9 10 110 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/d6822909d5de523d9a8f0dd0a6b3857a.pdf e7011eb2caf48ce0b5f301d143fc2c48 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Report on Professional Issues Group, Annual Meeting, Feb 1981 Description An account of the resource (i) PIG ANNUAL MEETING Feburary 14 1981, at Islington Bus Company, London N7. PRESENT: John Allan Bob Maltz Giles Pe body David Burney Mick Broad Ken Thorpe (part) Ian Cooper (part) David Roebuck APOLOGIES: Eddie Walker Norman Arnold ANNUAL REVIEW: Generally and ''Code': John Allan:- (11) That the work on thecode put the u/a firmly in the No. 2 seat and by our "intimate" incorporation in its drafting recognisedtheu/aasanumerouseae ens ((sisiat)) oo A need for our cooperation because we are/"unreliable" to be left out (viz monopolies) and the need for the RIBA not to push something through on the strength of an RIBA vote. (iv) The result was consensus policies and it was necessary to elucidate this and how it would shape further action. Bob Maltz:- (i) Too much time, resources and commitment was being devoted to ARCUK at the expense of NAM. NAM was weak as a result and therefore there was a need to re-orientate and re-direct resources back to NAM. Debate between mainly BM and JSA over whether the extensive commitment and detailed work within ARCUK was the most effective way to achieve NAM's aims, in summary these arguments were The current work particularly on the code was probably the climax of all the previous work done by NAM on Code and Monopolies and that we had primarily achieved our objective of driving a wedge between RIBA and ARCUK. (ii) The emphasis of working within ARCUK blinkered our overview. ((aislit)) (iv) It was restated that our primary aim was that "ARCUK is to be a public interest body and not a front for the RIBA". Board of Architectural Education: It was decided to direct more effort to the BAE this year. As the BAE had in theory a lay majority and that we should be re-orientating the BAE by exploiting and by suggesting possible well known lay contacts on to ARCUK visiting boards. PRAP was preparing a report for Council on Continuing Education and that the u/a should nominate a councillor in order to prepare a minority report. Further NAM nominees to be put up for visiting boards and criteria to be challenged. "Clean Up" Campaign: Finnieston Report : Government had decided not to implement the report and create a statutory registration standards to be formed instead. No further action. Changes in Building Regulations: David Burney had written to Heseltine putting forward u/a's views. It appeared that Heseltine was now backtracking on self—certification. lay representation body. A bodyon educational We should be pursuing our aims with respect to ARCUK outside, i.e. through press, Privy Council, Legal and by building alliances outside e.g. Unions, M.P.s. We should be using our ARCUK status for pursuing other aims rather than solely pursuing our aims within ARCUK. The debate was rather wide ranging and generally unresolved at present but as our work on the Code was shortly to end this would be an opportunity to change direction. It was agreed that the letter prepared for all the nominating authorities should be re-drafted and used in the press rather than risk upsetting those existing nominees who were sympathetic to our aims. No actions since solicitors letter. Work to be directed to considering proposals for re-scheduling schedule I of the Act rather than attempting some legal "nice ones". Monopolies: Keyte: Committee Representation: Bob Maltz as reserve. D.B. to contact B.A. PPC —- Edward Walker Norman Arnold GPC - Giles Peabody David Roebuck Admissions - Mick Broad ANO Free election BAE —- Alan Lipman and ANO PPC —- David Roebuck John Allan to see if interested. This work was now at an end in ARCUK's terms as all our criteria were being met by the proposed new code. It was decided that if ARCUK voted not to remove him from the register that we should ensure that there is adequate press coverage. Press to be pre-briefed. More importantly what is our general attitude to criminal convictions. After some debate it was agreed that there were three class of convictions that we considered merited removal from the register and that these were: (i) conviction of an offence in connection with the practice of architecture resulting in death - indefinite removal. (ii) convictions of an offence in connection with the practice of architecture with no death involved, e.g. corruption or tax frauds. (iii) Convictions of an offence not connected with the practice of architecture, removal from register for period of prison term. Where no prison term set, but fine instead, then no removal. It was provisionally agreed as follows. Gentlemen's agreement. BAE - David Burney, Brian Anson. GPC - 6 others to be decided. Discipline - Mick Broad Also D.R. to be nominated for Chairman of Council and J.S.A. as vice Chairman. Future Strategy: D.R. 20.2.80. It was agreed that new initiatives would evolve during the year and must be more NAM based. As 1981 was ARCUK's 50th anniversary a working group is to be formed to prepare "our" version of ARCUK's history and purpose and which could be used to launch a programme for ARCUK's reform and re-constitution. The group will start meeting at the end of March when the Code work is mainly out of the way. J.S.A. to approach Malcolm McEwan and D.R. to prepare list draft agenda and to anchor. J.S.A. christened group "Quinquagenary Quango" or QQQ for short. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource DR Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1981 Subject The topic of the resource Report on Professional Issues Group, Annual Meeting, Feb 1981 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/7a4cd30287ec8c89c340f2fa70090396.pdf cd593d2491d465f62db270185b0dbd02 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 from ARCUK Registrar re Unattached Election timetable Description An account of the resource 8 I have just come back from holiday and I see from my notes that you had a strong viewpoint to put in the course of the June Council meeting regarding the timetable for the Unattached election. The Chairman of the Finance Conmittee and I are at present trying to hammer out a more concentrated formula but I do recall that you felt that you might have suggestions to put to the Finance and General Purposes Committee and for this reason I am enclosing herewith a copy of the present timetable which we have to follow each time there is an election. I think you will find it helpful and I look forward to hearing from you on the subject. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTAQLIBHEOS UNOE® THE ARCHITECTS (MNEGIBTMATION!) ACTS 188! TO 1838 73 Hallam Street London W1N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A, Dear Mr. Maltz, 10 July 1979 Robert Maltz Esq. 14 Holmdale Road London N W 6 Yours sincerely, a nree November 7 November 13 (16 November in 1978) October 31 Send Forms A & B to printer for setting as far as possible. Specimens attached Last date for receiving membership details from constituent bodies Printout of the names of over 4000 Unattached in numerical order, TIMETABLE FOR UNATTACHED ELECTION October 1 Ask Unattached representatiyes if they are willing to serve again if nominated and elected & November 20 Let printer have outstanding details to complete Forms A & B Ask constituent bodies to let us have membership details as at as well as the count of membership of constituent bodies have to be obtained from computer bureau in time to report to the November meeting of the F&GPC. We might be able to get these details in slightly earlier from the bureau but we have to supply data as at 31 October, so there is little room for manoeuvre, About 4/5 days to get forms back. An address label (from computer) supplied on a continuous sheet has to stuck manually on Form A, and both forms inserted in a window envelope. Over 4000 have to be done and by enlisting all staff we have managed to get the job done in 4/5 days in the past. Last year the Unattached representatives included a Newsletter in the circulation which is an added factor in the operation. A special Post Office collection has to be arranged. Envelopes have to be tied up in bundles of 50 and put into sacks which have to be labelled. A day needs to be allowed for this since if the number of envelopes for posting does not agree with the total number of Unattached they have to be rechecked. e& November30 ThisisthelastdayforpostingaccordingtotheRegulations. Inthe past we have managed to get the forms out about 4 days earlier but this depends on how the weekends fall. The consignment to the 400 Unattached architects has always been sent 2nd class post until now When the Nominations (Form B) come in they have to be checked against tke printout, the number of nominations recorded against each name and a record kept of the number of nominations received by each candidate. Notifications from architects who have joined one of the constituent bodies are received. These have to be crossed off the list, their numbered envelopes taken opt and kept in a separate pile, and the label removed if the stage of sticking on the large envelopes has not been reached. If it has take out large envelope and extract voting envélope and keep. Unattached who have not received papers, because they have just dropped out of the RIBA or something, telephone or write and ask for papers because they have heard they are going around. The above procedure has to be reversed in these cases, Acareful check has to be kept on insertions and deletions so that the final number is accurate. January 2 Before the middle of January the following processing must be completed 1. each name on the nominal roll printout has to be given a serial voter's number; Ze each voter's envelope has to be stamped with the individual voter's number; of address labels removed from adhesive sheet and stuck on large envelope; 4. insert in large envelope, voter's envelope, and scrutineers' envelope but the worst job of all is checking each name and voter's envelope number against the list to see that the correctly numbered envelope for each name is put in the right envelope. 