12 10 310 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/1988d84d7531747a9847cd759f25d4d3.pdf 5ae56132aec1d709719ae48b7534de6f 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 BUILDERS VERSUS GENTLEMEN BD article by Luder/Parris 3 October 1980 Description An account of the resource -BUILDERS VERSUS Architects’ organisations have been striving to keep away the sullying touch of commerce ever since they began. John Parris looks at some of the gentlemen’s clubs which preceded today’s institutions. century a lecturer in 1867 said: “The speculative builder superceded the accomplished architect and erected, for the nobility and gentry, rows of square boxes of brick or stucco houses as mansions, without any pretensions to effective decoration or distinguished aspect.”’® The rows of square boxes of brick or stucco houses are those which add so much elegance to Londonandwhichtodayfetch enormous prices. And many are now theoffices or residences of architects. 1See: Cart-Saunders and Wilson The professions, 1933; Papworth On the superintendents of English buildings in the Middle Ages, 1860 RIBA Transactions; Bri The architect in history, 1928 RIBA Journal XXXII; Bnggs The architect in history 1934; Knoop and Jones The decline of the mason architect, 193 RIBA Journal XL; 1951 =i|GENTLEMEN AN associationofpersons measureboththeproblemsand andissuedareportastheAssoci- HKendallinPallMallEastand carrying on the practice of the qualities of temperament ated Architects. But the “faction” decided to forma society restric- commonly associated with to which reference has been ted to architects and excluding architecture was first formed artists. made soon appeared, and before surveyors. This became the in 1834 — long after other “He lives in a world dominated long Soane wassuing inthe High Society of British Architects. professions. by fashion and split up into Court his fellow members for Members were to be disquali- Theassociaoftbiarorisntesrs,aieinsandcoteries...factionhavingdescribedthepilastersfiedfor: theInnsofCourtda,tefromthe hasbecomeadistinctivefeature outsidetheBankofEnglandas ( measuring and valuing 15thcentury,theRoyalCollege ofarchitecturalpolitics.The “scoredlikeribsofpork”. worksonbehalfofbuilders, of Physicians was founded in RIBA isavery active and ener- 1518 and theCollege of Apoth- getic body with much valuable ecariesin 1617. Eventhe Veter- work toits credit. But itisagitated inary College dates from 1791 and restless...”” Other bodies which appeared except those executed from the around this time were the member's own design or direc- London Architecture Society tions; Luder/Parris File and the Institution of Civil Engineers from 1818. This was published in 1933. Tsonsi Jinarchi bli oftheArchi i This prospectus appears to articletosuggestwhyarchitectsfadexistedinthe18thcentury®. Societyin1831toprovidelibrary havebeendraftedbyagentle- Itisbeyond thescopeofthis are the Johnny-come-lately of the professional world. Clearly, throughout history, there have been people who perfomed the function of an architect: the transition from masons and buildteorasseparatedfunction ofa structural designer must be traced elsewhere’. But on the October 20, 1791 andclubfaciliftoritehsosewho man named James Savage°, four practising architects met had studied the profession of who should therefore be in the Thatched House Tavern architecture in an architects’ honoured as the author of the had no connection with the (in 1806) and the Architects having any interest or parti- cipatinoany trade orcontract and Antiquaries Club (1819). Various informal societies of Of more sao aCe was the connected with building. and resolved to establish an office for five years. It merged, first code of practice for British building trade in one or otherof Hamilton The architect's pedigree, The Cambridge Jounal IV; Summer- Architects’ Club to dine on the in 1842, with the Institute of architects. its forms, from the Smiths of son Architecture in Britain, 1953. first Thursday of every month British Architects. On June 4, 1834 this club was Warwick, who were builders 2 Op cit 184-5. at5o'clockprecisely*- Thatassociationbeganata convertedintotheInstituteof firstandarchitectslast,toSir 3SeeColvin,Biographicaldictionary The following year, according meeting in the Freemasons’ British Architects. Jeffery Wyatville, the honourable of British architects, 1954 16 et seq. to the notebook of Sir John Tavern on January 8, 1834 “of The census of 1841 records entation of whose name 4” Gotch (Ed) Growth and work of Soane®* their dinner topic was such persons as have been 1 675 architects in the United di not conceal the fact that he the RIBA, 