2 10 25 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/ceb02e114085df8e669b00792fa86c47.pdf 54b9d73b34773c6b341071b01ba3b99d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Visiting Boards Subject The topic of the resource Note regarding ARCUK's role in Visiting Boards (2 sides) Description An account of the resource 161/86 VISITING BOARDS Recent events, particularly the advent of the European Directive, have prompted a review of the present Visiting Board arrangements and the degree of responsibility exercised by ARCUK in the validation of examinations and courses. As the competent authority responsible to the Department of the Environment for implementing the terms of the Directive, ARCUK has to supply information concerning standards and confirm that these have been met by the Schools nominated under Article 7. It is considered that the present arrangements in which one member of the Visiting Board represents but is not directly nominated by ARCUK do not meet these requirements and that a system should be devised which gives ARCUK more direct responsibility for validation and enables it to withstand possible challenges to its authority and methodology. One possible alternative would be for ARCUK to mount a wholly independent Visiting Board system — a proposal which has been considered in the past and rejected for the following reasons. 1 . The duplication of RIBA and ARCUK visits (together, in some cases, with those of CNAA) would place an unacceptable burden on the Schools. 2. The heavy additional cost in terms of ARCUK resources would not be justified. 3. The impression which would be created of a divided profession with disparate aims and standards in Architectural Education should be avoided. These objections still apply and, as a way of avoiding them but still retaining direct responsibility for validation, it is proposed that a partnership be established with RIBA to operate joint Visiting Boards on which at least two representatives will be nominated directly on to each 161/86/2 Visit by ARCUK and both the costs and administrative work shared with the RIBA. It will be necessary for a scheme to be worked out in detail in collaboration with the RIBA with the aim of coming into effect for the autumn of 1987. The GPC recommends that the Board endorse this proposal in principle so that discussions with this object in view can be commenced . Prof D Hinton Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/683c67bc6c53834966dde4ea4a5bf8cf.pdf 5dea6107f1cc72b55178aec8b7ac521e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource ARCUK Council papers Subject The topic of the resource Note Several items on Architectural Education Description An account of the resource 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 184/86 PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL TWO HUNDRED AND NINETEEN ORDINARY MEETING 17 DECEMBER 1986 AT 2 PH AT 66 PORTLAND PLACE LONDON WI A G E N D A 1 . Apologies for Absence 2. Minutes of 218 Ordinary Meeting (Attached as Document 160/86) 3. Constitution of Council To accept the resignation of I G Urquhart and to nominate in his place Mrs Jenny Williams. 4. Constitution of Discipline Committee To accept the resignation of I G Urquhart and to nominate in his place Mrs Jenny Williams 5. Constitution of the Board of Architectural Education (a) The Privy Council formally gave its approval to the amendment to ARCtJK"s Regulations (text given in Minute 23 of document 160/86) on November 7th 1986. (b) To accept the nominat ion of Alan Chapman nominated by Brighton Polytechnic; 184/86/2 (c) To accept the nomination of Dr A Forvard nominated by Huddergfield Polytechnic. 6 . Section 7 of the Principal Act Conduct Cages attached ag ANNEX A 7. Reports (i) Admi68ion Committee to be tabled ANNEX Board of Architectural Education ANNEX C Board of Architectural Education Awards Panel ANNEX D Finance and General Purposes Committee ANNEX (v) Professional Purposeg Committee ANNEX (vi) Registrar's Report to be tabled ANNEX G Affidavit of complaint againgt Steven Lawrence Hole 8. Direct i ve of the Council of the European Community Chairman to 8peak to report attached. 9. Other Business 10. Date of Next Meeting 18 March 1987 Registrar. Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 181/86 BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION REPORT TO COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1986 1. Education Policy Policy paper "Architectural Education: Statement of Principles" ig attached to Report. ARCUK has increasingly been placed in a position of making reactive reponses to various educational issues. The volume of material now being handled by ARCUK, augmented by its responsibilities to the Department of the Environment in termg of the E.C. Directive, is such that the GPC had concluded it vas necessary for ARCUK to formulate its own policy on education. The paper "Architectural Education: Statement of Principles" drawn up by the Chairman and agreed by the GPC vag welcomed by members of the Board ag providing a framework for ARCUK policy. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 1938 The regolution that the BAE adopt the paper and that it be put before — Council for endorsement vag pagged vith 42 voteg in favour and 5 against and the Board agkg the Council to ratify this document as a statement of policy. 2. ARCUK/RIBA Visiting Boards (a) ARCUK Participation in the Visiting Board Programme Because of responsibilities placed on it under the terms of the E.C. Directive ARCUK is nov obligated to be more directly involved in the recognition of qualifications. As a means of attaining this the GPC had recoamended to the Board that a partnership be established with the RIBA to operate joint Visiting Boards on which at least two representatives would be nominated directly on to each visit by ARCUK, the costs and administration to be Shared with the RIBA, the whole coming into effect for the autumn programme 1987. A paper (copy attached) vas endorsed in principle by the BAE and vas passed by 35 votes in favour to 2 against and vith 8 abstentions. Discussions vill begin with the RIBA vith this object in view. (b) Visiting Board Reports ( i) Mackintosh School The Board recotnmend8 continued recognition in the following formal terms ; that — (i) the three years full time course and four years part—time course leading to the University of Glasgov"• ordinary degree of Bachelor of Architecture, and the first three yeare of the four years full time course leading to the University' g degree of Bachelor of Architecture with Honourg, and their related examinations; and ( i i) the course leading to the University of Glasgov'g Diploma in Architecture (comprising either the tvo years full time or three years part time course or the fourth year of the Honourg degree courge followed by the second Diploma year full time), and its related examinations; or the course leading to the University of Glasgow's degree of Magter of Architecture (comprising the fourth year of the Honourg degree courge followed by the taught MArch course in Architectural Studies taken in one calendar year full time, one academic year full time and one academic year part time, or tvo calendar yeare part time), and its related examinations; and (iii) the School '8 lecture course and examination taken in the last year of the Degree course (RIBA Gl), the course and examinations taken in Diploma years one and tvo (RIBA G2), and the Professional Practice Examination (RIBA G3) taken on completion of a minimum of tvo years practical training undertaken in accordance with the RIBA Practical Training Scheme, continue to be recogniged by ARCUK as Parts I, Il and Ill respectively for the purpose of admission to the Register of Architects. ( i i) Dublin University College (visit on 6/7 February 1986) The Board recommends continued recognition in the following formal terms ; that ( i) the five years full—time course and related examinations leading to the National University of Ireland Bachelor of Architecture Degree; and ( i i) the Fifth Year course and examination in Professional Practice and Management (RIBA Gl and G2), and the postgraduate block course and the examination leading to the National University of Ireland Certificate in Professional Practice and Practical Experience (RIBA G3), taken on completion of a minimum of tvo years' practical training undertaken in accordance vith the Rules of the RIBA Practical Training Scheme, continue to be recognised by ARCUK as Parts I, Il and Ill for the purpose of admission to the Register of Architects. ( i i i) Humberside College of Higher Education (visit on 20/21 February 1986) The Board recommends continued recognition in the following formal terms ; that — (i) the three years full—tine courge and related examinationg leading to the CNAA Degree of BA in Architecture; and (i i) the tvo years full—time course and related examinations leading to the Humberside College of Higher Education Diploma in Architecture; and (iii) the Technical courge lectures and related aggeggmentg in the Degree course on contract Lav, the architect' g role, relationship to the building process and current legislation (RIBA Gl), the Lav and Construction lectures and related assessments in the Diploma course (RIBA G2), and the lecture course, seminars and related examinationg leading to the School' 8 Post Qualification Certificate in Architectural Practice (RIBA G3), taken on the completion of two years' practical training undertaken in accordance vith the Rules of the RIBA Practical Training Scheme , continue to be recogniged by ARCUK as Parts I, Il and Ill respectively for the purpose of admission to the Register of Architects. (iv) Polytechnic of the South Bank (revi8it, 6/7 March 1986) The Board reconnnend8 continued recognition in the following formal terms ; that — (i) the 4—year day—release course and related examinations leading to South Bank Polytechnic Graduate Diploma in Architecture; and (ii) the 3—year day—release courge and related examinations leading to South Bank Polytechnic Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture; continue to be recogniged by ARCUK as Parts I and Il respectively for the purpose of admission to the Register of Architects. 3. "The Content and Context of Architectural Education" ARCUK has been invited to respond to the RIBA discussion paper on architectural education. In view of the importance of the document it vas agreed to hold a special meeting of the BAE on January 13th 1987 to discuss and consider a response for report to the March meeting of Council. 4. Cont inuing Professional Development The Chairman and Registrar vill put forward a discussion paper to the May meeting of BAE containing proposal 8 for ARCUK'8 C. P. D. policy. 5. Appointment of Secretary to the BAE The increaging volume of educational material nov being handled by ARCUK hag been referred to in paras I and 2 (a) above. Since the Board met, the Finance and General Purposes Committee (report attached) hag endorsed the reconendation that a permanent Secretary nov be appointed to the Board of Architectural Education in terms of ARCUK Regulation 23. At the time the Board net a Job Specif ication for the nev post vas not available and it hag reserved to itself the request to examine this at its Special Meeting in January. 6. RIBA Examinat ion in Architecture The RIBA hag formally applied for ARCUK recognition of its revised Examination in Architecture. The examination vill be aggegged by an independent ARCUK Visiting Board. Profeggor D Hinton Chairman 125/86 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 1 . Introduct ion ARCUK's responsibilities in the field of Education derive directly from the 1931 Act and the 1969 amendments. The terms of these are statutory and prescriptive but ARCUK is not limited in its activities solely to those mentioned in the Acts and may legitimately engage in courses of action which it considers relevant and/or necessary to achieve the objectives which the Acts embody. The objeCt of this paper is to provide a framework of principles within which these objectives can be realised, based on (a) Decisions taken and statements already made by ARCUK. (b) Examination of issues confronting ARCUK in both the short and long term future. 2. Representat ion ARCUK"s own constitution and that of the Board of Architectural Education provide a broad basis for discussion not limited to members of the architectural profession. By this means it is possible to receive a vide range of opinions representing public and consumer interests, other professions, Universities, Polytechnics and Government Departments as vell as those of architects whether they belong to professional institutions or not. While taking full advantage of the breadth of its representation, ARCUK should try to ensure, on educational issues as on others, that the architectural profession speaks with one voice. It should therefore (a) give high priority to consultation with all its constituent bodies and with representatives of the unattached. (b) use the unique constitution of the Board to ensure a balanced presentation of opinions on educational issues. (c) establish a continuing dialogue with Government Departments and other agencies concerned with the formulation of education policies. 