ceann Comhairle John O’Donoghue, had received the support of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party.

The Building Control (Amendment) Bill proposed to allow for a so-called ‘‘grandfathering’’ clause, aimed at allowing people with several years experience practicing as an architect – but without a formal college qualification – to be admitted to the official register of architects.

It was supported by a group called the Architects Alliance, which says it represents 170 businesses made up of ‘‘self-trained’’ and other workers in the architecture sector who argue that the existing registration process does not accommodate them.

The bill was opposed by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI), which argued that, if the legislation were enacted, it ‘‘would cause a broad range of problems’’ in terms of compliance with EU law.

This view was endorsed by legal opinion conducted by Gerard Hogan for the RIAI last September, before Hogan was elevated to the position of High Court judge.

A separate legal opinion by Anthony M Collins SC, conducted for the Architects Alliance, found that O’Donoghue’s bill did not contravene EU law.

Some confusion arose over what position Gallagher had taken on the issue, following a recent exchange on Twitter involving Green Party TD Ciaran Cuffe.

The politician’s comments led some supporters of the grandfathering clause to believe that the AG had actually given O’Donoghue’s proposed legislation a clean bill of health.

Under existing legislation, anyone who uses the title of ‘‘architect’’, but who has failed to join the register, which is administered by the RIAI, is committing an offence under the Building Control Act 2007.

The AG’s opinion follows the revelation that an RIAI review of the sector found that as many as 300 people were illegally using the title of architect.

The RIAI said that it would be writing to each of the 300 individuals and inviting them to apply for registration.

It went on to say that if the individuals failed to do so, or were ineligible but continued to use the title architect, they would be prosecuted. There are 2,600 architects on the official register.”

The following is an extract of an email sent from Mr. Michael Finneran, Minister for Housing
& Local Services to Ms Maire Hoctor T.D. on 22 February 2011 and forwarded to an RIAI
Member by Ms Hoctor.

“Ms. Maire Hoctor T.D. 30th Dail
Dear Maire, A Chara,
I refer to your ongoing queries regarding the Building Control Amendment) Bill.
AS you know, this Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 30th Dáil, however it was
my Department’s considered view, following legal advice,that such a Bill would
not have been compatible with EU law, specifically the Professional Qualifications
Directive, and could not have been proceeded with as such.
I trust this clarifies the matter.
Your Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Finneran
Minister for Housing & Local Services”

Attorney General’s response to the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010 was published in
Sunday business post on 20/02/2011.
can find the article at: http://www.thepost.ie/news/ag-counsels- architectregistration-54638.html.
In short, the Attorney general AG found that the Bill would breach EU law, as did the Opinion
provided to the RIAI by Gerard Hogan S.C. (at that time).

*mheheh*

Thanks for that Dreamstate.

Its wishful thinking on someone’s part that the Bill has lapsed.

I feel it in my bones that there is a huge amount of stuff going on behind the scenes that I cannot ferret out because I’m completing a course.
Although John O’Donoghue is no longer a Teachta Dála, the Bill he proposed lives on and continues to exercise the minds of the powers that be.

One thing is for certain, the debate about the Building Control Act on Archiseek spilled over into RL on many occassions and will continue to.
The only thing lacking in the debate here is the absence of comment by those movers and shakers who started the whole thing off, the RIAI.

It should be remembered during the forthcoming cull of unregistered architects that the RIAI chose the newspapers as their forum.
Battle lines have been drawn (or so I understand it) Legal Opinions have been procured – pistols at dawn to follow.

Michael Finneran’s mail and the SBP piece referred to an AG’s opinion but failed to publish that opinion.
AFAICS, nothing in the Bill is repugnant to the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Directive.

Europe went “hands off” when the Irish government restricted use of the title.
AFAIK, that’s the way its staying – its our problem to deal with now.

Expect more lobbying from the impartial “competent authority”.

The problems with the RIAI’s position inter alia are these, IMO –

• Allowing Grandfathers to continue using the title merely continues the status quo – which for twenty years has not been mentioned by Europe – how then can there be a difficulty in compliance – would Europe not have noticed before now?
• There is no empirical evidence on offer from the RIAI that Grandfathers have designed buildings that statistically cause more problems than MRIAI-designed buildings.
• The RIAI numbers appear to be falling – down from 2,850 to the 2,600 claimed in the SBP piece – this could only be the start of things.
• The RIAI have been nobbled again by the AAOI – thsi time for not declaring themselves to be a private limited company or showing their directorships on their publications.
• The Registrar is no longer listed as one of these directors – which must have been like taking a limpet from a rock – a huge but unnoticed sea change.