1934. But as Carr Saunders and Wilson have pointed out”: “Architecture differs from every other profession...in that the techniquecontainsanaesthetic conclusionsastothis,forSir Some preatsthaetmneeting were,infact,builders. profitable partnership byJohn i ‘ element...thearchitectisnotJohnrecordsnone. objectedtothepresencethere Colvin’writesofthearchi- reneealargebuilderofPeColaviyn,opcit24. only aprofessional man but also After that they considered of “measurers’’ and they met tects practising before 1840: Pimlico.” ® Donaldson RIBA Transactions BoltonPortorfSairiJothnSoane, “to define the profession and educated for and are practising Kingdom but, as the census of was descended from a typical 1927. ualifications of an architect’. solely the p ion of archi 1851 i it isi P ibl 18thcentury buildingfamily,or Miscellaneous papers connected pparently they reached no and surveyor’. to determine how manyof these isthe bimserwas jaken intoa with the formation of the RIBA, 1834: an artist and he shares in some “the cause of the frequent fires” privately in the rooms of “There were few of them who BUILDING DESIGN, October 3, 1980 15 Of the first half of the 19th 1867, XVIII 2. he professional teamis the one that stays together — and that's the way itiswith Terrain soll, waste and overflow systems What keeps them togethers the solvent weld joint. Simply made, and every bit as strong and rigid as the parent material This makes Terrain systems ideal for prefabrication under controlled factory conditions maximum speed of installation which means minimum waste and And because the complete system )rigid, trequires fewer fixings, jing you time and money. Terrain systems for yourself — youll find good solid reasons for insisting on the professionals NE( TELEX: 965150 py |FREEPHONE Ring3115forimmediatetechnicaladvice Thepro syst For instant information tick {1s 7] on reader inquiry 16 BUILDING DESIGN, October 3, 1980 Barty Phillips visited the Milan Furniture Fair. THE pressoffice attheMilan product glamour —a situation Furniture Fair offers free which seems only too enviable Wines lunch: separate _ tables, cinnamon coloured linen tablecloths and napkins, with a wine waiter and choice of red or white wine and mineral water. over here! At the show there is hardly anything between the height of design flair and the plethora of rococo reproduction and Stylish bad trad: secretaires and armoires carved in wild flights of fancy and vividly coloured No Conran has appeared to Gaetano Pesce’s “Sunset of New York” for Cassina. bridge the gap. % Compare this with the sau- sage roll and Formica facilities of Earl’sCourtorBirmingham andyouwillgetaflavourofthe electroniclightsmakeupbyfar difference between the Italian the largest section of the fair. and British sense of display. Peg lights by Pesce. B and BTtalia —fashion leaders — had its usual spec- tacular display with thousands of white polystyrene Christmas tree balls hanging from a navy blue ceiling and chairs uphols- tered in white. This was echoed bravely in the international standbyColalndiHaynesswith itsnow reduced Theme range. Itseemed to be doinga briskish trade. Many of the big firms use their exhibition space simply to confirm their confidence in something well established: thus Cassina concentrated on the now classic Corbusier Grand Comfort and kept its surprises for those who got to the showroom. Perhaps due to the financial situation, perhaps partly due to the nagging of the journalists, Italian design does seem to be leaning slightly towards the There is an internal fight more practical. going on this year between Arflex Familiglia della Strips talian journalists and the by Cini Boeri started the design world. Design is too sensible fashionfor quilted sofa expensive according to the covers which unzipped to journalists and designers become bedclothes at night; names are dragged in to give a this year’s new design, Alfiona, \culpted “Dalila” chair by Pesce for Cassina. If your instant reaction to the thought of a flat roof is “Trouble!” you can hardly be blamed Because many flat roofs built as recently as the ’70s were trouble! But now the whole subject is due for re-appraisal, for the very g00d reason that in the last ten years the flat roof has advanced more effectively than in the previous five hundred Then... There are a number of causes why old-style flat roofs acquired their bad reputation — not the least of them, incidentally, being poor design or faulty workmanship by inexperienced contractors Generally, however, itwas acase of some of the materials available being inadequate for the job The continuous flexing of modern lightweight roof structures, caused by