3. Powers under the Registration Acts A. The 1931 Registration Act the BAE to recommend to Council (a) the recognition of any examinations in architecture the passing of which ought, in the opinion of the Board, to qualify persons for registration under this Act; and (b) the holding of any examinations in architecture which ought, i n the opinion of the Board, to be passed by appl icants for registration under the Act; It follows that Board and Council must be concerned with and responsible for the setting and standards. 125/86/3 The wording places stress on improvement. ARCUK awards are by themselves insufficient to support major research programmeg but are intended to give encouragement to the expansion of research activities. The provision for research awards has been extended to cover Cont inuing Professional Development. ARCUK has made a major investment in this area and must continue to influence further developments preferably through collaboration with recognised Schools of Architecture and the profession. 5. Admission from Overseas 0 The existing regulations make provision for registration b possessing equivalent qualif icat ions to those recognised at art I level. This process will continue except for applications b the EC who will be admitted under the terms of the Directive. The Act vill be amended in 1987 by a Statutory Instrument to accommodate these prov is ions . Recent changes in procedure whereby all non E. C. applicants from overseas will be processed via Regulation 27 and the continuance of the JCAR Agreement vill provide a uniform body of information and further experience in the field of international recognition. A major task and an unprecedented opportunity confront ARCUK and its resent-ae-i-v-e.s—ia the Advisory Conunittee set up to advise the Commissron in BrusseTG--the implementation of the Directive throughout the EEC. Even at a minimum level of activity in this Committee, the task of coordination and verif icat ion vill be cons iderable. The opportunity — to create an agency active in the promotion of high standards and the exchange of ideas — is one which ARCUK must pursue energetically. It must be one of ARCUK's major priorities to 9-nsure unity of purpose i-A---e-he pursug 04 these aims and to put its experience in overseas relations at the disposal of the European Community. Prof D Hinton Chairman BAE 161/86 YISITING BOARDS Recent events, particularly the advent of the European Directive, have prompted a review of the present Visiting Board arrangements and the degree of responsibility exercised by ARCUK in the validation of examinations and courses. AS the competent authority responsible to the Department of the Environment for implementing the terms of the Directive, ARCUK has to supply information concerning standards and confirm that these have been met by the Schools nominated under Article 7. It ig cons idered that the present arrangements in which one member of the Visiting Board represents but is not directly nominated by ARCUK do not meet these requirements and that a system should be devised which gives ARCUK more direct responsibility for validation and enables it to vithstand possible challenges to its authority and methodology. One possible alternative would be for ARCUK to mount a wholly independent Visiting Board system — a proposal which has been considered in the past and rejected for the following reasons. 1 . The duplication of RIBA and ARCUK visits (together, in some cases, with those of CNAA) would place an unacceptable burden on the Schools. 2. The heavy additional cost in terms of ARCUK resources would not be justified. 3. The impression which vould be created of a divided profession v ith disparate aims and standards in Architectural Education should be avoided. These objections still apply and, as a vay of avoiding them but still retaining direct responsibility for val idation, it i s proposed that a partnership be established vith RIBA to operate jornt Visiting Boards on which at least vo representatives VI I l be nominated directly on to each so O 161/86/2 Visit by ARCUK and both the cogt6 and administrative work shared with the RIBA. It vill be necesgary for a scheme to be worked out in detail in collaboration with the RIBA with the aim of coming into effect for the autumn of 1987. The GPC recommends that the Board endorse this proposal in principle 60 that discussions vith this object in viev can be commenced . Prof D Hinton Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 1938 73 Hallam Street London WI N åEE Tel: 01-580 5861 182/86 BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AWARDS PANEL REPORT TO COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1986 1. There hag been one meeting of the Panel since the October meeting of the Council. 2. Student Grants The following applications vere received: Renewals Other applications 9 Total 9 The applicat ions vere dealt vith as follows: Under review 2 Refused 5 Withdrawn 1 Avards approved 1 Total 9 3. The following grant is recommended: EGP 580 S T S Bates Poly of the South Bank E1582 Also one award recommended by the Chairman subsequent to the Panel meet ing. EGP 600 S Nadarajah Poly of North London E 846 4. At the meeting of the BAE the Vice Chairman of the Panel acknowledged the assistance given by the Heads of School in responding to the Panel's reports on individual cases. 5. 1986 Research Awards An increased number of applications vas received and the following tvo awards vere made: Dr. T Woolley — "User Participation in Design — Exploratory Project" E2500 Mr. P J Robinson — "Aspects of a Scottish Flat Tradition". E1600 6. The evaluation reports of the completed research projects of Malcolm Reading and Amy Sargeant are attached for information. David Gregory Chairman A HISTORY 0K} THE MARS GROUP 1933-44: A THEMATIC ANALYSIS: MALCOLM READING Historical writing should communicate; have selected evidence and have three central elements - narrative, analysis and description - and have a bibliography and footnotes. It should also be set in historical context and use both primary and secondary sources. This work reads well and therefore communicates. It makes extremely good use of primary sources. It strikes a good balance between narrative and analysis although it peters out somewhat at the end and really needs a good 'rounding up' conclusion. It could have set the historical context more fully. If the •work is aimed exclusively at architects, it probably serves in this respect but the general reader would not understand the background. More could have been made of the very strong anti-modern movement in Britain. There is no bibliography - a serious omission in such a work, particularly with such obvious books and publications which are directly relevant. It would have been greatly improved by some illustrations - eg, on page 79 there is reference to a six-page special, well illustrated feature by Fry in the AJ - it would have been nice to have seen it incorporated. It would have been useful too if more had been made of the architecture actually produced by members of the MARS Group which is so well documented elsewhere. As a piece of work simply indicating the history of the actual setting up of the Group it serves well. I enjoyed reading it; he is obviously extremely knowledgeable about the subject, has had the privilege of direct interviews with MARS Group members and his record of those meetings alone Will make this study interesting to other scholars. "Jacques Gondoin and the Ecole de Chirurqie" have read Amy Sargeant•s research report on "Gondoin & and the Ecole de Chirurgie". It is a brief, but well researched and well written piece of work. The illustrations in the larce folder, however, are far from well presented; poor quality photostats, haphazard sizes and even haphazardly rounted, scruffily titled (or, in some cases, untitled), no list of sources for the illustrations (although by inference and a lot of digging one can work this out for most, but not all of them) etc. Surnrisingly, apart fron the 50—year old paper bv Jean Adhemar, there i.s no recent work on this well—knol..rn building. Her reading, visits to Paris and Nice (where e remote descendant with material about Gondoin lives) have been fruitful. However, there is, T sunpose because of the Can.bridge "architectural— history—as—art—history" approach, en undue enphasis nn for-ral and metaphoric issues, with a consequent loss of discussion of the plan and section of the anatomy theatre, the roots for this kind of share, the way it relates to new scientific, medical end teaching attitudes in Prance in the last guarter of 18th Century, its relationship to earlier, circular, anatomy theatres such as Bologna, (is this the first semi—circular one? '"hat shape was its nredecessor in Paris? etc. Considering the huge delays on this award, it is surprisina that the proaress has not been more. Her (excellent) application made in 1982 already covered much of the material in the renort. Her interim report in 1 9 83 developed it a lot further — and the additional material in the past 3 years has been quite small. I feel she lost interest about 1983/ pa. a:evertheless, n. considerinc it only cost us El 000 (althouah at 1982 nrices) it was a worthwhile investment. '.5 th some tidvina up of a few confurions about references and a bit Af annlification of t:he issues mentioned above, it could (and Ghould) mako F. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 1938 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6€E Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 185/86 FINANCE AND GENERAL PURPOSES cmNITTEE REPORT TO COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1986 Retention Fees (a) It vag reported that 419 architects had not paid any part of their fees by November 1986 compared with 426 at the game time the previous year. There vere however 643 who had only part paid (this is characteristic of any year following any increase in retention fee). (b) The Committee had reingtated to the Regi8ter the names of 5 architects. (c) The Coumittee hag approved the vaiver of 3 retention fees by persons retiring. (d) The Council is agked to author ise the removal from the Register on the 318t December 1986 the names of all those who still ove retention fees, wholly or in part, on that date. A list vill be tabled. 2. Admi88 ion Fees The recommends the Council approve the folloving changes in Admi88ion Fees in Regulation 37 — to come into effect on January 1 1987 185/86/3 3. Representation of the Constituent Bodies (a) On the 31st October 1986 the total number of architects on the Register vag 30,029 (29,593). The number of architect memberg of the constituent bodies vhoge addreggeg are normally in the United Kingdom and the number of repreeentativeg they are appoint to Council for the year 1987/88 are 8hovn belov. The figures in bracket8 indicate the position in 1986/87. Const ituent Home Number of Council Members To Body Member 8 h ip Nominate for 1987 (88 Session 800 (811) 2 (2) FAS 317 (319) (1) IAAS 98 (106) 1 (1) PROV 260 (290) 1 (1) RIBA 20788 (20462) 42 STMP 143 (149) 1 (1) 4. Election of Representatives of Unattached Architects AB at 318t October 1986 the total number of architects recorded as unattached vas 6390 compared with 6197 in 1985. The number of unattached representatives on the Council for 1987/88 vill be 13, as in the previous year. 5. Composition of Board and Committees Under the Gentlemen' 8 Agreement The Committee that the Gentlemen-g Agreement providing for the representation of the constituent bodies on the Board of Architectural Education and Committees of the Council as accepted by the Council at its meeting on the Il December 1985 be adopted and unaltered for the year 1987/88. 6. Admission Certif icates The Coumittee has considered a suggestion that persons newly admitted to the Register should receive Certificates of Registration but has rejected the idea. 7. Appointment of Secretary to the Board of Architectural Education (Ref. Report of the BAE above). The Committee hag carried out its annual reviev of staff conditions of service. The Committee unanimously recommends to Council the appointment of a Secretary to the BAE in terms of the attached Job Specification. 185/86/4 8. First Schedule to Che 1931 Act — Survey The Electoral Reform Society hag conducted a 15Z stratefied random sample of congtituent bodies by means of a questionnaire. The replies are nov being checked and evaluated by the Society and a report vill be submitted to the Comittee as goon a8 possible. F Goodall Chairman Atchitoct6 Rooibtration Council ot the United Kinodogn GENTLEMEN'S AGREEHENT 1 . at present constituted. the Gent Ignen' s Agreemcat provideg ao fol lovs : Board of Architectural Education 2. Of the 24 regiocered pergons co be appointed by the Council:— 2 shall be nominated by the Royal Ing tituce of Briti8h Acchicect6 2 Incorporated Aggociacion of Architects and Surveyorg 2 . Faculty of Architect6 aed Surveyors 2 Representatives on the Cotmcit of the 'Unattached' Architeccg Leaving 16 co be freely chosen by the Council. Admission 3. 8 registered persons shall be appointed by the Council of vhoa.