Architects Alliance Presentation to Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment

De.Lite.Touch

Message posted on another forum -

---

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment will meet with the Architects Alliance at 2.30pm, Committee Room 3, Basement, Leinster House 2000, Tuesday 18 May 2010.

The subject matters will be inter alia:

(i) the recognition of the acquired and established rights of persons with practices of more than 10 years under a Grandfather Clause and

(ii) the recognition of the acquired and statutory rights of persons who hold formal qualifications.

This matter may interest the following categories of persons

Self-taught architects in practice for 10 years
Architectural Technicians in practice as architects for 10 years
Persons with formal qualifications who are not Members of the Institute.

---

Apologies if this isn't the right forum - saw the redirect on the Architects forum.

There are a lot of technician posters here, aren't there?

Hope this interests you.

De.Lite.Touch

RKQ

Well done to all concerned, this meeting is an achievement in itself.

De.Lite.Touch

The Architect's Alliance has lobbied elected representatives from all parties as well as independents to seek to secure recognition for persons with long-established practices as architects in the State, termed "Grandfathers".

This has resulted in TD John O'Donoghue proposing a private member's bill:

The Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010

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

This may have benefits for Technicians over 35 or more with a minimum of seven years standing in the profession providing services commensurate with those of an architect.

De.Lite.Touch

sinnerboy

Thanks De.Lite.Touch - do you know how one can track this proposals process i.e. when will it be voted on the the Dail ?

De.Lite.Touch

sinnerboy wrote: »

Thanks De.Lite.Touch - do you know how one can track this proposals process i.e. when will it be voted on the the Dail ?

You're welcome, Sinnerboy - to thank me, consider spreading the word.

Putting in the title of the Act in Google led me to this page:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=15775&&CatID=59

This seems to suggest the various stages it must pass through.

Thanks for asking and if this might benefit you or yours, consider supporting it by telling your story to the TD's.

That's just a suggestion, but there is a reason for it.

The RIAI got this far because people who are now affected didn't believe at the time of the passage of the 2005 Building Control Bill URL="http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2005/4105/document1.htm"]now the BCA 2007[/URL that they could be "spun" by the RIAI as risks to the profession.

The spectre of David Grant was used to smear practically trained architects who were quite happily providing a competent service for years.
The fact that Grant was not one of the many indigenous practically trained architects providing a comptent service was never underlined.
Such poor reporting in the media allowed smearing by association with David Grant of a sector of the profession.

This in turn allowed the RIAI to successfully lobby for a law that specifically favoured MRIAIs- they, and only they were entitled to become automatically registered.

The fact that the EU Minimum standard that allowed use of the Title Archtiect was the Graduate level was ignored - again this favoured only MRIAI's.

This was despite the now conveniently-done-away-with ARIAI Certificate being given equal standing in EU law in both DIR 85/384/EEC and DIR 2005/36/EC.

Now practically trained architects have to take a year out of their lives and pay €13,500 for the privilege of being let continue providing competent services - in the middle of a recession!

Now Graduates of long standing [10 years +] are expected to produce portfolios of their earliest work, when many offices over the past decade have been operating a policy of shredding files after 6 years in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

I suspect that within, say, five years - unless current providers assert themselves, and challenge the RIAI to admit motivation and show empirical proof of need at every step of the way - we may see them trying to control the provision of architectural services.

This may involve the restriction of Architectural and Building Technicians to providing services only to MRIAI's/Registered Architects, just as they have tried to restrict Graduate Architects, who can no longer use the title legally.

I realise that the 1-year full-time Architectural Technologist Upgrade Option is available through Bolton Street now, but I know no-one who can spare 1 year full time from their business in a recession.

Food for thought perhaps - the BCA2007 is just the start.

De.Lite.Touch

De.Lite.Touch

Official RIAI reaction to the Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010

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

People who have been providing services competently for up to 35 years in the State are now seen as risks to Members of the Public and threats to the integrity of the profession.

Is this the reaction you would expect from an impartial Registrar who ISN'T pushing an agenda?

This is from the office that controls the profession now.