1-4 is done in advance of the Voting Papers and Particulars of Candidates being received because to insert 2 (or 3) forms in the large envelopes takes as much time as we can afford at the end of the month. Last date for receiving nomination forms — Unattached candidates who have not previously been on the Council seem to have difficulty in getting six nominations and these have always come in at the last minute. By reducing the time from 4 weeks to 2 it could be that new candidates would have difficulty in getting the required number of nominations. From our point of view making the last date for receiving nominations 15 December does not help much. No printing is done between 20 December and 2 January. Between 15 and 20 December the Christmas post rush is on so it it is unlikely that anything can be delivered any earlier anyway. None of Form C and Particulars can be set in advance so nothing can be done to help here. Collating, typing and checking the particulars to forward for printing has to take priority over everything else. 200 words in 1980 adds to the task. It seems too with each year that the number of candidates increases. At best nothing could be posted before 16 December. Forms C etc. back from printer. Insert in large envelopes already processed as above. Arrange a Special collection again as outlined above. Last day for posting in accordance with the Regulations. In the past we have always managed to post 3/4 days before this date. This consignment has always been sent by 2nd class post. January 24 January 31 Count votes February 7 Last date for votes to be received As soon as the scrutineers' envelopes start coming in they have to be Counted and the number recorded each day Voter's envelope taken out and slit Sorted in numerical order Checked against voter's list to see that the signature agrees with the name against the number & 13 candidates for 9 places February 13 Very last day for results of election to be sent to all candidates. This is to be in time to report to the F&GPC meetin March 1 March 7 Last date for receiving above for inclusion in Annual Meeting pa] Now take voting paper from envelope Last year 772 voting papers received 737 counted 5104 votes cast Successful candidates have to liaise with each other to decide on their nominations under the Gentlemen's Agreement for the Board and Committees, as well as any nominations they wish to put forward for free election. These nominations need to be seconded and biograp ical details supplied. Very last date for Ordinary March meeting and Annual Meeting papers to go out. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Letter from ARCUK Registrar re Unattached Election timetable https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/d6aa81f51c8f6bfe73d15c29d6553166.pdf f4c92e84142809e5c2d55881ed77b90d 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Correspondence, etc re …Unattached Representation; also notes on meeting with OFT on Monopolies Report Description An account of the resource To Un attacteool Peps . Deav J tndine a eoty of bly sot f Fadiv te MeCUK CGwumllies ¢ There ee be a mol Thee ygay)ara lat Your | L ( Unattached Mepiecetitnes at lardan /|eeu /4-Mare, “ACU , 73 ttallan, Sheot mele Gai TheCailepsathcouldawlPeantink ak CnC aangp ‘ fue Ssa ical ae e bySCAG To UnattachedPepe- 5 Uilbr Anewt Z1 feb 7% Deav The Cucldf eps ash coulda we Pe ieed an DY qa a change, feay (ee ort Ez h slATE a cise % Jo enclme a copy of elles sont fe Farciv te ACU Cums, € gee oll hoa oad Ths yganard last Unattached ey)at oeWS(oe lApe SeanaeeMine“ateAiea. Kennett\.) FevelovC4/ hegjohan/ Arecvild 73 balla Sheet lrdo~ Wl. “4A. 5 hulfor Aven lnotix WG a O ie Deny Mul Frvett|y Ro: Atecuk Grwwillus 1970-FO. ‘Gpoillemers Agreemont? JFtansconstleMlpuceietadliiénofteUnabtchedt people dinky te Gentlernans Aypeomendt tour 4 Achiecine, opts OSniatlee Etucahiar >Cee Alar upman , SC Susan dackon Eatisrod Walbey, branes and GoutrekPeopeses Qrumileo? (Marian fetrots lan Tod. ProfessianakMgaeComvullee > (delbnMan a| Bch ise ShowtAtho&bafeSpee mae] KounalhOFaceyExy/HA 5MilbrAwe Ay2cUK werefallanr Stet lado wi. Dory KV Foveboy, Pe! ¥RCUK Commitims 1979-¥o. Candidaltz, de Fro Eloctian| oe SSfe to beard d Archulicluyal Eetucakinr, lan Coopey 4 Flot 1072) Vanes Las David Robson Bio Aawatcsne Oneega Robert Malte Thavas Leallor, SO ern cow \lelin Alay Thauas LJrolloy Puspeaeo Quwilla Bur Tec lan Tod Peta)Cupmere lan Ted lanTsd [arnTod lantel lan Tee 40 Professianack[LespereoQuamillae Reboort Malte eae eefee Grdproud Candidcles fv Fee Ehootinn (cort.) é 5:0 Diciblinn Conmultia Michagk Broad €| forsco, \ln Hane Gp attached tubuseniedines) Wounalad \ohn Adan Seco dod Yelm are ; Pra ee ee a ee Oo" Nee Ye Wine SMl Ave, NC 19.29 7.2 Ls Rpt preparabylastuserUnattocladKops, Ue Offore ee ge eotal the Mtn ile Sf Sas SdRoeland ao‘tadNecewedGur + Theewuttole onTres lo oe ap tears a ees aul be Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource JM Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feb 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Correspondence, etc re …Unattached Representation; also notes on meeting with OFT on Monopolies Report https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/f18c2a4a700912a94b5dbb547d779b99.pdf bfbd1c1a3189d7613223bfea7b9da0ac 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Sally Oppenheim, Minister for Consumer Affairs, July 1979 Description An account of the resource The Rt Hon Sally Oppenhéem MP Minister of State for Consumer Affairs Department of Trade 1 Victoria Street LONDON sw1 Dear Minister (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) ARCUK oe 73 Hallam Street LONDON w1 12 July 1979 UNATTACHED ARCHITECTS PROPOSALS TO INCREASE COMPETITION IN ARCHITECTS! SERVICES We would like to thank you for Tuesday's very useful meeting to discuss the abandonment of architects' mandatory fee scale and I would like to summarize our position as follows The Mandatory Minimum Fee having been abandoned, architects should be free to compete in terms of fee as well as quality of service The removal of the Fee Scale's mandatory status can be speedily and simply achieved by requiring ARCUK to amend its rules (as scheduled in Way Ahead). This would enable all architects who wish to depart from the Monopiy to do so Any new recommended fee systems should be based on ranges of architects' own costs instead of the discredited 'ad valorem! method It may be considered simplest for the Government (DoE) to prepare the primary recommended fee scale for its own use in assessing value for money in public sector commissions thus avoiding the additional administration and expense of a new agency Recommended fee scales may be prepared by other bodies both within and outside the profession provided the following conditions are observed a) Copies are deposited with Minister for Consumer Affairs ° b) ‘The non-mandatory status is clearly printed on all documents in which reference to the fee scale is made The Government should conduct periodic reviews (the first within 3 years) to ensure that a de facto monoyiy is not being established through RIBA dominance . It may be appropiate to consider providing the OFT with these review powersein the proposed Competition Bill. The apparently enhanced competative conditions arising from architectural design competitions must be set against the disadvantages of considerable abortive work and time and reduced client influence in the development of the brief and we feel that design competitions would thus continue to be of benefit in only limited circumstances A (pit(4 DAVID ROEBUCK On Behalf Of JOHN ALLAN ROBERT MALTZ JOHN MURRAY Yours sincerely Our proposals now combine the benefits of competition in both quality and fee in suggesting that architects in competing for a commission should include a fee quotation alongside full information as to their experience, resources and capabilities. Quotations should be explicit as to architects costs and could be presented in the format drafted in Appendix I of our report. (vidi) Fee quotation and then negotiation would probably be the most effective method given the obvious disadvantages of straight ES tendering. As agreed, a straight tendering system apart from being vulnerable to the dangers of "ringing" would reduce the client's opportunity to take into account considerations of quality when assessing commissions in terms of value for money. Conversely negotiation alone with a selected architect does not meet the criteria of increased competition (ix) We consider it most unlikely that architects would be tempted to work uneconomically for the temporary advantage of obtaining commissions but we would expect that the enhanced climate for competition would encourage a considerably greater diversity of services available to the consumer With regard to your question as to the possible RIBA response to the adoption of these proposals we consider this less likely to be a bang than a whimper. We should be glad to assist in any costing exercise that the Government may initiate and trust that in the event of any further discussions on this or related matters with your department, the OFT or the DoE we hope that the 'Unattached' representing nearly 20% of the profession continue to be consulted. Pls.se address ory eee ai CPrveoperoleQc hkfor eG. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource DR Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource July 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Letter to Sally Oppenheim, Minister for Consumer Affairs, July 1979 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/689c65412a67b4ce1c4467e7c7d6da94.pdf 3028a6765814c68ab09a6014283e77f6 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 from Sally Oppenheim, July 1979 Description An account of the resource John Murray Esq Unattached Architects ARCUK 75 Hallam Street London wW1 ‘ Cer Als FM abi DEPARTOMFETNRATDE 1VICTORIA STREET ( LONDON SWI1H OET TELEPHONE DIRECTLINE 01215 2©62 y w/ July 1979 Private Secretary V3975 Fromthe SWITCHBOARD 012157877 Minister of State for Consumer Affairs The Rt Hon Sally Oppenheim MP I am writing to thank Mr Koebuck for his letter of 12 July to the Minister of State for Consumer Affairs Summariisng the position of the Unattached Architects. (Mr Roebuck asked that any further correspondence should be addressed to you). Mrs Oppenheim has asked me to say that she too found the meeting on 10 July a very useful one, and that in considering what action is necessary following the Monopolies & Mergers Commission report on architects' scale fees, she and the Secretary of State will take fully into account the points that you, Mr Roebuck and the other representatn of the Unattached Architexts have made. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ken Thorpe Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 07/06/1978 Subject The topic of the resource Letter from Sally Oppenheim, July 1979 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/54cf8c44baba1264819f4933ad17fb61.pdf 134374e531addfbafecb2e5e5331c4d0 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Correspondence with ARCUK Registrar on Professional Conduct Description An account of the resource K J Porder Registrar ARCUK 73 lem . - Street Roath Cardiff 196 Albany Road (c) I need ct rification on the following questions: I an attempting to draft a response to your letter Of 13 April re Limited Liability. However, before £ Can answer the issuas Yaised under (a) to 1. What reference does the Act make to Professional Misconduct or Code of Conduct? : 2. Since no definition of "professional misconduct! appears to be offered in the Act, what legal Standing does any definition inplicit in the rules and Principles of the Code of Conduct shave? eas &- Has this ever been put to the test? ! 5- Where, when, by whom, and on what Criteria was the Code brought into being? 6 Was recourse to the Privy Council made for the adoption of the Code? Yours Sincerely e 8. Ina Situation where the Act and the Code might be interpreted to be contradictory, wnat legal Standing does the Code have? 3. Would a legal interpretation o£ ‘misconduct! in a ‘court of law conform to that enshrined in the Code of Conduct? 7. Has recourse to the Privy Council been made for any alterations or acditions to the Code? 9. Has the Situation described in 8 €ver been put to the test, i-e., has ARCUK'S decision On misconduct ever been apnealed against ina court of law2 r = apologies for imposing such heavy demands on you but I would appreciate an €erly response since you have asked for replies by 31 May. fane Delaney (Ms) +eeeserene Ms Anne Delaney 196 Albany Road Roath Cardiff Yours sipcerely, 12'May 1978 = 4. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom CRTABUUSHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS IMEGISTRATION! ACTS 1931 To 1038 73 Hallam Street London WiN 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar:Mrs-NockDawsene MBE KENNETH J.FORDER, M.A Dear Ms Delaney, =. ° pact Xt Thank you very much for your letter of 10 May. I think it might help if I reply immediately on the more straightforward issues that you raise, and I will write to you further on other points as soon as I have managed to carry out the research. : : i ear face I think many of your points are answered in the enclosed copy Ofmauens summarised history of the ARCUK Code, together with a copy of the first edition in 1936. The following are my preliminary observations on your: questions: - 1. The only reference to disgraceful conduct is contained in ; Section 7 of the principal Act (copy enclosed). There is no reference to a Code in any of the legislation. 3. It is my view that disgraceful conduct has never been formally 4. interpreted legally but I will look into this. : _5. The enclosed history will tell you all you need to know. 6. No. Yo Bo 8. The question is a little too sweeping. If a situation arose where the Act and the Code appeared to be in conflict then clearly ~ theCode would have to give way but only to the extent that the Act takes precedence. - 2. I find myself in some difficulty here because of the wording you use. The Code has no ‘legal standing’ but it is a guide which the profession follows. Strictly speaking one can be guilty of disgraceful conduct without breaking the terms of the Code and conversely there are circumstances in which one can break the terms of the Code without committing disgraceful conduct. f 9. The usually quoted case where an appeal was lodged to the High Court against a decision of the Council was the Hughes v ARCUK in 1957. I enclose herewith a copy of the relevant passage from the Judgment. I will check whether there have been any other cases. =aeita ates / ye advising against. etc. History of the ARCUK Code On 11 March, 1932, the Council received a report of the Committee of Ways and Means which contained, inter alia, a recommendation that a Code of Professional Conduct was desirable despite having received Counsel's Opinion to the undesirability of advertisements by surveyors who were also architects. The Council, in debating the matter, considered — if there was to be a Code - that it could be built up gradually by means of the precedents from the Discipline Committee; or the Council could give architects proposing to register It was agreed at this meeting to defer a recommendation to draft a Code, partly because there were a number of other tasks urgently needing action and partly because in any event the Discipline Committee could not be appointed for some months. ‘ : In March 1934 the PPC recommended the Council to inform an architect "that it is unprofessional and contrary to 2stablished custom to advertise". This was Another architect at the same time was seeking information about his position with regard to advertising, hidden commissions; soliciting and trading, and pointing out that the Act made no provision for a Code. He was told that, in general, these were matters of unprofessional conduct and contrary to established custom but it was for the Discipline Committee to decide what was disgraceful. The architect challenged this reply, pointing out that no Code had been approved by the Privy Council, and asked if the RIBA Code "with all its loose application" was accepted in the Courts. Another architect was informed it was not in accordance with established custom for an architect to trade as a builder. It was for the Discipline Committee It was also "not in accordance with established custom for an architect to engage in trade”. (Very broad statement‘) Other cases dealt with alleged supplanting (referred to D.C.) and soliciting and supplanting; and the Chartered Surveyors were asked to refer in their Code some idea of what they must not do. to stop newspaper advertisements. ” spirit common to the codes." 2. There was however a hold up with regard to referring cases to the Discipline Committee because they had no regulations yet. After a motion had been received from an architect which ended with the following words "That this Council give a ruling that may serve as a guide to the public and the profession as to what may be considered ‘established custom’ and what conduct would normally lie outside such ‘established custom’. (Code of Practice) That sanction be obtained from the Privy Council for such regulations” the PPC approved the principle of a Code of Professional Conduct which banned architects from advertising "his architectural services publicly", "receiving commission not disclosed" and "soliciting work by means of Ppaid agents" In due course however, and before any ARCUK Code had been formulated, the Discipline Committee had heard its first case, where mention was made to two Codes - that of the RIBA and that of the TAAS, and the Discipline Committee Report contains the following paragraphs: é cs "(g) Each code must embody, its existence would be meaningless unless it did embody, those rules of conduct which its framers and administrators hold to be binding on themselves as practitioners of an honourable calling, while every professional man knows that many such rules express the solution of doubts which have arisen in practice. A practitioner who has any cause to doubt what his own course of action ought to be can seek guidance in the solutions tested by experience (or formulated by expen oos persons), and set forth in the codes, The essential features of both codes, it must be believed, would in spirit be accepted by the architectural profession even had they remained unwritten, and the Committee conceives itself entitled to apply these codes in the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act and to find a registered person guilty of conduct disgraceful in an architect if he be shewn to have contravened the The Council received a further Counsel's Opinion dated August 1934 which ~ contained a preference to "allow a code as to professional conduct to grow up gradually by means of publication and circulation from time to time” of Discipline Committee decisions. This view was based on the idea that it would leave the Council "unfettered by definitions of professional misconduct" whereas a "specified and definite code” would make it difficult for the Council to remove a man from the Register "unless his conduct were ‘shown to fall within y. the four corners of the code". pursue”. comments. to approve the draft Code.) remained unaltered until 1945. However, the Opinion did state that the Council could, without statutory authority, publish and send to registered persons "a statement enumerating practices or modes of conduct which they consider it undesirable for registered persons to A copy of the March 1936 Code is attached from which it will be seen that it Again the Council were reminded that the Act contained no express power to formulate a code as to professional conduct or misconduct. The Council was also advised that the Privy Council "would probably be reluctant -to give their Sanction to a code of professional conduct dealing (of necessity) with matters as to which a wide diversity of views might be held. This statement should contain no reference to Section 7 of the Act and should show on the face of it that it was published merely for guidance. In June 1935 the Council were informed that the PPC were drawing up a draft statement as referred to in the above paragraphs’ A suggestion/that che Draft Code, together with Scale of Fees and Conditions of Engagement, be submitted to all bodies mentioned in the First Schedule, and to every registered person for On 20 March 1936 the Council had before it a "draft Code of Professional Conduct for Registered Architects" for the guidance of architects which was submitted by the PPC who had resolved unanimously that it be submitted to Cannes "as an agreed document".. In submitting the Draft the Committee said since it had received unanimous approval in Committee to refer it to the constituent bodies would cause unnecessary delay. They proposed however to send copies to all registered persons but without inviting comments, but to invite-the Unattached architects to forward comments to one of the Council members they had elected. (One Council member elected by the Unattached dissented from the decision to In December 1944 the PPC recommended that the Code be revised generally. This arose from Counsel's Opinion obtained to assist in dealing with questions concerning architects inyolved in property development - buying and selling land and buildings. registered person. branches to discuss the new Principles. 