•— 2 shall be nominated by che Acchiceccucal Association 1 STAMP section o? UCATT 2 Repregentaciveg on che Council of Che 'Unattached' Archiceccg leaving 3 co be freely chosen by che Council. Finance and General Purposes Coazniccee Profesgtonal Purpoges Cantntctee 4 . Each of che above Coamiccces shall cons isc of 13 raemberg . exclugive of che ex officio member 8, appointed ag follovs : — I by che Royal Ing t i tute of Brit i Ah Archi ceccs 1 ' e n v t ns• Incorporated Assoc i ac ron of Archi ceccg and Surveyor e Faculty of Arch 1 C CCC s and Surveyor 8 Archi t ectura l STAN!' MCA', r Repr e sent t o be t re e Candida c es foc t rec e lec t ion 5. Thac vich regard co che candidates for free election by che Counci l . che following infomacion shal l be provided, by chose nominating, in not more than, say, 25 vords: age, name of archi— cectutal constituenc bodies of vhich candidate is a member (i f any) . presenc post and cype of practice , and reason for nomination; and chac che nanes shall bc submit ced to the Council in alphabetical order. Dates for nominations 6 . That nominations for vacancies to be filled by free election together with the required information about the candidates, must be sent to the • Registrar, 21 days before the Annual Meeting of the Council, in order that the lists may be circulated to Council members prior to the meeting. 178/86 JOB SPECIFICATION TITLE Secretary ARCUK Board of Architectural Education (ARCUK Regulation 23) DUTIES Service Board of Architectural Education Avardg Panel Visiting Boards Administration Advice on formation of Boards Advice on timetables Attend gome visit8 EEC Service ARCUK'g Advisory Monitor EEC Schoolg CPD Develop policy Advise constituent bodies Monitor developments and procegg official reports Constituent Liaison on educational matters and Bodies otherwise administer implementation of Statement of Principles — ARCUK document 125/86 REQUIREMENTS Graduate or other suitable qualif ication. Age over 30 High Level Experrence Educat ion and/or Adtnrni8tration and/or Architecture Languages. French or German desirable Grade 11 SALARY 12-15000 Condit ions Standard ARCUK Staff Pengion Scheme 6 months probation DATE Start March/April 1987 SUPPORT STAFF Por the moment the lines of the duties of existing 8taff can be rescheduled to cope vith the secretarial load involved. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) Acts '931 TO '938 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar. Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 183/86 PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES cmff1TTEE REPORT TO COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1986 ARCUK Disciplinary Proceedings Following the joint meeting with the Discipline Committee in September, the Committee is examining the implications of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1975 and its effect on criminal cases appearing before ARCUK Council. The Home Office hag been asked for guidance. When confirmation is to hand, the Professional Purposes Committee vill continue its review of disciplinary proceedings. 2. Standard of Conduct The Committee has examined a suggestion that professional indemnity insurance should be made a condition of registration and concluded that no ruling would be feasible. 3. Criminal Cases (a) The Committee has asked for research to be carried out among ARCUK's past legal opinions on how a situation is to be handled where a person no longer on the Register has been convicted of a criminal offence. (b) ARCUK v. Bishop On October 23rd 1986 Malcolm Bishop was convicted in Cambridge Magistrates Court of an offence under Section I of the Architects Registration Act of 1938 as read with Section 17 of the Architects Registration Act of 1931 . A brief summary is attached. 183/86/2 (c) Warnings Letterg of warning have been gent to:— P R G Wean Chelmsford J A Smith Barking C W Lang Ed inburgh M C Nickolls Cha irman 188/86 REPORT OF MEETING op CLAEU 20/21 NOVEMBER 1986 FOR COUNCIL 17 DECEMBER 1986 The meeting vas held in Brussels on 20th and 218t November 1986 vith David Waterhouse (leader) and Alan Groves representing RIBA and Bob Adamg and Professor Denyg Hinton representing ARCUK. 2. The main item vas a prolonged discussion on alternative policies for CLAEU A wider role, increased expenditure, legal gtatus within the EEC and right to speak for all architects in the EEC, prepared by the French President of CLAEU and the French delegation. A modest role ag a forum for discussion and exchange of information, vith revised regulations prepared by David Waterhouse (UK). The UK view vas eventually agreed by 7 votes to 4. 3. It vas learnt that no EEC funds are available in 1986 or 1987 to get up the advisory committee under the directive and a motion deploring this situation and urging that this committee meet vag passed. 4. It became clear that not all countries had taken the necessary steps required by the EC Architects directive due to come into operation in August 1987. Further detailed information is being sought from all countries. 5. The budget for 1987 vas agreed at 1,506,700 BF (E25,500) compared vith a 1986 budget of 998,045 BP (E16916). The 1987 budget allowed Covering a deficit in 1985/86. ( i i) The entry of Greece, Spain and Portugal. ( i i i) Contingency for additional published information. 6. The UK share of the budget, equally shared with the R IBA. 1986 1987 Share 19.32% 16.4% Value 0268 ARCUK E1634 E2091 David Waterhouse vill become delegate general on 1st January 1987 having led the UK delegation for many years. 8. The next meeting vill be held in Spain on 30 April and I May 1987. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 17 December 1986 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/36b02cec53c6b1373b59d1cd4b69d8bc.pdf b75322e7d0116d0dfaeee98be5faad91 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource News Release Subject The topic of the resource Statement by IAAS supporting ARCUK, plus other papers Description An account of the resource 2. There have been eeverai. Not the leaec ig tha fact that ARCUK policy over the last tvo years has guyed strongly in the direction OE UK School recognition, notice OE ending of direct recognitiou baving been Bivan to 7 overgeao Schools; in contrast to the the poo it ion of the RIBA which, vith different a ins and objects hag a vorld vide recognition netvork. The JCAR neetings of recent yeare Mith our colleagues in the USA have tended to query why ARCUK does not do its ovu independent recognition. The EEC geetng to be foiloving a general pattern of EEC Visiting Boards and in tha case of at least tvo other profeoøiono ouch Visiting Boards run by competent authorities are already operating or planned; there is little doubt that vhen the position of architecto is examined ARCUK vili have to operate ac an independent inspecting authority. Word bas reached us that ARCUK'o present position ac a coapetent authority is likely to be questioned if it does oot control its ova accreditation and that the inpreseion should be avoided that architectural policy is being determined by a separate organioation to vhich ARCUK is danger of appear ing to pay lipoervice. There vere tvo revievo. The first by Honorary Off icerg foiloved by a full discussion in the GPC. In considering vuat action should foilov, cha issues described in che second and third paragraphs of paper 161/86 emerged ao those calling for priority action. You raised the question of representation on the BAE and the recent changes, made vith RIBA support, to increase the number of representatives fron Schools of Architecture. The gap has not been completely closed but ve vouid like to see 100% representation and have suggested vayg in vhich, vith the collaboration of the RIBA tbi8 can be done. As Bob Adams pointed out these changeo have oot throvn the composition of the Board out of balance. If you had been at the last neet ing you would have seen (and heard) evidence that the voices of those representing practice are loud and clear. Their votes also contributed to the large oajority by vhich the Visiting Board proposals vere carr ied at the previous meeting. Paog ing to the category 2 questions, va have already given a good deal of thought to the vay the proposals would be inplenented. We acknovledge of course that there auxst be a pro rata ghar ing of coste (detailed ageeoonent later). But ve also see that the office administration cannot for practical reasons be split up and must be situated in one camp or the other. From the point of viev of expertise the RIBA oft ice •eens the obvious choice. But the steering body vould be a Joint Board vhich vould be mandated to approve appointnent8 dravn up by the reøpective Sacretarxats. I would see in practice a procedure evolving vhereby at one of the 4 (ve anticipate) BAE neetiuge a year the list of Schools for the cotaing 12 moths vouid be considered and nanes of Visiting Board toemberø for each li8ted having regard for particular fields of expertige. The ARCUK Secretar iat would have the task of approaching those on the list and vould in due tine present the final i ist to the Joint Board for endorgenent. It vould be the object, ou each occas ion Co achieve a vell balanced 3. ARCUK vould take responsibility for enouring that necessary iatere•ts. including coaotitueat body interest', are catered for. wuid bope that a of alternating Chairøea could be arrived at both in the Joint Board and in each Vioiting Board; vo vouid also bope to •ee a joint report energing — a very oborC after each vigit. I hope the coatentg of thio letter vill be helpful in your consultations and look forvard to bearing fron you vhen you are ready for auochør discussion. Yours sincerely Professor D Hinton Department of the Environment Room Al 16 Romney House 43 Marsham Street London SWIP 3PY Telex 22221 Direct line 01-212 8 4 4 Switchboard 01-212 3434 GTN 212 10 February 1987 Kenneth J Forder Esq Registrar Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom 73 Hall am Street London WIN 6EE RECEIVEü When we met on Friday we spoke about the government's view of the way in which ARCUK should set about recognising courses as complying with Articles 3 and 4 of the Architects' Directive. 1 promised to write confirming the line we discussed. Once the order in council has been made ARCUK will be the statutory "competent authority" for satisfying HMG that architectural courses satisfy Article 3 and 4 of the Architects ' Directive. This is therefore a statutory function that cannot be de legated . How ARCUK sets about deciding whether to recognise courses is, in the first instance, up to ARCUK. It would be quite possible to appoint non ARCUK assessors to visit educational institutions and make recommendations to ARCUK. What those assessors cannot do though is to take the decision. The decision on whether to recognise courses has to be taken by ARCUK. I hope that is helpful. Please let me know if you would like to take this issue further. Jenny Williams Copy to Peter Gibbs—Kennett •JEWS RELEASE ARCHITECTS EDUCATION BACKGROUND I r. the current confrontation between the RIBA and ARCUK over the education of archi tects, the inter-disciplinary Incorporated Associ ation of Architects and Surveyors (IAAS) has cone down firmly oa the side cf ARCUK. It was recently reported i G the press that ARCUK now plans to exerci se its statutory responsibil ity for architect 's education by appointing an education officer and seeking equal representation cn school visiting boards — whereas at present it supplies only one representative to RI EA visiting boards. This development has not found favour With the RIBA, which announced recently that it sees ARCUK primarily as a registration body and bel ieves that any expansion into other roles Wi l l cause confusion and diffusion of effort. The IAAS, founded years ago by the celebrated architect Sir Edwin Lctyens and committed to an inter-discipl inary principl e, has released the fol lov;ing statement cn the educaticr. issue: The IAAS welcomes the recent publ ic announcement by ARCUK that it intends to exercise its statutory responsi bil i ty f cr the educatica Archi tects. ARCO}' by statute, was from the outset never intended to act solely as a regi stratica body. Otherwise the Archi tects Reqi straücn Act would have been drafted di f ferent I v. The Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors Jubilee House Billing Brook Road Weston Favell Northampton NN3 4NW No (0604) 404121 As a constituent member of ARCUK, the IAAS has a I ways voiced its regret that ARCUK over the years failed to resist the b I cc l: partisaa lobby which resulted in the true role of ARCUI( being almost stymied f r cm As an inter-disciplinary body, the IAAS is uniquely placed to appreciate the value of the composition of the ARCUK Counci l and Boards in that their membership, like the IAAS, is drawn from a wide breadth of representation. The IAAS believes that this was a del iberate measure with a view to the self interests of single-ainded professional bodies being put aside and thus the needs of architecture being considered independently and as a whole. This is surely recognised by the fact that i G order to practice as an architect in the UK a person needs only to be registered by ARCUK to which requirement membership of a professional body, whi lst to be encouraged, is secondary. The IAAS applauds ARCUK for its self assertion and i r, full support the IAAS has changed its nominees and seeks to increase its representation cn the ARCUK Council and Boards. The IAAS hopes that ARCUK will receive universal encouragement aad support i this fresh and independent approach which the IAAS believes can only be for the good of students, educaticaal establishments, architects, industry and the public at large and act least the professional bodies themselves.' ENDS PR No. eus Embargo: Iamediate release Date: 13 February, 1987 Contact: Jack Scott, PRC prian Hughes, Administrator Telephone: Northampton (0604) 40412 i RIBA News Royal Institute of British Architects. 