De.Lite.Touch

Mellor

De.Lite.Touch wrote: »

I realise that the 1-year full-time Architectural Technologist Upgrade Option is available through Bolton Street now, but I know no-one who can spare 1 year full time from their business in a recession.

There is also a part time option. Worth mentioning.

YouWantWhat

I was a bit sceptical about the AA until I saw the recording of the meeting. I was very impressed, and would like to congratulate everyone involved for their hard work and achievement.

De.Lite.Touch

YouWantWhat wrote: »

I was a bit sceptical about the AA until I saw the recording of the meeting. I was very impressed, and would like to congratulate everyone involved for their hard work and achievement.

I think a lot has gone on since that meeting and views were exchanged at it which need correction and clarification.

The RIAI suggested 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 simply not the case.

The RIAI 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 apparently certified by an RIAI-registered architect firms.

- -

De.Lite.Touch

De.Lite.Touch

Mellor wrote: »

There is also a part time option. Worth mentioning.

Do you have a name for the course?

I know at least one person who will consider doing it.

- -

De.Lite.Touch

No6

The RIAI are currently giving a countrywide CPD entiled How to effectively lobby your local TD (or something like that) and are encouraging Architect to lobby their local TD's with a view to maintaining the current technical assessment process and voting against the current ammendment. Perhaps we should lob by our TD's too!! Personally I dont agree with either postitions, the AA and the current ammendment may allow anyone become an architect without any establishment of their ability where as the technical assessment process is a very expensive (in the current climate) process with no comeback and a very very high level of proof required that you carried out the work. If I go for TA I know I will need to hold a few seance's to get the level of proff required!!! I did however get 2 CPD points for attending the recent briefing and will indeed lobby my Local TD's for a fairer system!!!

sydthebeat

No6 wrote: »

The RIAI are currently giving a countrywide CPD entiled How to effectively lobby your local TD (or something like that) and are encouraging Architect to lobby their local TD's with a view to maintaining the current technical assessment process and voting against the current ammendment. Perhaps we should lob by our TD's too!! Personally I dont agree with either postitions, the AA and the current ammendment may allow anyone become an architect without any establishment of their ability where as the technical assessment process is a very expensive (in the current climate) process with no comeback and a very very high level of proof required that you carried out the work. If I go for TA I know I will need to hold a few seance's to get the level of proff required!!! I did however get 2 CPD points for attending the recent briefing and will indeed lobby my Local TD's for a fairer system!!!

this completely smacks of desperation and fright from the RIAI....
its such a clear case of "protect the old boys club at any cost", i too dont agree with the system... i would much prefer to have the profession of architectural technologist alos protected and defined, but thats not going to happen while RIAI consider us threats to their workload.... so in the face of that i'll be lobbying my TD to vote FOR this amendment bill.

No6

To be honest just because John O'Donaghue tabled a private members bill it dosnt mean anything much. The RIAI do have a point to a point if anyone can call themselves an Architect and provide little or no substantiation then it does devalue the qualification but I think with the technical assessment proces they have seriously overvalued it for potential TA route members including myself and while pretending to be fair have made it extremely difficult for people goin this route. The ordinary RIAI members dont really have a clue what is involved in TA and it is being presented by the RIAI as quite a simple process which anyone with a reasonable level of competance can achieve. I would think that some middle ground would be the best place to go.

De.Lite.Touch

The Bill isn't perfect but its not a blank cert for anyone to become Registered.

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

Its specific about the requirements; -

(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,

There is a being myth put about by the RIAI that "just anyone" could walk into the profession - this isn't the case - evidence must be shown

Its not evidence of providing services as an architectural technician or a draughtsman.

Its evidence of working as an architect.

Plus, the evidence is based on establisment - i.e. work already done.

You would have to be working as someone above Junior Architect level too.
There would need to be a degree of independence to your work.
You couldn't just be someone minutely controlled by another.

Just on running the job, I think you would have had to have responsibility for; -

• the design of the building
• obtaining statutory approvals
• running the job/ contract administration,
• letters of nomination
• correspondence with the main contractor and nominated sub-contractors,
• letters of appointment,
• taking site meetings,
• inspections,
• issuing Opinions, approvals and certification.

That's the sort of things they list in "running the office" books for architects.
But this kind of job description could describe some senior technicians of long standing perfectly, two that I know of personally.