thermal and wind movement, were alone sufficient to rupture many of the waterproofing membranes. With the advent of modern heating, glazing and insulation methods the problems were compounded Condensation caused by increased temperatureansd decreased ventilation resulted in the roofing materials being ‘attacked’ from below as well as from above —a two-way action with which they were not flexible enough to cope and now... Picking the right material for the particular application has always been important, a task made easier now that such materials as mastic asphalts and the BS747 roofing felts have been joined by the new high- performance membranes and insulating materials made possible by modern technology. ~ Among these membranes are the many different types and thicknesses of flexible polyesters and polymeric materials, coverings specially designed for use on lightweight insulated roof-decks New potentialities There is, in fact, no longer any need fora flat roof to mean trouble. Indeed, the high- performance materials currently plush upholstered beds with rry carpets and twinkling SEH ge: g Hi ‘ THE BEAUTIFUL AND THE 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 03-Oct-80 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/9bea0675b1c8129e9592b803a39c1375.pdf 4b281c2c9370f70a1d8a50da2377e687 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 FAIR PLAY WITH MONOPOLY? AJ Articles 16 November 1977 Description An account of the resource The editors Editor: Leslie Fairweather RIBA News and features editor: Peter Davey BArch, RIBA Assistant news editors: Dan Cruickshank BA Nick Wates BSc Deyan Sudjic BSc, DipArch Buildings editor: Patrick Hannay DipArch, DipUD Assistant buildings editor: Lynne Jackson Technical editor: Maritz Vandenberg BA(Arch) Assistant technical FAIR PLAY WITH MONOPOLY? The Monopolies Commission report on architects’ fees is an extraordinary document (p943 to p947). After four years of effort and the expenditure of untold public money, the mountain has brought forth a mouse. Its arguments for doing away with the fee scale are largely unsubstantiated. Nowhere, for instance, does the Commission analyse the relationship between architects’ costs and the fees they charge: an objective study would have substantiated the validity of the Commission’s claim that architects sometimes overcharge their clients for the work they do. Instead, the Commission, as in virtually every other case, relies on the arguments of prejudice: ‘there are obvious reasons’ for criticising the fee scale; ‘the client may [our italics] pay a fee which is disproportionately large’ and As worrying as the Commission’s prejudice and dogma is its inability to see architects as part of a great industry. The building professions are virtually unique in that their work—comparatively inexpensive in itself—results in massive expenditure of capital. editors: Barrie Evans MSc Jane Taylor BSc(Eng) Patricia Tutt AssocPoly(Arch), RIBA soon. Assistant editor: building economics Helen Heard AADip, RegArch, MSc(Econ) Production/art editor: Tim Cottrell Assistant production/art editor: Colin Jenkins Sub editors: Carol Hemsley BA Patrick Tierney BA Drawings editor: Louis Dezart Photographer: Bill Toomey Librarian: Dorothy Pontin ALA Editorial secretary: June Hoad Editorial administrator: Gillian Collymore Editorial director: D. A. C. A. Boyne CBE, HonFRIBA In one of its more offhand moments, the Commission remarks that the integrity of the architect will prevent him taking corrupt payments from suppliers and contractors. This may be so, but if the fee scale were to be made non-mandatory, there would be strong pressure to offer a low fee and to make up the difference between that and the normal fee by increasing the cost of the building (remember that the Commission would like to see the qss’ mandatory fee scale abolished too). This would be perfectly legal, very difficult (and expensive) to detect and, doubtless, be widespread: many contractors use a similar technique of bidding low and increasing the cost by claims. Once the profession has been forced into the market place, some architects would undoubtedly adopt similar tricks—yet the Commission never even considers the possibility. Is this kind of hard commercial behaviour, which saves pennies while losing pounds, what the public really wants? There is ample evidence from the report itself that the majority of clients favour some kind of fee scale and that they value professional ethics. The Commission is also stricken with myopia when it looks at quality. The Commission seems to think that the only kind of quality a client cares about is the ability of an architect to get his