4. In February 1945 the Council had a draft revised Code before them in a totally In November 1945 the PPC reported to Council on the comments received from the RIBA on the draft, but some of the RIBA suggestions were not accepted. One different format and it was agreed that the draft be submitted to the constituent bodies and to the representatives of the Unattached architects for observations. This draft Code consisted of a Preamble, Principles and Examples. Counsel was asked to vet the final version; and in March 1946 the Council Early in 1960 the Code was reprinted in a new format; and because there had been a number 6f amendments made to it since 1955, a copy was sent to every Again the Code was subject to a number of amendments/clarifications and in June 1969 the PPC were again asked to review the Code as a whole and to report back to the Council. As the RIBA were also looking at their Code as a whole it was agreed in October 1969 to set up an ad hoc joint working group to enable the zwo bodies to proceed in step. By March 1970 a preliminary draft of the Principles and Rules of Professional Conduct was ready and it was agreed it be circulated to the architectural constituent bodies for discussion. In June 1970 the Council were informed that meetings were being held in the RIBA Regions and or two comments had also been received from the ABT and AA. In December 1948 the Code was amended to give a time limit after which architects could not be house agents or auctioneers. The RIBA, IAAS, AA and ABT approved; FAS had made no comments and the Unattached had divergent views, but agreed to go along. : at After the Code had been amended a number of times, on 17 October, 1952, the Council resolved that the PPC should review the Code "as a whole in its relation to the Codes of any of the constituent bodies of the Council", if necessary conferring with such bodies. A Sub-Committee of the PPC was set up and in October 1954 a draft new Code was submitted to ‘Council and finally approved in December 1954 for circulation to the profession with the 1955 Annual Report. Its format was not dissimilar from the previous Codes. were informed that a new Code had been published.” The work on amending the Code was then taken over by the RIBA but in March 1975 the Council were informed that the PPC had asked the Registrar to send T’.copies of the draft Code to the other architectural constituent bodies. Eventually a new Code, different in form and format but not greatly different in meaning was published on 1 January 1976. a © ' © F Architects’ Registration Council of the United Kingdom 68, PORTLAND PLACE, W.1. Code of Professional Conduct for Architects The following Rules have been drawn up for the guidance of architects. While it is not intended to lay down a hard-and-fast line between what is, and what is not, legitimate, the object of the Rules is to provide a general standard of professional practice, the breach of which} by an architect, may render him liable to be adjudged, by the Council, guilty of disgraceful conduct. 1= (1) Reniuneration in respect of architectural work consists (a) in the case of an employee, of salary, and (6) of architects in private practice, of protessional fees. In the case of (6) the client should be informed at the outset of the rules of employment of architects and the scule of charges upon which remuneration is based. N.B.--For the purpose of this Code the Conditions of Engagement and Scale of Charges published by the R.I.B.A. or other constituent body is recommended. 4 (2) Au architect MUST NOT:— / o (a) Accept any work which involves giving or recviving discounts or commissions, nor may he accept any discount, gift or commission fron: Contractors or Tradesmen whether employed upon the works or not. (b) Advertise or offer his services by means of circulars or otherwise, nor may he make paid announcements in the Press. (c) Attempt to supplant another architect, nor must he compete with another architect by means of a reduction of fees or by any other inducement. (d) Permit the insertion of any clause in tenders, bills of quantities or other documents which provide for payment to be made to him by the Contractor whatever may be the consideration, unless with the previous knowledye and approval of his client. (ce) Carry on or act us principal, partner uv «anager of a company or firm trading in materials used in building, or whose activities are connected with the building industry. (/) Permit the business of auctioneering or house ugency to form part of his practice. NUTE to Parageaph .(f) Extract jrom Counce Motates of June 24ynt, 1936:— RESOLVED thar Where busine: us au Auctioneer or House Agent was being carried on at the time of registration no uction be taken in the matter, but that any Kexisterad Architect attempting to, or who has attempted to, start any business as Auetivieer or Huse clvent after the date of his registration be informed that such action is not in accordance with the rocoguisal custom of the Architectural profession. . ; (3) An arcisitect MUST:-- (a) Be remunerated solely in the cuse of an employee by his salary and in the case of a (4) An architect MAY:— (g) Act us architect or joint architect tor a work which ts or has been the subject of a competition, in which he is or has been engaged as an assessor. (A) Act as architect or joint architect for a work which is or has been the subject of an abandoned competition, if he is or has becw viticially nominated as assessor, or approached by the promoters for the purpuse of acting as such. Z practising awchitect by professional fees, und must not accept remuneration from auy other source in connection with the works and duties entrusted to him. (b) Before accepting an appointment or instructions to proceed with any work upon which it is obvious another architect has been employed, communicate with the architect last employed with a view to ensuring that his engayement has been properly terminated. (a) Be architectural consultant or adviser to building contractors, decorators, furniture designers, estate development firms or companies or firms or companies trading in materials used in or whose activities are otherwise connected with the building industry, provided that:— : , (1) He is paid by fee and not by commission on sales or profits thereon. (2) He docs not solicit orders for the firm or company. “5 (b) Use the word “* Architect ” in connection with his appointment, and his name may appear on the stationery of the firm or company as architectural consultant or adviser. : (c) Be a Director of any company (except those. excepted in Clause 2 {e)), including a building society registered under the Building Societies Act, and may allow his name and the word ‘' Architect ’ to appear on the notepaper of the company. (d) Sign his buildings and may exhibit his name outside his office and on buildings in the course of construction, alteration and/or extension, provided that it is done in an unostentatious manner, If a client so desires, the architect’s name may remain upon the building for a period not exceeding twelve months after its completion provided that the board does not display ‘ fo Let’’ or “ For Sale ’” or similar notices. (5) Although there is no objection to an architect allowing signed illustrations and descrip- tions of bis work to be published in the Press, with reference to such illustrations or descriptions it in contrary to professional custom to give monetary consideration for such insertions or to allow such insertions to be used by the publishers for obtaining advertisements from unwilling contributors. / (6) (7) When architects are ucting as surveyors or town planners in connection with the development of land, announcements may be made in the Press and on notice boards in connection with such development, provided that such announcements are made in ath unostentatious manner. (8) In all questions arising between the employer und contractor an architect must act in an impartial manner. He must at all tics interpret the conditions of the contract with entire fairmess as between cmployer and contractor. (9) Quantities—It is desirable that in cuses where an architect takes out quantities for buildings he should be paid directly by the client and not through the contractor. y 7 Note: — March 20th, 1936. Reprinted April 1st, 1g4T. By Order of the Council, a PEMBROKE WICKS : Pr Registrar. | f‘ Architects who are appoitited surveyots lo recoguiscd estates muy announce land or sites or premises tor sale or letting in conteciion with their uppoininents. Architects are recommended to bring this Code to the notice of their employees. 