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

@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making your usual unfonuded assumptions and pontificating – and the Good Practice Committee is not sitting and may be superseded – again, no one seems to know.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.

@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.

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.

@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?

@onq wrote:

For what’s about to happen.

ONQ.

spooky

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.

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…..

@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.

@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.

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