As for the RIAI worrying about people "taking their jobs" - they already do such work.
This Bill will just allow those who want the Title to become Registered and put some shape on the profession.
Who knows, they might end up giving CPD-point rated lectures to MRIAI's about how to detail and run jobs properly.



De.Lite.Touch

No6

Nearly all the Arch Techs I know run their own practices so we'd nearly all qualify under this ammendment ( well those of us with 7 years plus on our own!!)

DOCARCH

De.Lite.Touch wrote: »

Who knows, they might end up giving CPD-point rated lectures to MRIAI's about how to detail and run jobs properly.

Cheeky pup! :pac: You've obvously only experience of the behind the desk fat cat architects in big practices!

De.Lite.Touch

No6 wrote: »

Nearly all the Arch Techs I know run their own practices so we'd nearly all qualify under this ammendment ( well those of us with 7 years plus on our own!!)

That may be the defining point for Arch Techs.

The question is whether you were working as an architect or as a technician when you were working for the MRIAI who will be verifying your work.

In some ways it could be easier if you started with no qualification, otherwise you could get pigeon-holed.

De.Lite.Touch.

De.Lite.Touch

DOCARCH wrote: »

Cheeky pup! :pac: You've obvously only experience of the behind the desk fat cat architects in big practices!

If only they'd stayed behind the desk and done a bit of work!

De.Lite.Touch.

No6

De.Lite.Touch wrote: »

That may be the defining point for Arch Techs.

The question is whether you were working as an architect or as a technician when you were working for the MRIAI who will be verifying your work.

In some ways it could be easier if you started with no qualification, otherwise you could get pigeon-holed.

De.Lite.Touch.

What MRIAI? I havn't worked full time for one for ten years and he was the biggest crook I ever met!!! You are I think assuming all arch tech's work in RIAI practices for MRIAI's they dont most of us here certainly dont anyways, a lot ot the regulars are self employed others work for other professionals like engineers and one or two may work in RIAI practices!!!:D

De.Lite.Touch

No6 wrote: »

What MRIAI? I havn't worked full time for one for ten years and he was the biggest crook I ever met!!! You are I think assuming all arch tech's work in RIAI practices for MRIAI's they dont most of us here certainly dont anyways, a lot ot the regulars are self employed others work for other professionals like engineers and one or two may work in RIAI practices!!!:D

If you're presenting work as your own I think the RIAI like to see work verified and short of you getting a High Court Judge to say something to them, they may not accept verification.

I think their own code says they cannot be unreasonable about verifying someone's work, but what if the guy you worked for used your work to get himself registered? Catch-22.

De.Lite.Touch

No6

De.Lite.Touch wrote: »

If you're presenting work as your own I think the RIAI like to see work verified and short of you getting a High Court Judge to say something to them, they may not accept verification.

I think their own code says they cannot be unreasonable about verifying someone's work, but what if the guy you worked for used your work to get himself registered? Catch-22.

De.Lite.Touch

Under the TA process yes you are correct the RIAI do want to see you work verified, it is not strictly necessary to use a former employer, clients and other professionals work worked with you on a project can also provide verification. The lad I talked to who went through the pliot scheme found this very difficult particurarly for older projects. It's not just the 4 or 6 projects you have to verify under TA but all you put down on your CV for the ten years!!

I know what you mean about the second point I have done a lot of contract work for different practices and I am sure some of the non RIAI will be undergoing the TA and could use some of my work. Its a trick one alright.

BTW I am not currently doing the TA!!!

De.Lite.Touch

No6 wrote: »

Under the TA process yes you are correct the RIAI do want to see you work verified, it is not strictly necessary to use a former employer, clients and other professionals work worked with you on a project can also provide verification. The lad I talked to who went through the pliot scheme found this very difficult particurarly for older projects. It's not just the 4 or 6 projects you have to verify under TA but all you put down on your CV for the ten years!!

I know what you mean about the second point I have done a lot of contract work for different practices and I am sure some of the non RIAI will be undergoing the TA and could use some of my work. Its a trick one alright.

BTW I am not currently doing the TA!!!