66 Portland Place. London WI N 4AD Press Officer: Acting Press Officer: David Atwell, Director, Public Affairs Date: 9 February 1987 Subject RIBA Nomination for ARCUK The RIBA wishes to strengthen its negotiating hand with Government and to this end has thoroughly reviewed its representation on ARCUK in the light of Council 's recent decision to resist any further closures of Schools of Archi tecture . The President, Larry Rolland, and the Senior Vice President. Rod Hackney, have been concerned during the past 12 months that the policies being pursued by ARCUK, in particular the increasing involvement in educational matters, are not in the best interests of architecture, the public or future student intake. They agree that in general RIBA representatives on ARCUK should be younger and in active practice . They believe that the team put forward on beha--.of RIBi. Council which includes Gordon Graham, the RIBA PasPresident serving on Council next session, will provide profession with a much more effective i nfluence in the difficult times ahead. The RIBA has been discharging its responsibilities for archi tectural education since long before the formation cf ARCUK and continues to fulfil its obligations •4 n this fie. - • It makes an annual investment in education of over million and has a committee structure of respected practitioners and academics supported by an experienced staff. The Institute sees ARCUK as primarily a registration body and believes that any expansion into other roles can only cause confusion and diffusion of effort. The full list of nominations submitted to the Registrar, ARCUK on 6 February is attached. The Senior Vice President added that the position of the Huddersfield School and the North East London Polytechnic School should be reviewed to see if, with the demands for architects in the inner cities being on the increase, the•.• can orient themselves to an enabling course in line with government policy to upgrade the inner city environment. Larry Rolland has suggested that Peter Melvin, Vice President Education, should meet with the Director of inner City Aid to see if some joint working relationsh:g could be established along these lines. RIBA NOMINATIONS FOR ARCUK COUNCIL 1987/88 1. P Beckett 22. M S McNidder 2. K S Bingham 23. M Me tcalfe 3. N M Brill 214 . M C Nickolls R S Critchlow 25. R - A Parnaby 5 . A Cunningham 26. D A Penning 6. J Curry (Mrs ) 27. Q Pickard 7. c W Daly 28. P W G Powell 8. R K Eastham 29. C W Quick 9. R Forsyth 30. T H Sherlock 10. G Graham 31. R C Shriaplin 11. R M Greenwood 32. T D scow 12. J Gregory 33. Prof J N Tarn 13. J Groves 34. A M Taylor 14 . P Hall 35. K H Taylor 15 • A M Horsley 36. J C Viner 16. J M Hutchinson 37. D B Waterhouse 17. M W Jeffels 38. J C Williams 18. P E Jones 39. A Worsley 19 J A Lane A F S Wright 20. Dr J Low:nan 41. R J Wyatt 21. J S Mackie 42. D M Yorke DH/CR/23/87 29 January 1987 Peter A P Kelvin Esq Vice President Education and Profess ional Development Royal Institute of British Architects 66 Portland Place London Dear Peter B0ßrdg We were grateful for the opportunity to neat on 28 January and begin our diocuooions. The neat ing nada sone progress if only because ve reached agree.ent on bov ve vouid proceed and the nain purpose of thic letter is to provide anovero to che questions vhich you raised. la fact ve nada progress in tvo other vayo — first by your that ARCUK proposals are not prina facie unacceptable and that the infornation you are seeking is to enable vider consultation to take place in the R IBA: and second, by accepting that ve should aim at a conclusion to our discussions by the late •uner vith an inter in report to the ARCUK BAE in Hay. To make this possible ve envisage a further zeetiag ia March and, to aid progrego, vould be willing to call a special •eating of the BAE in July or Septeuber. The questions vhich you put to ug fell into teo categories. Interpretation of the text of paper 161/86. 2. An extens ion of the proposals set out in the paper to illustrate hov ve think a partnership would vork. In attempting to provide this iufornation I vant to repeat that the paper 161/86 is the only one vhich the BAE and ARCUK Council have discussed and, ag in your ovn cage. they vould have to endorse any detailed proposals. Hovever. I an reasonably conf ident that vhat ve are putting forvard under category 2 vould obtain the assent of the Board. Under category i there are no sinister undertonea and I an sorry if the gave some people that impression. Our proposals are unconnected vith any criticisnø of the existing Visiting Board nacblnery and indeed our proposals do oot suggest any change in procedure in the field. We are avare that ouch criticisn• have beeu made and accept as you do, that any system can be improved. we night find that a partner•bxp vould provide the of bringing about improvenent — but that is oot the reason for euggesting it. You asked vhat vere the n recent events" referred to in the far st paragraph vhich prompted a reviev of the present arrangenaat•. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource IAAS Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 13 February 1987 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/4243e952d017e2617a01f095787d585a.pdf 7fd22cea8cfbc4c80d0ca2000aeb0233 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters Subject The topic of the resource Correspondence re Board of Education (5 pp total) Description An account of the resource RADCLIFFE S & CO. SOLICITORS 10 UTTLE COLLEGE STREET. WESTMINSTER SWIP 3SJ Kenneth J. Forder, Esq. , Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom, 73 Hal lam Street, London , w1N 6EE. Dear Ken, Board of Education Telephone: 01-222 7040 Telex: 919302 FAX GP 01-222 6208 LOE Box No. 113 Your ref KJF/CK/171 /87 Our ref G/DF 7th September 1987. I refer to our telephone conversation on 2nd September and write to confirm that in my view you can invoke regulation 18 so that, as you said in your letter to Angus of 21st August, nothing needs to be validated. I also take the view that the November meeting of the Board of Education can go ahead with the 18 persons named in Park Nelson's 19th August letter playing their full part. So far as the question of the relevant governing bodies is concerned I confirm the views I expressed to you through the telephone, namely that in my opinion you are not dealing with institutional bodies that have identical constitutions prepared for them on a uniform basis. There is a considerable number of bodies involved here, all of whom wil l have different documentation, and I think you could tell Park Nelson that there is not very much you can do about it except ensure that you draw to the attention of the educational bodies concerned that an issue has been raised as to which is the correct governing body. The sort of wording you might wish to incorporate into the letter to Park Nelson could be on the following l ines:- "On the question of what is meant by "the governing body" and whether this relates to the actual School' of Architecture or the University or Polytechnic concerned I do not think I can do more than draw to the attention of the various bodies the fact that the Act requires that the nomination should be made by the governing body as laid down in the second Schedule. I think you must bear in mind that we are not dealing here with uniform constitutions of Universities and Schools which were all drawn in identical terms. It cannot be for me to attempt to subject the constitutions of al l the various Schools, Universities and Polytechnics to a minute examination with a view to discovering what is the true governing body in each case. It must be for the institutions themselves to ensure that their nomination come from their governing body. " Whilst I am firmly of the view that it is not for you, as the Registrar of ARCUK, to have to undertake the task of going into the matter in great detail in respect of each educational body and decide P R H DIXON A G f. YOUNG C.C. SIMON• N A. BONHAMCARTER 0 W, t€AIPWORtH• 98 GREENHOuS AC HANCYMUefCKS Conlinualion Sheet 8 Co. 10. LtrrtE COLLEGE STREET. WESTMINSTER. SWIP 3SJ 19 for yourself which is the governing body, I do nevertheless tend to the view that you have taken, namely that the nomination should be by the Department or School of Architecture concerned rather than the University or Polytechnic. I say this because if you read through the Act, and in particular the second Schedule, there are various pointers which tend to confirm that interpretation. I will quote you some random examples of what I mean. In paragraph of the second Schedule there is reference to Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities in Great Britain and Ireland. If the intention had been that the University or Polytechnic concerned should nominate then one would have expected there to have been reference to the Vice-Chancellor and/or Principal rather than "the governing body" The first section of the second Schedule refers to the Governing Body of the University of Cambridge whereas later on and further down there is reference to the governing body of the Cambridge University School of Architecture. It is unlikely that it was intended that these two different descriptions should refer to the same body. If these two are the same body then the language is inconsistent. If, as I suspect, the Nottingham School of Architecture is attached to and part of the University of Nottingham then significantly, in my view, when it is referred to as one of those bodies which can jointly nominate four persons, it is merely described as the Nottingham School of Architecture and there is no reference to the University as such. In the first part of section 1 of the second Schedule the Governing Bodies of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London are referred to in capitals, whereas later on in the reference to the governing bodies of the Schools of Architecture capitals are not used. Arguably this suggests that the •governing body of the School is not quite such an important or official body •as to the Governing Body of the University. I accept that these are only minor pointers and I don't know that one could make a very strong case out of them. They do nevertheless tend to support the view which you have expressed. I must say that I haven't spent a lot of time on this aspect of ghe matter. I didn't think you would want me to clock-up time in that way but it may well be that there are other examples in the Act of this type of thing. I shall be away now until the 17th of September and unfortunately Angus will also be away this week. If, improbably, anything does arise whilst we are away then could you please have a word with my Partner, Paul McAndrews, whom I have briefed fully on the background to the present situation and he wil l know what to do if any emergency arises. Yours sincerely, D.W. ANDREWS ///7/ßt/L 4 PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE WHITEHALL. LONDON SWIA 2AT Tel.No. 270 0510 12th August 1987 Kenneth J. Forder, Esq., M.A., Registrar, Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom, 73, Hallam Street, London, WIN 6EE. RECEIVED f 3 I am sorry I have not replied sooner to your letter of 24th July about the interpretation of paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the 1931 Act. The construction you describe in your letter which you are being urged to put upon this provision clearly leads to absurdity. If that were the only permissible construction then • I should have thought the case for amending either the regulations or the Act would be a strong one. There is, however, a presumption in favour of putting a benevolent construction on such provisions and an interpretation which leads to an absurdity is one to be avoided if equally valid or better interpretations are available. 2. Implicit in the argument described is an assunuption for which I can find no foundation. The argument appears to be that the Board's conclusion that it is desirable that a School of Architecture not specified in paragraph I of the Second Schedule of the Act should be represented is good only for a year at a time. I do not think that this can be right. 