7 Dissraceful Conduct as defined by Mr. Justice Devlin in his Judgment in Hughes v A.R.C.U.K. 7, 731/59 The Architects (Registration) Act 1931 Section 7 gives the Council power to strike the name of an architect from the register if he has been "suilty of conduct disgraceful to him in his capacity as an architect". I cannot accept the argument that the term "diseraceful” is in any sense a term of art. In accordance with the usual rule it is to be given its natural and popular meaning. But it is qualified by the phrase "in his capacity as an architect". The effect of that qualification is twofold. First, the conduct must not only be what would ordinarily be considered aeerecesale but it must also be a disgrace which affects hin professionally; to that extent the qualification diminishes the term. sgoondlky, conduct which is not disgraceful for an ) ordinary man may be disgraceful for a professional man: to that extent the qualification amplifies the term. But the amplification does not require that "disgraceful" is to be given any technical meaning: it requires only that the ordinary meaning of the word should be applied in relation to the special obligations and duties of a professional man. It must not be forgotten that if the finding of the Committee stands, anyone may hereafter say of Mr. Hughes with impunity that he was struck off the register for disgraceful conduct and may add that that means what it says. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource AD/ ARCUK Registrar Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 1978 Subject The topic of the resource Correspondence with ARCUK Registrar on Professional Conduct https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c3f66a709f90d01d3f8dff8833667991.pdf 4e0c96e6fe35d20318880b37d664538d 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Report on questionnaire to Unattached Architects, Nov 1977 Description An account of the resource —_~— ———— Report on questionnaire to unattached architects (November, 1977) (3. 1.00 The questionnaire was included in the annual circular to unattached architects, which contains nomination forms for unattached represen- tatives. This year approximately 4100’ were sent. 2.00 211 replies were received. A copy of the questionnaire and an analysis of each part are attached. ‘ 3,00 3.01 Summary 3.02 Size, type and position in office. 85% were employed, 15% partners in private practice of chief officers. Nearly 60% were employed in the public sector.. ; 3.03 Question 1. Nearly every respondent took this to mean = ‘why are you not a member of the R.I.BeA. ?" Most respondents gave more than one reason; the numbers and variety are summarised in the graph as % of the reasons given. 3.04 3,05 Question 2. Over ons half are members of a union; the vast ma jority of these belong to N.A.L.G.0. 4 3.06 Question 4. As with Question 14, most respondents gave more than 4 ome suggestions; numbers and variety are summarised in the graph.~ More than 4 gave no reply, some stating that they were not sufficiently© acquainted with the Code. 3.07 4,00 Question 5S. Remarks as Question 4, Two out of 3 gave no reply. 5.00 In view of the low returns, both in 1975 and this year, it is consid- ered that statistical advice should be sought before framing any future questionnaires. KT/ 7.6.78 foe and sex distribution. The oldest respondent was 74; over x were under 40; one in 4 were under 30; one in 40 were women; and 1417 stated that they were 'retired', Question 3. This question is in two parts. Two out of 3 replied "yes" to amending the Acts to require a cross section of the profession on the Council (3.(a)).- Respondents were equally divided on the question of increasing lay representation on the Council. One in 4 made no reply to either part of the question. The replies were very interesting dus to the range of subjects introduced and the extent to which some ware treated. A few respondents gave only their name and ege. Many wrote at length about their concerns viewpoints, and proposals. | @ Dear Unattached, The Architects Registration Acts lay down that each 500 unattached architects are to have one representative on ARCUK. The numbers of unattached have been steadily increasing over the last five years. We are writing to you as your elected unattached representatives on ARCUK for the year 1976-77. In attending ARCUK meetings over the past year we have attempted to stress the need for openness and accountability in the conduct of ARCUK's affairs with respect to both the public and the profession. Further, we have been concerned by the imbalance of representation on ARCUK. The vast majority of ARCUK are members of the RIBAs; and a large proportion of these are also principals in private practice. This state of affairs neither adequately reflects the structure of the profession itself, over 80% of whom is salaried, nor allows effective representation of the lay public who, after all, use the buildings which architects design. Although we are elected by you, we have practically no means of knowing which of the issues currently facing the profession are of concern to you. Once a year we have this opportunity of contacting you. As in 1975 we are attempting to gather some information about unattached architects. It would help us if we knew your opinions on subjects being discussed in ARCUK; for example, on advertising, on maintaining the minimum,fee scale, on citizens advice bureaux, on ‘architectural' consultancies, and on lay representation in the affairs of the profession. In addition we welcome suggestions on the issues which you feel should be raised for discussion in ARCUK during the coming year.~ Please let us have your answers to the questions below and any additional views and comments; all of which will be kept in confidence. Finally, please contact any of your ARCUK representatives matter of concern. Yours faithfully, 1 Why are you unattached ? 2 Are you a member of a trades union ? throughout the coming year on any Anne Delaney, Alan Lipman, Bob Maltz, Robin Phillips, Dave Roebuck, Ken Thorpe and Ian Tod If yes, which? Acts should be amended (a) to take 3 Do you consider that the Registration account of the actual constitution of the profession, and (b) to increase lay representation on ARCUK 7? 4 What reforms, if any, would you suggest should be made to ARCUK's Code ? 5 Can you suggest ways in which we can look after your interests on ARCUK? NAME AGE TYPE OF OFFICE (central government, local authority, private practice, industry, education, self employed, unemployed, other) SIZE OF OFFICE YOUR POSITION IN OFFICE Please reply to : Unattached Architects, c/o 109, CADOGAN TERRACE, LONDON E 9 Rs OTS ae CG ny Sesshap LISStas Why are you unattached 7? i 2 Are you a member of a trades union ? If yes, which? Neto WES {KS ALENT RCT«=NN-UNpN OTHER =H + Lipots Stfadgtppt dadefd $44-f4fit :ain Ehit 1 pth dae pat 4-4 sf e-f tt 4 AH | St: 3 0o you consider that the Registration Acts should be amended (a) to take account of the actual constitution of the profession, and (b) to increase lay representation on ARCUK ? 1i Ly Tt SEE Pti tNEHt Do you consider that the Registration Acts should be amended (a) to take account of the actual constitution of the profession, and (b) to increase lay representation on ARCUK ? 4 i uo a je “dj o e s) o e oO oH a oO - <= = ~ o vv oO o =x = oO c <= o ° wv oO me] Oo Ee oO oO = fe) aie 0 »~ co) oO oa a 2 2] =) o > uv os > o 3 a > c 0 - 4 What reforms, if any, would you suggest should be made to ARCUK's Code 7 ~ 2= » c od <= c o o » o oO is ® a J, °o ~ i} o » Cae 0 x ° o et Cc Q Can you suggest ways in which we c Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource KT Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 1978 Subject The topic of the resource Report on questionnaire to Unattached Architects, Nov 1977 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/46461c4f7d6695dec040a18fea4e0eba.pdf fe5f661ce46ed8dce53d69324d3d4a76 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Article for Building Design on ARCUK issues, Dec 1979 Description An account of the resource a boards AkCUK kKetention Fees help subsidize, 4+(2)bemoreopentothepressWUCteoersiae,be/ 64 more accessible to the public, and abandon its 8 | oiticial-secrets-style paranoia (even the papers BUIDINGIDESIGN page issue datell jan writefialtz&murray Catch unattached 6 | | | 4+directorships of firms dealing in property, construction :| or building materials. This while the KIBA Council (sane 6 people switching hats for a mu.ent) was deciding that 8 lye a director of such a firm, tar Lrom Heing disgrace; 0 ene really was quite protessionally Ea ES OG arter all. 5 During the past year, the unattached Councillors | 4+ have also pressed AhCUK to | fay. assert its independence 3 MNERBXXKXresponsibilitiesforSUL educa— oF tion so long abdicated to the KibA, whose Visiting 304 inviting nominations sent out to 4500 architects 24 are boldly erblazoned "Confidential"), | 34(3)aiamoreneedystudentsinsteadofeearchitects' a khetention Fees to fund pet E York Centre, 04 (4) stop tolerating advertising KIBA Feeeeie like the | by i1BA frembers which it goes not tolerate among unattached | architects and cevelop an approach to the | question of gavertising and reassune ate statutory | speed up the nailing of ballots in AKCUK" s elections to minimise disenfranchisement At the same time, the elected Couned llors have of unattached voters. ' redcepaeiene which treats all architects equally, ait ——t-—bt ae nm also become concerned by what appears to peldbereeard 4 ooQ)ae) “~~ ul a <csbyAKCUKfortheproperapportioningWNotre onthe 44Council, as called for by Schedule Une ot the hegistratiagn || = 6tact. Although widely reported figures indicate that the | || B{kina's U.K. architect menbership, even including all | | 124year or at best remained stable, AKCUK has hevertheless | || }deciaed that it has risen by just enough tolgive kIBA | ® i6-jan extra seat on AKCUK at the expense of elécted repre- sentation. While the elected Councillors have PELOnE accustomed Sood : |i . Se Near | shown by their constituents in past quests ones res o1L | assistance 23 cousiderable xxnkxexkxk and Support and thus hope that fotjthese in long-term arrears, either declined! further this| ] } to obstruction, harassment and abuse iron most of the | I ee members on AkCUK, they have found the interest how : | mY. i.. .i SO XNUSXNERK NS tiany more of them will take aavantage of | ad : ye : ; peene reply-paia iacility proviued by Bu and answer the | 8 344iive questions they are asking this year. They would xx }| = 35-at the same time be happy to hear the views|ot those . i i| ae aercaderswhoarenot"unattachedarchitects!