I'm delighted for you!
I think a lot of people may be boycotting it, because of cost and complexity.

In offices, people may be dumping files older than 6 years unless they have to keep them - like 12-years-under-seal stuff.
Part of this is down to the Data Protection Act - it can really gum up your office if someone asks for all references to them on your files.

But if the office might need to keep older back up files to offer as evidence for an inquiry or as part of a legal case - there you go.
Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place - you might only have files still existing on jobs that went to Court!

Looking at it from the RIAI point of view, you can see they want a standard of proof.
Looking at it from your viewpoint, you can see how hard it could be to get older work verified.

Reading between the lines, they may not accept the non-MRIAI certifications you can offer, that's really the problem.
I think you'd need to be talking to a solicitor or barrister you have given sworn evidence to for them to accept it!

This could apply under the new Bill, because they'll tighten this up in the Seanad for sure.
They'll seek independent verification of the work done - even though the principal may be deceased.

So any jobs on which you'd given sworn evidence would be useful too.
And any work on which you'd certified monies or Compliance.

Bit of a hard nut to crack, isn't it?


De.Lite.Touch.

No6

It has been made deliberately to my mind very difficult to achieve the level of proof required. Despite what the RIAI say to their members the process in not inclusive or simple, so I'll have to get on my bike and do a bit of my own lobbying!!!:D

De.Lite.Touch

Thought you might all like a read of these two letters to the Irish Times.
First a letter from Brian Montaut of the Architects Alliance.
Second, the response from John Graby.

(mods, if you think this should be split into a new thread, or is not acceptable, please advise)

-- De.Lite.Touch

==================================


The Irish Times - Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Registering architects

A chara, – I refer to the new compulsory registration of architects in Ireland, which is being managed on behalf of the State by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland Limited (RIAI). I write for the Architects Alliance, which represents long-established non-RIAI architects, who, because they were not members of the RIAI, were denied automatic registration. That exclusion has placed their hard-won livelihoods in jeopardy to the advantage of their competitors.

An EU Directive is being incorrectly cited by our detractors in support of the new regime. In fact the EU is specifically neutral on both the State registration of architects and the “protection of title”. Nor does State registration confer any rights of access into the European market, it is purely an internal and entirely discretionary policy.

In the general discussion which has ensued, a mistaken comparison with doctors has been drawn in order to explain the “protection” of the common usage word “architect”. My reply is that many important professions are conducted without a need to commandeer the language. Doctor is not a “protected title”, nor for example are the descriptions teacher, nurse, engineer, or journalist. The inevitable consequence of trade-marking the plain word “architect” is to create a closed shop and to reduce consumer choice.

This trouble can be reduced by ceasing to exclude the 1,000 or so non-RIAI architects whose established presence in the Irish market has been acknowledged by the Architects’ Council of Europe. It is simply achieved through the adoption within the current legislation, of a standard, self-extinguishing “grandfather clause” for long established, market-proven architects.

New entrants into the profession would continue to be bound by the new regime for they can make no claim of prior establishment and market accreditation. A clause similar or identical to that already provided in the Building Control Act 2007 for the equally important professions of Quantity Surveyor and Building Surveyor, will suffice.

In addition to being made State registrar, the RIAI was also made a competent authority for architects. It is therefore particularly disturbing to learn of its newly- launched political lobbying campaign which is targeted against a parliamentary Bill for just such a “grandfather clause”.

Of course it was hardly anticipated that the RIAI would use its State appointments in this way. But to also learn that RIAI credits for Continuing Professional Development are awarded to members attending lobbying briefings, takes the breath away. Only vested interests are served by continuing to deny us equity. – Is mise,

BRIAN MONTAUT,

Spokesperson for Architects’

Alliance,

Mount Pleasant Villas,

Bray,

Co Wicklow.


==================================


The Irish Times - Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Registering Architects


Madam, – Brian Montaut’s letter (September 1st) is misleading. He attempts to create the impression that the Building Control Act 2007, which provides for the registration of architects, has no provision for those working in architecture who do not have specific qualifications, that registration is in some way limited to Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland members, that non-RIAI architects are being excluded from the register and that EU directives are being misused.