3. I am conscious that Parliamentary debates are not an authoritative source of interpretation. They are, however, usually a useful indication of Parliament's intentions. I have, therefore, glanced at the proceedings on the Bill which became the 1931 Act. A number of drafting amendments were made in Committee in the House of Lords to correct defects and clarify the intentions of the Bill. One of these was the insertion of what is at present section 5 of the Act. In its earlier form the Bill' had left doubtful whether the Admissions Committee was to be a permanent body. The amendment was made to make clear that that Committee was intended to be permanent and the same consideration applies to the Board of Architectural Education. I take it that there has never been any suggestion that the recommendations made by the Board under section 5(2) of the Act required to be renewed every time the Board is annually appointed. I would certainly regard such a suggestion as wholly misconceived. Similarly the Board's judgement about the need for an otherwise unspecified School to be represented is a once-for-all action unless and until such time as the Board may change its mind. Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule was an amendment introduced in the House of Lords at the Report Stage of the Bill. As the Schedule was originally drafted a School was entitled to nominate a representative if its examinations were accepted by the /R.I.B.A. R.I.B.A. as an exemption from their own final examination. This was thought to be too open-ended. The power of securing that additional members of the Board might be appointed was accordingly transferred from the R.I.B.A. to the Board itself subject to an overriding maximum to be fixed from time to time by the Council. There is nothing in this amendment, or in the reasons given for it, to suggest that Parliament contemplated that the recognition of additional Schools would be an annual exercise. I appreciate that the appointment of paragraph 2 representatives involves one stage more than is required in the case of paragraph I representatives. take it that, in the case of the latter, the Schools concerned simply submit their nominations to the Council before the March meeting and the Council then simply formally makes the appointments. The names of paragraph 2 representatives, however, have to be submitted to the Board which, in turn, submits them to the Council. I cannot, however, see anything to stop the nomination of a paragraph 2 representative who is to serve in, for example, 1988-89, being made to the Board and by the Board to the Council during 1987-88 so that the candidate is ready to be appointed with all the other representatives at the March meeting of the Council. 5. Handled in this way, which appears to me to comply entirely with the requirements of the Act and the regulations, I cannot see that any difficulty need arise. 6. I have, however, one or two other general comments which reinforce this conclusion. The first: that I am not aware of any doctrine to the effect that a body like the Board can operate only through a meeting. A meeting is obviously necessary if any kind of substantive discussion is required. Similarly if there is a division of view and a vote has to be taken it may be difficult to avoid dealing with such business other than in a meeting. If, however, the members of a body of this kind are of like mind and are happy so to signify in correspondence there would seem to be no objection to such a course. 7. I also note that the effect of regulation 21(g) as applied by regulation 23(b) is to give the Board freedom to direct its owr) procedure. This would appear to give power to adopt rules of procedure designed to facilitate the handling of problems of the kind you describe. This would include authorising officers of the Board to take the action necessary to implement any of the Board's recommendations cn the lines indicated in the fourth paragraph of your letter. 8. I hope that you will find these comments helpful. (7 (G.I. de Deney) KJP/CK 24 July 1987 G I de Denoy E.q Privy Council Office Whitehall London SWIA 2AT Dear Hr de Deney i am facing problems beuuøe of the Implementation of paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to our 1931 Act as read vith the new regulation C (1) made on the 7 November 1986. The problem 10 that It 18 being auerted to ne that thio a three stage proce88. When It hag decided that a peticular School eligible the first 8tage for the governing body of the School of Architecture to nake a recommendation. The gecond stage 18 for the Board •to nominate the person who hag been recmended; and the third etage for the Council to accept the nomination. If this 1B played out stage by 8tage then the result ig going to be ludicrous. The Board only laste one year and then hag to appointed again (Section 5 (1) of the Act) and In that period it hag only tvo Netlncg. one In May and one In November. hat 18 being assorted that the firot stage Nco—endatlon be put to at 'Its firat meeting and then approved by the. Council go that the representative can take hig geat at the November meeting. But that the lagt meeting of the year. hat I have done In March of this year (at our Annual General Meeting) vas to get the Chalrzan of the Board of Architectural Education to •Ign the recomenda— tione on behalf of the Board (thug obviating the Board having a special meeting for this •ole purpose). I ghould value your view on thig procedure and your advice on hov the system should be operated In future. Out of Intereøt I have Suet received the encloged letter from the Head of the Schooö at Kingston Polytechnic vhlch ig I think gelf explanatory. If we follov the strict interpretation I have outlined above It meane that the Kingeton Polytechnic must recomend that Peter Jacob be made a member of the Board, the Board at Ito November meeting make the nomination and the Council in muøt appoint him to be a member of the Board. But he never attend a meeting: The Council dleo in March and so doee the Board. A nomination cannot be nade this year for next year because by that time the Board vill cong18t of completely different pereone. Yourø 81ncere1y Regl•trar Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Radcliffes/Privy Council Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 7 September 1987, 12 August 1987, 24 July 1987 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/7a91e14ba060756402cfe75626defcb7.pdf 544c0514babde636478dc44aa6b0e093 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Blueprint for Confrontation' Subject The topic of the resource Guardian article on RIBA versus ARCUK challenge Description An account of the resource the Minister - not tanang about those an• noying holes and puddles that can be blamed on two particularlv harsh winters and clumsily tilled road. works but about the general structural condition of the roads. It is the difference between a house that needs a coat of paint and one with rising damp. Just as untreated damp can destroy a house so. say some experts, roads all over the country could quite rapidly suffer al. most total failure — some. thing like an apparently sound building collapsing when the foundations give wa dére the foundations, out of sight even to the road engineers. can keep going for ears without any particu• larly marked effect on the condition of the road. As a motorist or cyclist you might notice " tracking if the road is used by heavy Iorries, shallow indentations where the wheels travel that are most noticeable and tiresome when it rains. Most dangerous. too, be• cause the carefully cone structed weatherproof skin that should throw off the water is being damaged at that point and at least some of the water is leaching into the foundations. And even more dangerous in the win. ter when a cycle of wet weather, frost. and thawing, freezes the water in those fissures, forcing the road bed out of true and starting to destroy its integrity. Leave that untreated and the tracks become cracks, draining surface water straight into the roadbase. Then, as this water causes the progressive failure of the foundations, comes crazing of the surface as tramc that the road was not designed for keeps up the daily pounding. The real crisis tollows quickly with the break-up of the roadway and failure on a scale that can only be remedied by a complete rebuild of the road from the bottom up — the most expensive treat. ment both in terms of construction costs and dislocation of traffic. One of the purposes of the road maintenance survey is to establish the possibility of just such a collapse, sampling trunk, urban and rural roads all over the country and charting them on a de. fects index which shows year on year improvements and deteriorption. This year, once, before in most respects. and the engineers are getting worried. " My personal opinion is that the situation is ex. tremely serious." Col G. A. CAVepuuii to a decent standard. The i•easons for the overall decline are not difficult to iind. Traffic has increased by more than 20 oer cent since the mid.70s. This has happened despite the reduction m the total number of heavy lorries that was supposed to come about when maximum weights were set at 38 tonnes in 1983. At the same time spending on maintenance has been cut back by about 40 per cent. It looks like becom• Ing a very expensive economy. In 1977 Kent's Courity Surveyor, Alan Smith, produced a chart showing wnat happened when maintenance was ignored. For the first 10 years there is no appreciable effect, but thereafter the cost of restoring them to an ".as steeply ending In total col. lapie at abou! 25 years. Some ally we could be about 20 years into that scenario. These concerns will be reflected in a report which is to be published later this year by the Audit Commission for Local Government. Their former Controller, Mr John Banham, pointed out to an audience of . road engineers last autumn that spending on maintenance was now some 30 per cent below the levels of 1975. " The next few years will therefore likely see the costs of deferring road maintenance rising sharply," he added, diplomatically understating his private opinion on the subject. Although the problem is acknowledged by the civil servants at the Department of Transport as well as by the local authority engineers and many politicians, all at• tempts to et enough money to avoid tke troubles ahead have so far failed to soften any hearts at the Treasury. Politically the allure of an official opening of a new bypass far outweighs the bor. ing job of repairing the old, roads. It is not as if the cost of steering away from the danger is that great — at the moment. ' For the trunk roads it would need about E50 million to E60 million a year. hardly enough to register on the till," Col Leech maintains. " The rest may need E200 million a year for a number of years." Last ni ht snow and slush that fell äuring the day was freezing in tiny cracks in roads all over the northern half of the country. Forecasters expect night frosts until the weekend — just the right conditions to wreck a road. Beirut, to insist that they remove their protection from him for the meeting. Mr Waite met Mr Akram Shehayeb. the PSP official in charge of his visit to Beirut, and insisted, emotionally, that he not be followed. One appointment to meet the two hostages had fallen through two days earlier because a shootout on the southern side of Beirut had prevented his Shiite contact from coming to West Beirut to pick him up. Nothing, he said, must stand in the way of his second appointment, which, against the advice of the tionary Guards. Mr Mugnieh asked for a meeting at the Summerland Hotcl. one of West Beirut's best hotels. on the southern side of the city. The meeting. according to one of those present. lasted five hours. Mr Mugnieh denied any knowledge of Mr questions with the state. ment : " One of the 17 in Kuwait is m cousin." Finally, he saiä he would make contact " with others " and get back to the PSP within 24 hours. He did not and has not. The following week. Mr PSP, he was making after da Terry Waite. . . insisted that bodyguards withdraw Shehayeb returned to see Sheikh Fadlallah. who said år• Shehayeb expressed depressed since the release of extremely careful. He tremely reluctantly, Mr Deek midnight telephone call from Mr Mugnieh was outside Beirut. He. Sheikh Fadlallah, concern. West German authorities had just detained a a third American hostage, David Jacobsen, in Novem- showed the PSP his watch : it had. he said, no battery — agreed. At 6.50 pm, the psp deliv- Mr Waite's contact, the onl man to whom the BritisK been unable to see him five days. Walid Lebanese Shiite Mr MohamAli Hamade, ber. He had already sent nothing that could, in the ered Mr Waite to Dr Mroue negotiator would have Jumblatt. the leader of the med in connec- of them a bible for comfort. prevailing climate of suspi• a former health minister and opened the door. Dr Mroue PSP. reportedly said. " He is tion with the hijacking TWA flight 847 and a West German businessman had ' My 90b told is full Mr Shehayeb.of adven- tures,' he cion, be thought to be a bug. consultant to the wife of Sheikh Mohammed Hussein quoted the contact as ask. ing: " Where is Terry." Dr my son. I would break the door down to get T been seized in Beirut. Per- " I must do this. I know the key men well. I trust them." Before going to a 7 pm appointment at the home of Fadiallah, the spiritual ide " of the pro-Iranian Mroue has refused to meet journalists to discuss his role Waite. But the matter is haps Mr Waite himself might Dr Adnan Mroue, a Shiite wezbolah Party_. in the Waite affair. cult and out of hand." be taken hostage, but the Despite