|"andhope aa,Re: .,: ‘O-they too will fill in and post the questionnaire, which such as | }2-considers issues X#NXXxxXxXxkxENM directorships; kIBA contol || 4-jof AKCUK, enployee and lay representation oy the kegistra caAbite : | 6>tion Council, and AKCUK's suppression of the electeu i,::| “8-Counciliors' report and questionnaire, | 0 The Councillors welcome also —4 2j0r suggestions concerning any adai{ibnal connents issues which ought to be raised be kept in contiuerce. ‘the } 4-on AKCUK. All names will | | Y LONG HSEN page issue date 11 jan writermaltz&murray catchunattached 7 | | | ———— issue date]] jan writer naitz&murrayCatChynattached & | | elected Councillors can be reached on any matter of | } | concern by writing to John Murray, c/o AKCUK, 73 Hallam Street, London Wl. BUD INGIDESIGH 3/3 élp end | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ie ; | | Yes: No: Unaecided: 172 (650) 64 (2440) 29 I%»( 110) | f" | | | | option of not using | | | | | permit architects the Conditions ot Engagement?" the KIBA Yes: No: 170 (64%) 79 (30%) Undecided: 16 (6%) || Yes: 295 (96%) No: Undecided: 5 (2) 2 5 (2%) | | | |j | | | | | } | | | BUD INGIDESIGN ‘hesults of last questionvaire o “should AKCUK change its Code to permit architects to “Should AKCUK follow the recomuendations|oi the Monopélies Comiission by changing its Code to | “Should AKCUK take stronger measures to h discrimination in enploynent against arctriitects who page issue datell jan writer Maltz&murray catchunattached 9 practice as linited liability companies are not menbers of the kiBA?" mMoOQa=NM ‘r >?) N eeeones Sete eee tee Katee | | | 1j } ; © la. bo you think that control of ARCUK by wc RIBA Source is in the best interests of | 26 2 B. give employee architects representation on AKCUK in proportion to their present nuneri¢al streneth in the protession? Yes | 30-4 page issue date 11 jan writerMaltz&murray catchunattached 10 | | 24New questionnaire: QUESTIONS 4jn. bo you think AKCUK should continue to ice the 5 | 2 012. elected Councillors to insert a report ana question- naire in AkCUK's annual mailing to tnediiconertnentey Should AKCUK amend its Code to allow architects to be| 42 | owners or directors of firms dealing in property, 44- construction or building materials? | = 1645. Uo you think the Architects hegistration ict 1931 | —18- Should be retormed to 20-4 their A. allow all architects airectly to elect ,representa- 22 24 tives on AkCUK ? Yes | No | 24 No| || S| A. the public? Yes | io No| A Bb. the protession? Yes 4| No| 645. SNSNIMXAKEHRXARSNMALESANONEXLKD | Although the architects Kegistratiou Act 1901 allows 85 for anple lay representation on aAlCUX, those bodies 0 tree to appoint lay members invariably rétise to do So. bo you think that the act should be reformed to | UIUDINGIDESIGN require a lay presence on ARCUK? LiaVe SPACE ON FUKM FOR "COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS"”........ ||| | 2 New_questionnaire: BACKGROUND INFO TO APPEAR ON FORM | ete Name 6/2. Address go. AKCUK status | | | 10+ a. "unattachea" architect | | | b. architect member ot 144 ¢. architect, not member a. under 5 b. 35-44 the KiBA | || of hIBA, but meiber of AA, | || |) (check one): | | 5 Cc. 45654 | } d. 55 or over ) sex (check one): | || a. tenale b. nale 38 a. employee, public | | sector | 04 b. employee, 421 c. employer private sector | ! | | | |: A | d. seli-enployed = e. unemployed 84 f. retired 94 g- other | 14 KIBA, does your with no employees enployer | | for == page issue date 11 jan writermaltz&murray catchunattached 11 g | FAS, LAAS or STAMP | |' 1 d. not on Kegister of Architects | 44. age group (check one): | ; roma GOT —— )6. employment status (check one): - It you are an employee architect and a metiber of the 2 A. require you to be a member Yes | | ot the KIBA? :| B. pay your RIBA suhscription? Yes | 12+ No| | 14-8. if you are an architect and do not consider yourself wn a 16 | a nenber in good standing of the hibaA, Ad, ITAAS, FAS or STAMP, Gid you recieve otiicial “nomination papers" 20+ fron AKCUK in November 1979? No | | SUD ESTER age issue date 1) jan writemaltz&murray CatChinnattacheda 12 Oo a eee ieeanpitanendornesiamsants Hugh Pearman Building vesign 5U Caluerwood Street London SE 18 6QH bear iiugh, 14 Holudale koad London Nw 6 19 december 1979 tHlere is the article (2000 words) on the elected Ai.CUK Councillors' report and questionnaire, tozether with the new questionuaire and initio. on the last one which your studio can vraw into bar graphs. Although the questiennaires aire a product o1 the repre- resentutives of the “unattached” architects acting as 2 sroup, the article itselt shoulu he creuited to John hurray and myself, who have written it on behalf ot the gnoup. He and I can be described in the byeline as "“nembers of ANCUK elected by unattached architects." Following our recent telephone conversations, I confirm our agreement as Ltollows, upon which terms the article and questionnaire is submitted: 1. BU to publish article with questionnaire in issue of 1] January ISt. 2. jWuestionnaire to be on reply-paid facility provided by GBD 3. Jobu Murray and myself, as authors, to be paid the standard Buy journelists rate for teatures plus £15 to help cover expenses incurred in article anda questionndire. 4. bv may open ana tally the auswers to the questionnaire but all questionnairs received by BLD will be turned over to john Murray and niyself (on behslt ot the elected Councillors) who will write any Lollow-up report in Bu on the results. Such a Lollow-up article @r articles) is to be cone on the sane terns as the present article. 5. All names anu addresses ol; guestionnairs to retain confidential to the elected Councillors. 6. ‘Ihe article and questionnaire are consioerea to be in the conmon interests of the elected Councillors, bu and the profession. 7. While aimed prinarily at “unattached" architects, all interested Hv readers wiil he invited to reply. A space will also be provided for conrents. &. As the article and questionnaire are on a “sensitive" subject and was written on behalf of and with the consent of the group of representatives, Bb wili clear with the authors any alterations or celetions tt night wish to make. (iif one of the Live questions needs to be aeletea, it should be no. 5.) AS I Shall be away trom 2U/12 to G/1, please contact John \.urray at O40-6651 (work) or 540-4055 (home) if such consultation is necessary. Yoursa2siHnpk‘ely cc;: John hiurray PA Y Hob Malt (4 BUIDINGIES|GN page issue date 11 jan writermaltz & murragatchunattached | | "Unattached" architects by now accustomed to recei :| the expense of their elected AkCUK Counciliors may have | been disappointed when they opened the envelope enclosing the official “nomination papers" sent to them by the : hegistration Council this past November. inia caretully— : i4- orchestrated nove ot unprecedented vindictiveness, and 1 in violation of even AKCUK's own Standing Orders, the | || kKiPA Council nominees who still control AkCUK pushed a 20-wotion through the kegistration Council's October meeting! >Jthanning further reports and questionnaires.| ;a3 | | vespite angspnxkxxuxxe unassailable majority on || e6441.CUK, the Portland Place delegation apparently seens : junable to cone to terms with the continuing |support which sO/the unattached electorate has shown tor those New archi- | 32-1ecture Movement members representing them and with | these Councillors forthright defenge both of the rights of unattached architects and of the public interest. .8ihe KlséA spokesmen said they believed the enone and o4questionnaixe drawn up by the elected Councillors were | 124no longer needed now that, in the event of ne election, _| ae ee Fecaeklae S-personai statenent with their election iniarmation. 84No rnatter that Councillors and candivgates might not be | ithe sume people, that such an electiog the folowing ‘year might not xxkexyinge be required, or tiat the t }“unattached representatives—--the only elected Councillors al s ; bail : 44candidates would have the opportunity oi iugluding a ! ee ores {-ing a brief report and questionnaire prepared by and at o page issue date 1) jan writemaltz & murrayatch unattached 2 | | on AKCUK---found such a report and questionnaire useful ‘ in carrying out their responsibilities on AKCUK. Iron- |}ically, it was a suggestion in response to jone of their :| previous questionnaires that Lea the unattached repre- | sentatives to press AhCUK to change its hegulatibns to aliow candidates to include such a personal statenent! | It was only at the recent December meeting of | the Council that the RIBA'S strategy of attlempting to silence the representatives of the unattached becane CU ceeast —S more obvious. ,ihey retused even to allow unattached Councillors to speak in opposition to majority policies, | to raise the question of the apportionment of seats on | ARCUK, to put relevant motions or to record! opposition ;| votes. | | The nine elected Councillors whohave| been repre- | ' senting unattached architects during the 1979-80 session |---John Allan, Freter Cutmore, sue Jackson, Marion koberts | || |}lan tod, Lddie walker, Tom woolley and the authors——-- i jare theretore gratetul tor the opportunity Building |Design is now ofiering to thank jreplied to last yeay’s questionnaire, to report back on | the results and on their activities } of the past year, ,.and their successors in the coning year. | | Last year, without the benefit of a r¢pily-paid -2.3|° 4-who 1eceived the questionnaire replied to three questions those architects who BUIDINGD ESIGN AS nN & TM ©© 5 and to present a new questionnaire to help buide them j{envelope, 265 ot the nearly 4500 unattached! architects ; age issue date 11 jan writemaltz & nurragatchinattached & |’ | concerning linited liability companies, AhCUK's support z| tor the kiBA fee scale and AkKCUK action (or lack thereof)) to aiscourage discrimination in enployment lagainst the || + growing number of architects---now acknowlédged