The Act does provide “grandfather” processes for people without formal qualifications, so that they can be included in the register. The sexist, ageist and imprecise “grandfather” term is avoided in the legislation and the neutral term “technical assessment”, defined in the Act as “practical experience assessment procedures”, is used instead. One route is the register admission examination for people with seven years of experience but no architectural qualifications. This examination is available on a permanent basis. Another is the independent technical assessment process, overseen by a board with a lay majority and independent chair appointed by the Minister for the Environment. This process requires 10 years’ experience working at the level of an architect, the submission of four projects, verification of experience and compliance with minimum EU standards.

The second misleading element is the impression given that registration is only open to members of the RIAI. The Act does not make the membership of the RIAI a prerequisite for registration.

Of particular seriousness is the allegation that EU directives are being incorrectly cited and that State registration does not confer rights of access to the European market. State registration does confer rights of access to the EU market through the Services Directive, on the basis of mutual trust between member states that standards are being applied consistently as set out in the professional qualifications directive. How can Ireland say the standards are being applied if it hasn’t independently assessed professionals to ensure that they have met them?

Mr Montaut draws comparisons with doctors and nurses on the basis that the titles of their professions are not protected. He is missing the point. Both professions are regulated by law and people included on their professional registers have had their competence independently assessed. It’s worth pointing out that at EU level only seven professions – doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists, pharmacists, vets and architects – have “automatic” rights of recognition on the basis that these are occupations with a significant public interest and public safety remit and responsibility.

However, the key point is the original purpose of registration: consumer protection. This demands that a common standard of competence be put in place and that professionals are independently assessed to that standard. The proposed Amendment to the Building Control Act 2007 involves no independent assessment of competence whatsoever.

The issue of consumer protection is no academic matter. Unfortunately, hundreds of unsuspecting members of the public have suffered due to the activities of people calling themselves architects but not competent to offer architectural services. .

Any regulatory body must act in the public interest. The integrity of a register depends on an independent assessment of competence. No regulatory body could have other than grave concerns if people were to be admitted to a register without their competence being assessed.

The RIAI, in its role as a competent authority, has a responsibility to other EU member states to provide evidence for migrant architects; this documentation is issued and accepted on the basis of mutual trust. If there were architects on the register in this State who had not been assessed to EU minimum standards, then the competence and access to EU markets for all Irish architects would be called into question.

The proposed amendment serves only those who, for whatever reason, are not prepared to have their competence independently assessed. – Yours, etc,

JOHN GRABY,

Registrar,

Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland,

Merrion Square,

Dublin 2.


==================================

Chris Arch

funny... I did not know that technicians were also interested in theory... maybe it is because they are not realy what they claim to be...

No6

Chris Arch wrote: »

funny... I did not know that technicians were also interested in theory... maybe it is because they are not realy what they claim to be...

very random chris, please enlighten us lesser mortals and dont be trolling now!!!

muffler

Chris Arch wrote: »

funny... I did not know that technicians were also interested in theory... maybe it is because they are not realy what they claim to be...

No6 wrote: »

very random chris, please enlighten us lesser mortals and dont be trolling now!!!

Yes, I would like a fuller explanation or am I slow in detecting sarcasm?

Chris Arch

muffler wrote: »

Yes, I would like a fuller explanation or am I slow in detecting sarcasm?

Sorry this is not the place nor the time...

YouWantWhat

Chris Arch wrote: »

funny... I did not know that technicians were also interested in theory... maybe it is because they are not realy what they claim to be...

Chris Arch,

your ignorance is bliss. My experience of architects is bailing them out of the s**t that they get themselves into!!! (for that very reason).

muffler

Chris Arch wrote: »

Sorry this is not the place nor the time...

You posted it here so yes, this is the place.

If you feel it's too late to address my concerns as a forum moderator then I can wait till tomorrow for an explanation if that helps.

Chris Arch

YouWantWhat wrote: »

Chris Arch,

your ignorance is bliss. My experience of architects is bailing them out of the s**t that they get themselves into!!! (for that very reason).

Hey guys let stay on the technical part of it... Is it about arch tech here or what?

sinnerboy

Chris - for YOUR sake I am putting a temp lock on this thread . Take 24 hours to reflect on your contribution here .