this trust, Mr gynaecologist, in whose flat Last month's murderous British negotiator, said by to Waite was obviously alert to ne was to meet his contact, At 7.40 pm. Dr Mroue was Mr Waite's contact, identi- fighting in West Beirut, the friends to be determined vindicate his good name after. the dangers of this first postIrangate visit. He told the Mr Waite stopped for an hour's conversation with summoned to the American university hospital for a de- fied only by a first name, is said to be a member of the subsequent arrival of the Syrian army and the crack- the first murky revelations PSP his relations with the Saleh Deek, the local PSP livery. He left Mr Waite Musawi family of the Beqaa down on the PSP have put about Washington's arms-for- Islamic Jihad had been diffi- official in charge of his secu- alone, still awaiting his con. valley town of Baalbeck — a the Waite case very much on hostages deals, insisted. cult after Mr Jacobsen's rity. He thanked Mr Deek tact. In his account to the family that has at least one the back burner. " I realise He had been told that the release. They had expected effusively for the arrange- PSP he reportedly said that relative among the Kuwait that the hostage question is a hostages — Terry Anderson. the release of 17 fundamen- ments he had made over the he returned 25 minutes later 17. human,problem that must be former bureau chief of the talists gaoled in Kuwait. It past week. Again he insisted to find Mr Waite gone and solved. Mr Jumblatt said Associated Press, and Tom had not happened. They felt that he was on his own from the front gate, which he had On January 22, Mr this week. " But there is now Sutherland, Dean of Agricul- betrayed. But he row had a the moment he crossed Dr left open, closed. Dr Mroue Shehaveb had a first meeting a political problem that is ture at the American Univer- " messenger " in Kuwait. Mroue's threshold : no also said, according to one with Sheikh Fadlallah. who more im Ortant than Terry sity of Beirut — had been Nonetheless. he was being watchers, no follow cars. Ex-' source, that he received a promised to make enquiries Waite anåthe others." Blueprint for confrontation MARTIN PAWLEY on an architectural storm WHEN on October 20, 1791 come that both parties have toring the performance of council approves its own 42• grounds that the amount of Adams. who gave a long and the architects James Wyatt, taken legal advice. ARCUK schools of architecture has person representation on work available for architects detailed account of the dis- Henry Holland George has even consulted the Privy been delegated to the Riba, ARCUK. sent down a new was far in excess of their pute and then revealed his Dance and Samuei Cockerell Council about its position. with only the odd place on a list of approvals for 1987/88 numbers. ARCUK on the master-stroke ARCUK's met in a pub to found some. The root of the conflict lies visitin board allowed to on which the names of Ad- other hand had resolutely annual meeting was to thing that was eventually to in an EEC directive. The ARCUk. This, insisted the ams and Hinton were con- refused to endorse any put back by two weeks in become the Royal Institute of European Community is try- Department of the Environ- spicuously absent. Worse closure. order to allow the Riba to British Architects, they could ing to unify professional ment, was not good enough. still, the president of the submit a new list of 42 scarcely have imagined that qualifications so that, for ex- ARCUK must not delegate Riba, a Scotsman with a This Riba policy, although names — this time including 200 years later it would be at with itself. ample, Greek engineers can in Britain, and Brit- this crucial process at all. beard named Larry Rolland. it was eventually reversed. did irreparable harm to rela- Adams and Hintom At this war Today the profession's practice Ish architects can set up Because virtually all Riba members are registered ar- and his fire-breathing heir tions between the institute the meeting went wild. with so-called " unattached " ar- leadership is not only split between its traditionalist offices in Spain. This process is so near completion that chitects, and most of the c Itect Nod Hackney. issued press release stating that and the schools of architecture — and forged new links chitects — those who were registered but do wing and supporters of com- this month a Statutory In- 28,000 re istered architects are mem ers of the Riba, a the increasing involvement between the schools and ARCUK. Because not belong to the Riba — accusing therr munity architecture, but it is at war with its own registra- strument will be laid before Parliament to make it law. there might seem little basis for But of ARCUK m educational matters was " not in the best it is open to any architect who pays leader of a sell-out. Some tion council (ARCUK) a body The registration councils of an argument here. own education o cer and its interests of architecture, the public, or students of CIO a year to remain on the register to practice without deft deployment of legal advice saved the day ment in 1931 to make it illegal for anyone to use the required to present a list of approved qualifications chairman, Bob Adams, and The sacking of Adams and member of the Riba as well, won a vote of confidence for having averted a constitw title architect unless their names appeared on a regis- awarded by recognised schools, and in Britain {Nas that the composition of visit. Hinton and the ill-considered ress release liberated a the institute took a dim view of this development. Adams tional crisis — at least until next week. when the Riba ter. The war is about who has the final say in judging ARCUK performed the task. So far so good — ing boards should be jointly arge skeleton from the cupboard. From 1983 until the and Hinton s initiative looked to them like a bid for Will have to decide whether to the performance of 36 seemed because while agreed as between equals, directive hit the fan. end of last year the Riba had power, and this was the real confront the Privy Council in schools of architecture that ARCUK provided the list it the actually supported govern• reason for their sacking. or give to ARCUK's new bid for power and widen the roduce about 800 new archi- had precious little control Only one exploratory dis- ment proposals for the CIO. Matters came to a head split t*tween the troubled ecture graduates every year. So acrimonious has it be. over the schools themselves. Since 1974 the task of moni- cussion was held in January before the Riba, whose ruling sure ot a number of schools of architecture on the yesterday at a packed ARCUK meeting chaared by professton•s ruling bodies yet agarn. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Martin Pawley Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 19 March 1987 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/b6940ecd05599e5d0b6c1af4079b49c9.pdf bf4a509dbd1162d2b0513715ad26b94b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to J Allan Subject The topic of the resource Letter re GA's treatment by the RIBA Description An account of the resource OAK COTTAGE, PADLEY MEWS, GRINDLEFORD , SHEFFIELD, S30 IHP 25 April 1987 Hope valley 21084 Dear John, Thank you for your letter of 16 April 1987, just received . You are quite right to distinguish between the matters of principle & personalities. I do not wish to create more difficulties by trying to reestablish my own position on Council. It is ARCUK,s responsibilities to EEC & the profession which are important. The decisions of the BAE are crucial at its meeting on IS May 1987, & I am glad that I may still have a part to play. With my thanks for careful consideration, Best wishes , rs sincerely, John Allan Avant i Architects Ltd 39/41 North Road London N7 page 1 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource G Adams Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 25 April 1987 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/39685906acfdc3cecb5000c5ff35cffe.pdf d120a05321234b62faa055e0ac2c5265 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to G Adams Subject The topic of the resource Letter responding to GA's treatment by RIBA (2 pp) Description An account of the resource C) 39/41 NORTH ROAD LONDON N7 9DP Telephone 01 700 4161 WITH COMPLIMENTS Dear Bob, I am sorry that circumstances have prevented me from responding sooner to your letter of 30th March 1987, regarding recent events In connection with A.R.C.U.K. As you know, I have been fairly outspoken, both in Council and beyond, in deploring the irregular interventions in A.R.C.U.K. affairs to which you refer. I remain extremely unhappy about this whole episode and am currently dlScussing with my colleagues what further action It might be appropriate to pursue. In this regard, I think It might be helpful to recall my own statement In Council on March 18th in which I endeavoured to stress that the unattached would be guided In their actions by what appeared to serve the best Intérests of A. R.C.U.K. By this I Intended that the disturbances described raised questions of a higher order than merely tactical constituency advantage, and that it should be to those questions which those• concerned with A.R.C.U.K's Integrity should direct their attention. From this It should be clear that while Improper attempts to overturn democratically determined A.R.C.U.K. policies may well provide cause for complaint, a particular contituency t s choice of nominees Is beyond the remit of another constituency to challenge, however distasteful It may find the reasons for that choice. Specifically the question as to who shall serve as Chairman of A.R.C.U.K. and BAE is actually .decid.ed by election at the annual meetings of these bodies, and cannot be regarded as violated merely because a familiar unofficial precedent is set aside. By rehearsing these pedantic sounding points, I hope It will clear that however deplorable we may feel you have been treated personally, we are obliged to filter out as possible subjects of formal complaint those Ingredients of the affair that not either objectionable In a constitutional sense or disgraceful In regard to a particular registered person's conduct. /Contd... John Allan M.A (Edin.), B.A Hons, Dip. Arch* M.A (Sheffield), Architect Richard Barton BA, B.Arch., (Ncle)., RI.B.A, John Cooper BA (Cantab.) Dip. Arch, Architect Justin DeSyflas M Sc. (UCC), AA Dip., Architect, Geraldine ORiordan B Arch.(Dublin UCD) Architect A Co-operatrve Practice registered under the Industrial & Provincial Societies Act 1965 Registration NoQ3270R Avantå Archütec@s Ltdo 39/41 NORTH ROAD LONDON N7 9DP Telephone 01 700 4161 16th April 1987 Bob Adams, Esq c/o Messrs. Hadfield, Cawkwell, Davidson & Partners 17 Broomgrove Road Sheffield 10 Yorkshire Dear Bob, I am sorry that circumstances have prevented me from responding sooner to your letter of 30th March 1987, regarding recent events In connection with A. R.C.U.K. As you know, I have been fairly outspoken, both In Council and beyond, in deploring the irregular interventions in A.R.C.U.K. affairs to which you refer. I remain extremely unhappy about this whole episode and am currently dlScussing with my colleagues what further action it might be appropriate to pursue. In this regard, I think it might be helpful to recall my own statement in Council on March 18th in which I endeavoured to stress that the unattached would be guided in their actions by what appeared to serve the best intérests of A.R.C.U.K. By this I intended that the disturbances described raised questions of a higher order than merely tactical constituency advantage, and that it should be to those questions which those• concerned with A.R.C.U.K t s integrity should direct their attention. From this It should be clear that while Improper attempts to overturn democratically determined A.R.C.U.K. policies may well provide cause for complaint, a particular contituency's choice of nominees Is beyond the remit of another constituency to challenge, however distasteful It may find the reasons for that choice. Specifically the question as to who shall serve as Chairman of A.R.C.U.K. and BAE is actually .decid.ed by election at the annual meetings of these bodies, and cannot be regarded as violated merely because a familiar unofficial precedent is set aside. By rehearsing these pedantic sounding points, I hope it will clear that however deplorable we may feel you have been treated personally, we are obliged to filter out as possible subjects of formal complaint those Ingredients of the affair that not either objectionable In a constitutional sense or disgraceful in regard to a particular registered person's conduct. /Contd.. John Allan M.A (Edin.), B.A. Dip. Arch, M.A (Sheffield), Architect Richard Barton 8.A, B.Arch., (Ncle)., RI.B.A, John Cooper BA (Cantab.) Dip. Arch.. Architect Justin DeSyllas M.Scw (UCL), AA Dip., Architect, Geraldine ORiordan B Arch.