by even| |i the kibA-controlled AKCUK to be over 22% of those on | the Kegister---who choose not to be members of the KkIBA. ! | The previous year's more open-ended survey had, as reported in BD (16 June 1978), concentrated on tinding 'i out who were the unattached (literally, those people on the Kkegister of Architects who are not members of one or more of the six organisations, including the RIBA, | ; 24- enshrinea in Schedule I of the Architects Hegistration 26-1 act 1951) 4nd -whoLare Mrs onlit Tea to pled represen | 284 xabix-ts Use » Why they were unattached, | >whether and how they would like AhCUK's Code of Protes- | San=~. ‘. e| sional Conduct retormed, and what further action they é 344 would like their representatives on AKCUK to take. It | 36+ also showea a six to one majority in Favout of amending | }' 35> the Kkgistration Acts to take account of the present | me composition of the protessionnx (by now 8% jemployees) i and an even split on the issue of increased lay repre- | 4 sentation on AnCUK. The RIBA Council, which is permitted | by the 1931 Act to appoint lay people to ARCUK neverthe- less appoints exclusively architect menbers o1 the hiBA. Last year, while the unattached electea Bury employees, the KitA Council was appointing management larchitects to fill 90% of its forty seats on ACUK. | HUROE OESIEL wal Nh ' ‘t rn rennarendriesennen cc c cw oO) hohm=k 4 is00oBbN Nm2 —D> c2@UO}aeN peereesmeaiearanaeanan jeleechaasmans o rece ed nce eOEEE OD | NM 2 BUIOINGIDESIGN page issue date 11 jan writemaltz & murrayatch unattached 4 | : This past year, unattached architects |responding 44 to the questionnaire came out solidly in favour, by 6 | a nearly three to one margin, of changing AKCUK'S Code g4 to permit architects to practice as limited| liability }| }°..=| 404 companies. As Johu Parris recently noteu 10 bv (7 vccenber (2-1 1979), Section 17 of the Kegistration Act would appear i} ne : : | 144 to allow linited companies and since AhCUKSs Code has no| 46-1 iorce in law architects are in tact alreauy free to ; |1 18+ practice as limited companies, though the presence ot | 29-4 the Code ban obviously serves to coiutuse and intimidate ’! | | 22 people. kven the Code, oi course, has never prohibited :| 244 architects irom practicing with linited lidbility in | 254 the form of a co-op under the Industrial and Provident .| Societies Act rather than the Companics Act. The elected Couucillors also took note ot the 30-4 324 364 ing to force architects to use the k1iBA Conditions ot | 384 ungagement, which incluaes the KiBbA Fee Scale. 64% were :;| 40-4 in iavour of changing the Code, SU were opposed and Aor 121 144 were undecided. | | | |' clear majority in iavour of AKCUK tollowing the reconmen-— dations ot the Nonopolies Comiission sressh no longer try—|} On the third guestion, whether AkCUK ,ought to take | 65 stronger measures to help end discrimination in employ—- j 8 rent against architects who choose not to be members of :C}. ! 04{ the KIBA, the elected Councillors received /a‘ near-unani- af nous response, with 96% in itavour ot stronger action, 44 2% opposed and 2) undecttiea. Although the Architects | :u} i) o Sieealateneresans UU Deol oage issue date 11 jan writermaltz&murray Catchunattached 5 | | registration ‘ses: ; lee the ofticially recognised quuliiication tor an archi- Sjtect, although KIbA membership represents nd bighber 8 /qualitication Gnkect, many corporate marvels of the RIBA i0Jare not even architects) and although Portland Place — 319 4 propaganda claims that the RIBA is a voluntary hody, 12 46 promotion to be menbers of the RIDA. kule 2's of the jAKCUK Code, enjoining each architect not to|"act in 20>disregard of the professional qualitications of those to <2\whon he gives authority, responsibility or employment" <47seems to be one of those parts of the Code Which the 26 7ik1BA-dominatea ALCUK preiters not to enLorce, ‘the unattached Councillors have becond increasingly concerned during the past year by AKCUK'S very selective 2 japproseh to enforcement of its Code and inté¢rpretation lot "Gissraceful conduct" for which it may strike an ji| sO4architect off the Kegister. The present rulérs of ARCUK || 384seen to concentrate on enforcing those manele ot the jwwode which establish a commercial cartel anOe private |khegistration Acts 19351 and 1958 established sone employers still require applicants tor!posts or 2architectural firms while ignoring those saydees nxwhich protect the public. For exaiiple, while AKcud has thus fe | i > | o>>Df ar taken no action against architects SO acd in joiticial enquiries into buiiuing disasters Led have j cee thelivesofwanypeople,ithasindiqatedits 2intention to strike off for "disgraceiul conauct" an sad : , | Syav ~ architect who intringed Rule 2.1 of the Code, forbidding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bob Maltz Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource December 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Article for Building Design on ARCUK issues, Dec 1979 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c72c1f2de394362452f511677ff5603a.pdf 70df5afd00e542a87919d44ae9f15dfa 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Article for The Architects’ Journal re results of Elected Councillors Questionnaire, March 1980 Description An account of the resource Dan Cruikshank The architects' Journal 9 Queen Anne's Gate London SWIH SBY Dear Dan, 14 Holmdale Road London NW 6 31 march 1980 Yours sincerely, Yee rN Pm 72 1,N¢4 Vine C \ Bob Maltz Here is the 1000-word article on the etestem results of the elected AKCUK Councillors' questionnaire, together with the necessary information tor bar graphs which your studio can araw (see examples of Figures 1 and 2). Like the previous article, this one is written on behalf of the elected Councillors acting us a group, though the article should be credited to the authors, John Murray and myself. Following my letter of 16 January ana our telephone conversation of 18 Siarch, I coniirw our agreement as follows, upon wnich terms the article and intormation are submitted: 1. The AJ to publish article in issue of 9 April 1980. 2. John murray and tiyself, as authors, to be paid the fee of One Hundred Pounds. S. As the article is on a "sensitive" subject and has been written on hehalf of ane with the consent of the group oi elected representatives, the AJ will clear with the authors any alterations, aduitions or deletions it wight wish to make. (if such con- Sultation is neces~ary after 3 April, when i shall be away, please contact John Murray: work 34U-8U31, home 340-4559.) of the RIBA. 61 per cent of employee architects responding maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 1 End ARCUK's “ban” on directorships, end the RIBA Council's control of ARCUK and give all architects the right to elect their representatives on ARCUK, with employee architects given These are some of the conclusions to emerge from the over 500 responses to the recent questionnaire drawn up by the elected architect members of AhCUK and pub- lished in the AJ of January SO. Despite the seemingly controversiel seven tuents. Where marked differences of attitude did emerge, employee and self-employed these were more often between architects on the one hand other hand, rather than and architect members of the RIBA. Of the total of 524 cent came from people working, responses received, 94 per m@ or employers, in the protession. were employees, 18 per cent without employees. 70 per cent of these employers and 12 self-employed Among architects responding,y(again, the total), 32 per cent were 94 per cent of "unattached" and 67%,members their fair share of seats. nature of most of the, questions, the results on all but one were unequivocal. Only on the Architects Kegistration on ARCUK was the response other hand, a whopping 91% to allow the elected Councillors questionnaire in AKCUK's question of reforming the Acts to require a lay presence tairly evenly divided. On thought AKCUK should continue to insert a report and annual mailing to their consti- and employer architects between "unattached" architects the on the insert Fig. 1 insert Fig. 2 were RIBA members and 29 per cent of these said their employer required them (contrary to employment legisla- tion) to join the kKIBA. 99 per cent of employer architects responding were kIBA members. OL the self-employed, 70 per cent were RIBA members. Of all the respondents, 70% were under 45 years old. Only 5 per cent were women. These were the results, question by question: 1. "Do you think ARCUK should continue to allow the elected Councillors to insert a report and question- naire in ARCUK's annual mailing to their constituents?” (Last year, the RIBA Council's appointees who control ARCUK forced through a ban on further reports and ques— tionnaires.) Not only did $7 per cent ot "unattached" architects answer "yes," but even 87 per cent of KIBA members did. 2. "Should ARCUK amend its Code to allow architects to be owners or directors of firms dealing in property, construction or building materials?” 57 per cent answered "yes," with "unattached" archi- (65 per cent) tects more enthusiastically in favour of the change than RIBA members (53 per cent). On this issue there was little difference of opinion between employees, employers and self-employed. 3. "Do you think the Architects Kegistration Act 1931 should be reformed to: A: allow all architects directly to elect their represen- tfLAP PDOL2!OUPem maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 2 insert Fig. 3A tatives on ARCUK? B: give employee architects representation on AKCUK in proportion to their nunerical strength in the profession?" {At present, only those considered "unattached" may elect ARCUK Counciliors and “constituencies” are drawn on the basis of organisational membership rather than employment status.) 86 per cent favoured extending the franchise to all architects, with a strong vote of confidence in democracy coming from the "unattached": 99 per cent! 79% of all architect members of the RIBA who responded favoured elections. Among them, 85 per cent of employees, and even 64 per cent of employers, WEKEXxNX<HxXBUEX answered "yes." Likewise, 70 per cent said “yes" to giving employee architects their fair share of the profession's seats on ARCUK. Only the employers (36 per cent) opposed the idea. 80 per cent of employees were in tavour, as were 57 per cent of self-employed. 