But the problem for the public is that by allowing the Bill to remain without amendation, people who previously called themselves architects – who stop doing so because of the bill – are not answerable under the law as architects if they stop calling themselves architects.

To my mind this is a retrograde step – they can still provide architectural services, because the provision of services is not restricted, but they will not beanswerable as architects.

ONQ

Should all that sem to imply that I am against registration, this is not so.

I am FOR REGISTRATION.

I am FOR REGULATION OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES.

This has been the bridge too far for the RIAI, perhaps because of toes they might be stepping on, but it holds no fear for me.
The issue for me is not the Title, but Registration which confirms you can provide Archtitectural Services with Comptence and Integrity.

The Title is only the start of this, and Grandfathers who think they will get a free pass to Registration without showing their work is competent need to think again.

The public will have some sympathy with them over the cost, but at the end of two decades where the police, priests, bankers, solicitors and politicians have been dragged through the dirt, the least the public will want to see is evidence of competence on the part of all members of the building professions.

And who could blame them?

Do you want your house designed by a school teacher in between marking exam papers?
This nonsense needs to be stopped, and we look to the government to legislate to bring this about.

ONQ.

You know, the really funny thing is that anyone who knows the law, and the greater duty of care required of professionals and in particular architects, would realise that only a lunatic would CALL himself and architect if he wasn’t one.

For years, despite all the waffle spewn by the RIAI, this was the reason why few enough did, despite obviously offering archtiectural services – if you hold yourself out to be an architect you will be held accountable as an archtiect if matters ever proceed to a court of law.

Did not one ever stop to think why there were so few people using the title in the first place outside of those who held the qualification? Even now we here of a measly 300 – to go by the RIAI’s own figures – that’s 300 as opposed to 2,700 people.

I mean, if it was that rewarding a profession in Ireland why weren’t there 20,000 persons without qualification calling themselves archtiects?

My own researches and contacts with the AAOI suggest that many of those are well over 35 and significant numbers are over 50 – one is over 70!

And these are people the RIAI need to be prevented from practising in order to safeguard the public!!!

I don’t see any great public debate over this.
Muc was made of demonising David Grant, and that’s about it.

Perhaps there are more of these eejits around trying to blag money from the unsuspecting.

But apart from stuffing people in a building in Haddington Road Grant’s primary pimple on the RIAI backside was that he hoovered up the residential market to the tune of nearly a million Euro in one year!

Yes, Grant appears to have acted unprofessionally in terms of explaining the risks to clients of getting or not getting permissions, but no more so than some RIAI members I have come across, and in the latter case it was simply good marketing spiel, not any intended deception.

There are many people out there now who are neither qualified nor calling themselves architects who may slip between the cracks should they ever be sued, and that is not in the public interest – such persons need to be held accountable.

So instead of the exclusion approach which allows people to continue to supply archtiectural services on a nod and a wink basis – with the appratne blesing of the RIAI , who have not moved to stamp this out – we need to control not only the use of the title, but also the provision of services.

Only persons competent and properly trained to do so should be providing archtiecrurla services, and when they do – to allow proper redress under the law for the public – they should do so as Architects.

The rest should divide up into CAD technicians, Archtiectural Technicians or draughtsmen and work for an architect but they should not be supplying services direct to the public, and more than interns operate as GPs or technician accounts certify year-end accounts.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

So instead of the exclusion approach which allows people to continue to supply archtiectural services on a nod and a wink basis – with the appratne blesing of the RIAI , who have not moved to stamp this out – we need to control not only the use of the title, but also the provision of services.

Only persons competent and properly trained to do so should be providing archtiecrurla services, and when they do – to allow proper redress under the law for the public – they should do so as Architects.

The rest should divide up into CAD technicians, Archtiectural Technicians or draughtsmen and work for an architect but they should not be supplying services direct to the public, and more than interns operate as GPs or technician accounts certify year-end accounts.

ONQ.

Interestingly, I came across a horticulturist offering architects services recently.

It does seem to be free for all out there and very little seems to be happening to prevent it.

Thanks Parka, but … give me strength!!!

This is exactly what I’m talking about, a profession on its needs and unqualified incompetents taking the bread out of our mouths.

Perhaps I should start wandering in to secondary schools and teaching.
Or designingstructures.
Or “landscaping”.

Then we’ll see how these geniuses like it.
I mean, how hard can it be?

I got straight “B”‘s [70% +] in my engineering exams in Bolton Street doing architecture.
I should be able to specify a few beams, columns and pad sizes and get paid for it.
Perhaps that would make engineers stick to what they are trained to do.

ONQ.