(Dublin UCD) Architect A Co-operatrve Practice registered under the Industrial & Provincial Societies Act 1965 Registration No.23Q70R Page 2 Finally, of course, I am sure It would be understood ag Insufficient to register a complaint merely because we had been asked by an aggrieved party to do so. I trust this helps to clarify our position and explain why we are choosing our next steps with rather careful deliberation. With best wishes. Yours sincerely, JOHN ALLAN Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource J Allan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 16 April 1987 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/0e6996470bbf178277cd6cdea4e1da7e.pdf cbd97793865b693841caaf7d338dec33 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to J Allan Subject The topic of the resource Letter to JA suggesting complaint to Privy Council Description An account of the resource GRA/CK/76/87 30 March 1987 J S Allan Esq Avant i Architects 39—41 North Road London 117 9DP Dear Mr Allan In my statement as Chairman of ARCUK to ARCUK Council on March 18 1987 1 described the action taken by the RIBA to prevent the present Chairman of ARCUK Council and the Chairman of the Board of Architectural Education cont inuing in office and also the intention of the RIBA to reverse policies adopted by ARCUK in the past 12 months. As an unattached representative on ARCUK Council you may consider such actions justify a formal complaint to the Privy Council and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Yours sincerely Bob Adams Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource G Adams Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 30 March 1987 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/86ac66c067e9e1dfc71a119239e55d1e.pdf a1fdba4a5b9e7b00587c22b8d0a88e22 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to G Adams Subject The topic of the resource Letter commending GA's services as ARCUK Chairman Description An account of the resource Avanti Architects Ltd 39/41 NORTH ROAD LONDON N7 9DP Telephone 01 700 4161 30th March 1987 Bob Adams, Esq Chairman of Council A.R.C.U.K. 73 Hal lam Street LONDON wiN 6EE Dear Bob, I very much appreciated your kind remarks about my contribution to A.R.C.U.K. This gives me the opportunity to endorse my closing vote of thanks for your own services as an open and even—handed Chairman, whose honourable conduct in a deplorable situation is respected by all right—thinking people both in Council and beyond. I am only sorry that in your case the retirement is not voluntary. However, I hope you too may be back soon, and that in the meantime you will find consolation in the knowledge that no tactical manoevres, however successful, can detract from the permanance of a moral victory. John Allan M.A (Edin.), B A Hons., Dip. Arch., MA (Sheffield). Architect Richard Barton B.A. B.Arch., (Ncleh RI BA, John Cooper BA (Cantab.) Dip. Arch.. Architect Justin DeSyllas (I-JCL), AA Op., Architect. Geraldine ORiordan B.Arch.(Dublin UCD) Architect A Practice registered under the Industrial & Provident Societies Act 1965 Registration No.23270R VAT Registrauon No.3SO 6289 55 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource J Allan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 30 March 1987 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/226c18ddc7cc2f630c160d42251c5aff.pdf 9af6d883022e3051a4f60602b0837eea Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Time for ARCUK to put its house in Order' Subject The topic of the resource Article by M McCarthy (RIBA stooge) Description An account of the resource Opinion WITHIN the past few weeks stipulated by Parliament in the all architects will have registration Acts. received at their places of Readers may recall the series work the Arcuk Annual of "Luder/Parris Files" in Report for 1986-87. The BD. Those authors commented "The unwarranted and un• normally turgid little blue lawful interference of Arcuk book this year is enlivened by with the way members con- innuendoes, incongruities, duct themselves makes it and inaccuracies. Some plain that members of council passages seem to have been have no conception of the limits designed to deceive. The of their statutory powers and are thread linkingall these things gathering to themselves authority is architectural education. they do not in law possess." (BD January I l. 1980). only the The statement that "Arcuk is reasons for the gathering of not limited in its activities solely to those mentioned in the Acts authority and interference seem and may legitimately engage in to have changed! courses of action which it Board of architectural education considers relevant and/or focus for education matters necessary .. appears on page in Arcuk is obviously the board 19 of the report. Whether or not of architectural education. The this is true a questionofdegree constitution of the BAE is set and reasonableness in the cir- out in the second schedule to the cumstanccs. but it will most Architects (Registration) Act often be untrue. A more accurate 1931. It is this very constitution maxim would be • 'Arcuk is which Arcuk has now attempted limited in its activities solely to to subvert. those mentioned in the Acts". Former chairman Bob Adams Where does this contradiction states in the foreword to the lead? Let us consider. for annual report: "The board of example. the subjects of research architectural education has and continuing professional been expanded to include almost development. The report on all of thc recogniscd schools of page 20 proclaims: "Research is architecture in the UK. This not a luxury but an essential long overdue reform will enable component of a department in the board to reflect more any university or polytechnic." accurately opinions on archi- As a statement that is irrefutable. tectural education." The expan- but whether or not research for sion is ultra viro and the reason the benefit of schools of archi- given does not bear examination. tecture should be financed from The truth is partially revealed Atcuk retention fees is debat- on page 16 of the report. which able. Section I(4Hb) of the states: "The limited representa- Architects Registration (Amend- tion ofthc schools of architecture ment) Act 1969 authorizes on the BAE has becn the subject Arcuk to apply its education Of criticism for some time." fund in support and furtherance What the report does not say is of research providedit is designed that criticism has come since to improve the general practice 1983 exclusively from the un• ofarchitecture. Why is it that the represented schools. Less parti- research projects funded by san commentators have made a Arcuk are not listed in the wide range of criticisms about report. so that those paying for the deficiencies of the Act. them can see both the relevance including the gross under- of the work and that the Act is representation of practitioners being complicd with? and over-representation of The same page of the report academics on the over-large tells us: "The provision of committee of 64-plus members. •research awards has been ex- Limited additional places on tended to cover continuing BAE are possible. Paragraph 2 professional development. of the second schedule essentially Arcuk has made a major invest- authorizes a powerofco-option. The question is whether architects will put up "ith funding adventures in the name of education policy. ment in this area and must The paragraph creates five continue to influence further procedural hurdles to be over- developments". Contrast that come before an additional with Arcuk chairman John appointment to BAE can be Tarn's statement earlier this made. They are: month that Arcuk had chosento in respect of schools unre- promote CPD through its con- presented on BA E; stituent bodies (BD July 10). the governing body of the What right has Arcuk to do any school recommends a repre- of this? There is no provision in sentative to BAE; any of the Acts specifically the BAE considers the rec- enabling such investment. the ommendation (including whe- exerting of influence. or pro- ther or not the school is in fact moting through constituent unrepresented); bodies. The "dissemination of the BAE nominates to COUn- teaching or the results of cil in the prescrtbcd manner; and research concerning archi- council appoints to the tecture" is as close as the Acts board. come to the point. The "prescribed manner" At the same time as Professor means in the manner set out in Tarn was making his comments, regulations approved by the Paul Johnson was telling Daily Privy Council. Mail readers "The British For 55 years there was no Disease is not so much laziness regulation prescribing how and lack of enterprise. It is . . . a nominations were to be made to low-spirited willingness to put council. However, Arcuk made up with abuses because to an appropriate addition to reform them would involve too regulation 1986. and much risk and trouble. It is a it was approved by the Privy paralysing caution which at Council the following Nov- times amounts to sheer ember. Arcuk supposedly used cowardice." Architects are the new procedure for the first probably no more cautious than time at an annual meeting in other sections of society. but for March this year when it pur- years they put up with a code of portedly appointed additional conduct which Arcuk had no persons to BAE. Eighteen power to promulgate. and a ban names are listed on pages 26 and on practice as a limited liability 27 of the annual report under the company which Arcuk had no misleading heading of "Nom- power to impose. inations under regulation I The question now is whether Passing over the anomaly that architects will put up with this year's committees arc listed having to fund adventures in the in the 1986-87 annual report, it is name of education policy which noteworthy that not all persons stray well beyond the bounds listed claim to be a member of Time for Arcuk to put its house in order the BAE! We will return to this "governing body of a university point later, For the moment it is or polytechnic". The first phrase sufficient to note that Professor is ambiguous. but if the Act had Denys Hinton. purportedly meant a head ofschool acting on elected chairman of BAE at its his own volition then it would first meeting, is listed as a have said so. The term "govern- representative of Portsmouth ing body" must mean two or Polytechnic. more persons having a responsibility for the management of Breaches of the Act? the school. Some schools have It must here be said that the 1931 adopted this interpretation but Act is such a muddle that it others have not. It appears that makes the legal draftsmanship some representatives have been of an incompetent drunk on an recommended otherwise than in off-day positively shine. Some accordance with the require- sections offend against the ments of the Act. A few of the principles of natural justice, and representatives stumble at this the European Courts could hurdle. probably require them to be However. we discover at least amended. Taken as a whole it one non-runner. Arcuk claims creates an unnecessary and that the school ofarchitecture at unwieldy bureaucracy and irn• Brighton Polytechnic nomin- poses hopelessly inefficient pro- ated Robert MacLeod as its cedures. The following argu- representative. It is the East ments put forward for consid- Sussex County Council edu- eration now directly from the cation authority which is ul• provisions of the Act regardless timately responsible for the of logic or merit of circum- running of the polytechnic. The stance. county education officer states One perversity of the Act is categorically that neither the that Arcuk Council is given no county council nor the council discretion at the fifth hurdle in of the Brighton Polytechnic making additional appoint- have been involved in MacLeod's ments to the BAE. It must act as nomination. and that he under- a mere rubber-stamp and ap- stands that MacLeod is no point any person who has longer a member of the BAE. cleared the first four hurdles of It isa third and fourth hurdle the procedure. Let us con- argument that is the substantive sider the recent events against point of contention. At its the test of those four hurdles. meeting on Wednesday the A first hurdle argument is a RIBA Council was informed subsidiary one. but if accepted that its legal adviser considers means that Professor's Hinton's this argument to be correct. The nomination falls at the outset. BAE neither considered the The head of Portsmouth School recommendations from the is Professor Geoffrey Broad. schools normade thenominations bent, who sits on the BAE tocouncil. It could not. Section S of the Act requires the BAE tobe representing the faculty of architecture, British School at appointed annually. The BAE R ome (a statutory nomination). itself was to bc appointed at the Clearly it would be unreason- very annual meeting which pur- able to suppose that Broadbent portedly appointed the "co. could hold one opinion in one opted" persons. All those capacity and another opinion in properly recommended fall and his other capacity. Thus Ports. drop out of the racc at these mouth is effectively represented hurdles. There is a further. subsidiary on the BAE and is not entitled to fourth hurdle argument. The further co-opted representation. purported nominations were A second hurdle argument is not placed before Arcuk Council in the prescribed manner, in also a subsidiary one. Recom- that members were provided mendations to the BAE must with neither particulars of the come from "governing bodies of schools of architecture". It is