4. "Do you think that control of ARCUK by the PIBA Council is in the best interests of: A: the public? B. the profession?" (Ever since Parliament, refusing to give the RIBA a monopoly on the use of the term "architect" for its own members, set up ARCUK and kegistration, the RIBA Council has stopped at nothing to keep ARCUK a puppet of Portland Place. Through its control of ARCUK, the RIBA Council gave insert Fig. 3B maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 3 insert Fig. 4A itself nomination rights to 41 ot the 68 seats on ARCUK this year.) Not only did a massive 80 per cent reply that control of ARCUK by the RIBA Council was not in the public interest, but even 70 per cent of RIBA members agreed! Employees (87 per cent) and self-employed (84 per cent) were most strongly opposed to RIBA control of ARCUK; only the employers (49 per cent) had their doubts. Even more surprisingly, nearly as many respondents, 76 per cent, said that control of AkCUK by the R1BA Council was not even in the best interests of the profession, and this included 66 per cent ot responses from architect members oi the RIBA itself! Both employees (83 per cent) and selt-employed (78 per cent) favoured an independent AFKCUK. As many as 47 per cent of the employers responding thought control of ARCUK by "their" Council was not in the best interests of the profession. The views of “unattached” architects who responded were nearly unanimous on these issues. 9&8 per cent thought RIBA control of AkKCUK was not in the best interests of the public and 95 per cent, ot the profession. 5. "A?though the Architects Registration Act 1931 allows for ample lay representation on AKCUK, those bodies free to appoint lay members invariably refuse to do so. Do you think that the Act shoula be reformed to require a lay presence on AkCUK?" insert Fig. 4B maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 4 insert Fig. 4A itself nomination rights to 41 ot the 68 seats on ARCUK this year.) Not only did a massive 80 per cent reply that control of ARCUK by the RIBA Council was not in the public interest, but even 70 per cent of RIBA members agreed! Employees (87 per cent) and self-employed (84 per cent) were most strongly opposed to RIBA control of ARCUK; only the employers (49 per cent) had their doubts. Even more surprisingly, nearly as many respondents, 76 per cent, said that control of AkKCUK by the R1BA Council was not even in the best interests of the profession, and this included 66 per cent of responses from architect members oi the RIBA itself! Both employees (83 per cent) and selt-employed (78 per cent) favoured an independent AKCUK. As many as 47 per cent of the employers responding thought control of ARCUK by "their" Council was not in the best interests of the profession. The views of “unattached” architects who responded were nearly unanimous on these issues. 98 per cent thought RIBA control of AkCUK was not in the best interests of the public and 95 per cent, ot the profession. 5. "A?though the Architects Registration Act 1931 allows for ample lay representation on AKRCUK, those bodies free to appoint lay members invariably refuse to do so. Do you think that the Act should be reformed to require a lay presence on AkCUK?" insert Fig. 4B maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 4 insert Fig. 5 52 per cent of those responding said "yes," but there was a clear difierence of opinion between the "unattached," strongly in fuvour (64 per cent), and RIBA members (44 per cent), as well as between the employers who were opposed (43 per cent) and employees (v3 per cent) and self-employed (55 per cent) in favour. Ihe questionnaire also asked those architects who did not consider thenselves members in good standing ot the RIBA, AA, IAAS, FAS or STAMP whether they received official nomination papers trom ARCUK in November 1979, as all “unattached" architects, theoretically, should. Inexplicably, only 57 per cent replied that they had; 43 per cent said they had not. Many people who responded also took the trouble to include comments and suggestions. For example, although not a subject covered by the questionnaire, quite a few respondenots, many of whom were RIBA members, wished to see control of architectural education and entry into the protessioen taken out of the RIBA's hands. The following comments give some idea ot the very broad range of those received. maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 5 y maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 6 HOARE ---a non-architect, under S5 years old, public sector "The N.A.M. cannot be considered representative of the "unattached." ---an architect member of the RIBA, over 54 years old, private sector &-nIn theory AXCUK should have been the body which not only democratised British architecture, out also reformed professionalism in Britain across a bveaad front. In practice the RIBA"sS control and domination was an act of hypocritical compromise which denied both the publics’ interest in Scrutinising the affairs: of the profession, and the Deofession’s own interests in organising its own affairs representatively. Fifty years after the Rezistration Acts ve still have the same problems and the same legal structure. It works for no ones fre Registration Acts should be reformed to constitute ARCUK as it was originally intended. The problem is, thouzh, tecl(ororession is in too much. disarray to even consider that its public responsibilities are not being © Met, and the pudlic has no r2al notion of how its professions Should be brought to heel." Bal aes => ‘ tfa — Carnplouec! ~ a AY oO) —————/ ~——/ See ee malrz a Conga Sea Cs eCVenwy Mm eu) iw _ ri y| & wv Ue IeO 5 Jey oe gO 20 ec eciwe \|- eeeNe eres e SS FSeune & wa) (O) (a) ese i 1 eer = | mi) Lj it met ee - . ) \ D \ ' seSSSSa SAEEROPct “| al oa maltz - mn SAU AY SNao-l +P 49 COFiHOR Coal iSBAS :Or. ‘ue 9Voy We rrr | Seen Es |12 Pee)Oserieceeeegee \ to | in dQ EN) GAS CaylO ar HG)|eeLiG)e eae CON eS) a c ND ri ND tite) 2 so oe {lo pone nf Sa) eo ap Sa) OP CON cay aes Oe (Vy a Co) (ae ace Se)58) =sO RM SS ep 9 GS) @ Ue oa ——ee: |! |e aman VA \! bef eeeee- ha Fas If i) eal [Salen tees iat ae, } oh) Im iV) {a Li Yim Dey, Aaa > S&S Wee N of ra La Pee Sees ez Sw es SI <= Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bob Maltz Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource March 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Article for The Architects’ Journal re results of Elected Councillors Questionnaire, March 1980 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/103dc5807ba2f7928c88f9c8e713974e.pdf 1bc57b345d16fb44e0b00f22784e8f9f 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Representation of Unattached Architects, 1979/80 Description An account of the resource Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS INEGIBTRATION! ACTS Fes! TO 1830 73 Hallam Street London W1N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5851 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. REPRESENTATION OF "UNATTACHED' ARCHITECTS election were as follows: John Duncan Murray 500 Robert Maltz 492 Thomas Adrian Woolley 489 Ian James Tod 478 John Stewart Allan 433 David Greensett Robson 391 Peter John Cutmore 356 Susan Mary Jackson 343 Marion Elizabeth Ruth Roberts 338 Edward Walker 337 Maxwell John Buckingham Jackson 333 Hugh Philip Massey 315 Ian Peter Cooper 299 The 35 disallowed were as follows: lb 9 February 1979 16 unsigned envelopes 6 wrong signatures 3 spoiled papers 10 had no inner envelopes ar H M Smith Y/ue Scrutineers Z WaneasKeeble Election of Members of the Council under sub-paragraph (vii) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the principal Act for the year 1979/80 We, the undersigned scrutineers, report that the votes cast in this 772 voting papers were received, of which 737 were counted. Copies to Councillors Nominees ae phn, ( RE: -Unattached Election 1979 David Roebuck 25, St, Georges Avenue, LONDON N,7 OBB 01=607=4103 et Ol = 828 = 2323 (Office) lstDecember, 1978 5. John Allan 6. Ian Cooper 7.- Eddie Walker 8. Susan Jackson 9. #Marion Roberts >< 1, For those who are standing Existing Councillors Existing Committee Members (i) Constituent Body (ie. state "Unattached") (ii) Year on Register (iii) Age (iv) Present Employer/Professional post wih (v) 100 word statement of Committee ;experience (architectural or otherrwise) (State that you are a N.A.M member) Please send to me a letter to ARCUK saying that you accept nomination 2. For those not standing Anne Delaney, Alan Lipman Please write to ARCUK stating you decline nomination. You will now have received from ARCUK the nominations for the 1979 Election at the Cheltenham Congress the following list was agreed to fill the 9 places available : 1. Tom Woolley ) 2. John Murray 3. Bob Maltz 4. Ian Todd In addition, Alan Lipman is to be nominated to the B.A.E. and an out-of-towner is to be nominated to Admissions Committee. Unlessyouhavealreadydoneso,wouldyoupleaseensurethatyousendmeyour(a statement by return as follows := aK 3. Everybody Please note that you should send in the nomination list with the 9 names overleaf before Christmas, but after the next Council Meeting 13th December 1978. This is a tactical move so as not to show our hand before the crucial debates that may take place in that meeting. There is to be a pre-meeting on December 13, at top Floor of 10, Perey Street, London W.1, commencing at 11.00. Please ensure you attend. PK 4. 1978 Councillors Please note your contribution to this years' unattached letter is £3.38p payable to me. Please let me have your cheque by return, Yours sincerely, AyeONComingks(SDIraySSeS fen g«apecAn firs h CAmL ce Pro mahk bare Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK/ Unattached Reps Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feb 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Representation of Unattached Architects, 1979/80