persons nominated nor pare clear that there is a distinction ticulars (apart from names) of the schools they were to repre- between the " governing body of sent. In other words, the addi- a school ofarchitecture•• and the tion to regulation 1(1) so recently approved by the Privy whether it has taken into Council was ignored in every account matters which it ought particular. not to take into account, or It should be emphasised that conversely, has refused or challengtng Arcuk's conduct in omitted to take into account purportedly appointing addi- matters which it ought to take tional persons to the BAE in no into account, and also whether way reflects upon the integrity of having passed the first part of those persons. Doubtless they the test it has nevertheless come arc innocently trapped in a to a conclusion so unreason- procedural blunder. able that no reasonable person could ever have come to it. The What are the consequences? court will interfere if the test is If the substantive argument is failed. The main ground for correct then the appointment of review of decisions by Arcuk the BAE by Arcuk Council was and its BAE will be abuse of ultra vires and invalid. all subsequent decisions of the jurisdiction or illegality, BAE are invalid, and Professor Architectural education Hinton is ineligible to be The losers in this affair are our chairman of BAE. The invalid- architectural students upon ity of BAE decisions has far- whom the future of the profes- reaching consequences. It sion depends. would mean. for example, that The construction industry's five schools of architecture major clients are not satisfied would be derecognised, as with its traditional level of would the RIRA's examination. performance, and are rightly In order to regulanse the demanding that it responds to position. Arcuk must quash the their needs. New approaches are BAE and its decisions. and required if the clients' objec- appoint a properly constituted tivc of defect-free, value-for. board which must then re- money building is to be achi• conduct its business. Arcuk has eved. The architectural profes- shown a marked reluctance even sion is a very small sector of the to acknowledge the existence of industry and must appreciate a doubt about the propriety of both how it is changing and how its actions. so what legal reme- it needs to change. If the dies are available? In theory architectural profession is to there are five and they are all retain any credibility then available through the process of architectural education must judicial review, equip students to meet this Judicial review challenge. There needs to be a The legal system controls the strong partnership between actions of bodies that derive leading practitioners and the their authority from Act of heads of schools, Together they Parliament by way of judicial could formulate new policies to review. This specialised remedy seize the opportunities available in public law is the means by since the shedding of the old which the High Court exercises a restrictive code. supervisory jurisdiction over Those who perceive the R IBA inferior courts, tribunals or as a stultifying influence which other public bodies. can be circumvented by poli- The High Court cannot de- ticising Arcuk are wrong. Not terminc whether decisions are only because the leading prot- right or wrong on their merits. agonists will always move with However, the court can de• the balance of power, but termine whether or not admini- because Arcuk is an inefficient, strattve decisions are unlawful outmoded straight-jacket tot- and invalid. it can quash de- ally unable to respond to cisions. and it can ensure that change. The prevalence of the new decisions are taken prop- meaningless title Reg Arch erly. demonstrates the serious limi- There is no doubt that de- tat ions of Arcuk which is power- The losers in this affair are our architectural students, upon whom the future of the profession depends. cisions of Arcuk are subject to less to prevent its use by the the remedy of judicial review. unqualified. It would be as easy Grounds for review to abolish Arcuk as to update the Acts. Judicial review may be exercised In contrast it is a simple on the general grounds of: matter to amend the RIBA by- abuse ofjurisdiction; Iaivs. They could formally abuse of descretion; and recognise the Heads of Schools violation of the rules of Standing Conference and be the natural justice. basis of a permanent and satis- Lord Diplock has referred to factory relationship. these categories as "illegality", Had such a relationship "irrationality", and "impro- existed over the last five years. priety•• (I). there would not have been an In the widest sense, all the Esher Report. architectural grounds justifying the use of education would have been judicial review constitute an better attuned to the require. abuse of jurisdiction. How- ments of the nation. and the ever. abuse of Jurisdiction in the heads of schools could have normal. narrower sense is concentrated on the needs of encapsulated in the concept of their students. ultra vines. The question for I Council of Civil Service Un- determination is normally whe- ions v Minister for the Civil ther the public body has done something that the statute did 2 Associated Provincial Picture not permit. Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Cor- The test for abuse of dis• poration(1948) KB 223. cretion is made under the Maurice McCarthy has been an headings of irrelevancy and assistant director of the depart- unreasonableness. Irrelevancy men,' of building design and is a misuse of power to exercise construction at the London discretion in a manner which Borough of Hillingdon since was not intended by Parliament. 1974. He specialises tn 'heproject Unreasonableness includes rea- management of large and Ching a decision that is in- complex projects. He has four hercntly unreasonable. or with- times been elected to the council out any evidence to support it. oftheRIBA. nasa Vice-President This test of irrelevancy and in 1972 and honorary secretary unreasonableness is known as from 1981 to 1984. From 1982 to the Wednesbury principle after a 1985 he nas chairman of the judgment by Lord Greene MR institute's Arcuk liaison com- (2). In practice it means that the mittee and served on Arcuk High Court is entitled to in- Council throughout that time. He vestigate the action of a public has also served on the Arcuk body with a view to seeing discipline committee. News Helmut Jahn faces malpractice action over Chicago centre HELMUT Jahn has found the centre of the legal action. state of Illinois is seeking himself on the receiving end of The system uses giant re- SIS million repair costs from all a S20 million lawsuit over his frigeration units to churn out defendants. and SS ice million machines.from controversial State of Illinois 360.000kg of ice every night. the The makers suit of alleges the faulty in- During the day the ice is uscd to Center in Chicago. stallation of the ice-making state is suing Murphy/ By equipment and fraud on the part Jahn Inc. their partners I-ester B John Morrish of the equipment manufacturer. Knight & Associates. and sar- The Murphy/Jahnjoint venture ious other firms. alleging mal- cool water and keep the building with Knight is accused of practice and negligence in the at a maximum 26 deg C • •negliently and carelessly" planning and construction of Many of the 30.000 staff have failing to supervise the instalthe building. complatncd that temperatures lation contractor. Murphy/Jahn counter• have risen as high as 43 deg Cin In the meantime. the state has sued. blaming Knight for the summer and as low as 16dcg Cin called in a firm of consulting design of the heating and winter. when they were forced to engineers to repair the airventilation svstem "hich is at uear gloves in the office. conditioning svstem. Come and join... • Ahrends P,unon & Koralek • Andrews Kent & Stone • • Austin irueman Associates • Computing 9mccs • • PA)Vis • Steel Cocporation • • Building [k»s n Partnership • Butterbey Brxk • • Gambridge [ksign • Cliiton Nurseries • • Oepanment of Enuronmcnt • Don Rewolds • • Eurotunnel • Fitzroy Robinson Pannctship• Jahn (tight) Bith Messe Frankfurt chaitmmq Stauher. • Foakrete • George • Gunmnt • Europe's tallest • Hutchison luke & Monk • lbstock Building Products • • Institution of (ÄII • tower for Frankfurt • James Cunning. Young & Parners • • James Parr Partners • John Assael Panners • This sumttser secs the start of building n ork which will leadtothe construction of • Johnsons WelltieldQuarrrs • LG. Mouclwi & Panners • EuroÉs tallest building — an office skyscraper "hich is to be part of the Frankfurt Fair Grounds designed by Chicago-based Helmut Jahn. • Landscape Institute • IT.'lngston Mclmosh • 'Ibe 254m high tower is part of a rebuilding and rnodcrnisation B hic*' bas put Frankfurt on tbc map in terms of innovative architecture. Jahn • London [hcklands Devel%jrnent Corporation • has been cbosen to design the S4-storey tomr and a hall to complete the redevelopment of tbe east section of the fair ground. Toenable tbe company to • Melvin lansley & Mark • mount up to five oents pct month. a substantial doeloptnent prograrnrne been underway since 1980. calling for an investment or more than DM 700 • Micluel Brown landscape Ardlitc«s • million. lhe (air ground been divided into three autonomous section — • Development • Milrwt [klvaux • considered essential ror small rain often require integrated facilities such as conference rooms. • National Association of Alntshouscs • The Hall I allony ror of exhibition space on tuo as "ell as underground parking for 900 ears. The toner e ill provide a symbolic • (Xcidental Petroleum • Perdnch Steeplejacks • gate-nay at its base topped by apyratnidofsteel and glass. There "ill be m of tsable Funding for (be office tom•t is being provided by a group of • Powel Moya & Panncrs • Rendel Palmer Trilton • investors "ho are leasing the site from Messe Frankfurt for 75 yean. The new hall gill be primarily financed b' incornc from the Inn Parncrship • • Renton Wood Tea in the garden • Rock Townsend • Royal Institute of, BrilLSh Architects • • Sootüsh Development Agency • A GIANT teapot will dominate The display will cost almost • Sir Frederick Snow & Panners • Stoke-on-Trent's exhibit at the but councillors hope • 1988 Glasgow Garden Festival. they can attract sponsorship • Sates of Jersey Development Commitwe It will stand alongside a huge from pottery companies and • Thomas Macaulcy • Travers Morgan • cup. saucer and sugar bowl at a maJor tea companies which can key location within the River cash in on the • •cuppa" theme. • W J. Caims & Banners • Panruship • Clyde site. A sweetener for visitors to the All the exhibits will be con- garden will be seating disguised structed out of glass-fibre as sugar lumps, and the aim will because none of the city's be to scoop a gold medal for . and many other well-known pottery firms has an oven large Stoke-on-Trent and to promote enough to fire the outsize pots. the City as a tourist centre. names exhibiting at: CMC BUILDING A BETTER BRITAIN 30th ANNIVfRSA.RY O(HIBITION 1-3 OCT 1987 • BUSINESS DESIGN CENTRE ISLINGTON • LONDON Telephone 01-724 5012 for details of Design Centre remaining stands Enter 7 ON ENQUIRY EXPRESSCARO Enter 8 ON ENQUIRY EXPRESSCARO BUILDING DESIGN. July 31. 1987 7 Barclays Bank hase presented the City or Norwich with the Gurney 00<1. The 12 "oat glass panels were decorated With acid-etching b James Knight. featuring the Nor•ic coat of arms. the Barclays eagle and the and 197S. as the clock is to mad the bicentenary or the Gurney which became part or narc lays. Each crest is backed with blue acetate and side-lit, so that the panels clou at night. Knight said: • 'By øorking on both sides of the 'beet o' glass and allowing the acid to gay longer in certain areas. it is to achieve seu•ral different of cut, • 'With the Barclays eagle. I cut the three crossns "ithin the eagle deeper than the rest so that at night light floods out from them. gising real depth to the panel." Designs for the quay MARSHALL Haines & Barrow have des•gned a €25 million residential and commercial development for Skillion at Baltic Quay in Surrey Docks. project is scheduled for completion in 1989 and will provide 95 homes anda network of small offices. There will also be a pub, restaurants and shops. Have you noticed. . . that all patio doors look the same From Glostal you will of course get: High lever operated book 102k as standard. A choice o' silver, white or brown finjsh at nocxtra cost. A local dealer who will supply and install to your specification. A door that meets Building Regulations for vrntibtion. But you will also get: Three q•curity locking optionv National avadability through Glostal authoriscd installers. Plus this unique feature: A vented threshold which allows natural air circulation. with stale air escaping at the head and fresh air entenng at the cilJ. Contact Glostal, and patio doors will never lcx»k the same again. Ashchurch, Tewkesbury, glostal. Glostal Limited. Gloucestershire Gt.20 B. •rel: 06S4 297073. Fax: 0684 293904. Enter 9 ENQUIRY CARD Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Building Design Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 31 July 1987