drawings done on time, accurately and so on. Yet just as important—more so—is the look, feel and performance of the buildings he designs. This kind of quality is not apparently understood by the Commission—so it is perhaps not surprising that the argument that fee cutting would lead either to more expensive buildings or to skimped, bad design is not seriously considered. We hope that the Government will be more enlightened—it cannot be unaware of widespread public pressure to hold costs down and to improve environmental quality. The initial reaction by prices and consumer protection minister John Fraser is both inaccurate and inflexible (p944). Surely the profession’s case must be considered by a wider—and fairer—spectrum of Government than this blundering minister alone. Advertisement manager: Roger Bell London and home counties arca managers: @ Phillip Capstick Peter B. Hadley Malcolm Hamilton Barry Lait Midlands manager: Ronald Baker Northern counties and Scotland manager: Elwyn Jones Advertisement production manager: W. Evans Advertisement administrator: Brian Storey Advertisement director: F. G. Dunn The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 939 appointment stable block attracted considerable attention in the tabloids last week. But less publicised was the role of the RIBA’s Clients Advisory Service, who in response to regal inquiries supplied the couple witha list of local architects who could carry out the design work involved. From these Peter Scott of Newbury was selected, and he is currently completing the project. Scott, who has several stable and stud buildings under his belt already, said that there was ‘nothing out of the ordinary about the building’. All the same, the blockwork clad steel framed building will include a special swimming pool for the horses. Strangely, Scott seemed unaware of the role of the Clients Advisory Service. It must move in mysterious ways itswonders toperform. Amidst al the battle cries and girding of loins following publication of the Monopolies Commission report on architects’ and surveyors’ fees last week, it is easy to overlook the rapid growth in the minimum fees now paid to quantity surveyors. Way back in January, the Price Commission agreed to an increase of 124 per cent ‘across the board’ on the published fees for quantity surveying services. The effect of this increase on, say, a one-off £250 000 job is to give the qs a fee of about £9530, or 3°81 per cent. The architect for the job would get, according to the RIBA scale of minimum charges, a fee of 6 per cent, or £15 000. The difference in fee is a little over 2 per cent, or £5470. Does this little gap really represent the true difference in skill, responsibility and liability between the two professions? Surely not. And the cutting of fees could only make abad situation worse. In last week’s AJ Idug up again that old cure for traffic congestion in city centres: ban the private car. Within a couple of days strong supporting arguments came from, of al people, a car manufacturer. Mind you, Pehr Gustaf Gyllenhammar doesn’t smack out just any old tin lizzie. He produces Diminishing differential The hammer of the car An exhibition of furniture, silverware and drawings of architect and designer Fosef Hoffman (1870-1956) begins on Friday at Fischer Fine Art*. Hoffman, in conjunction with Koloman Moser, set up the Weiner Werkstatte in 1903 after visiting London to view the work of Mackintosh and Ashbee and seeing Ashbee’s workshop in the East End. The Werkstatte produced furniture, leather- work and metalwork and, as Hoffman believed that the right-angle was ‘fundamental to everything’, the products are strongly Euclidian. Top, ink drawing of a wooden chair and, above, coffee pot drawn in ink, wash and pencil. *30 King Street, London SWI. Exhibition open 18 Novernber - mid January, 10am to 5.30pm daily, 10am to 12.30pm Saturday. The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 By PrincessAnne’sandMrMarkPhillips’ Volvo’s at upwards of £4000 apiece, necessitated by the fact that Sweden is now the second richest country in Europe and can’t afford to make cheap ones. Gyllenhammar, head of the Volvo Group, was on his way through London from Singapore and stopped at The Royal College of Art to give the annual Lethaby Lecture. His subject was the design of cars, organisations, production and public transport, and his paper was very impressive, as one has come to expect at RCA occasions. Volvo is world famous for initiating employee involvement in management, and for abandoning the assembly line for assembly by self-motivated groups—to put itvery baldly. Ihad always understood that the 20-mangroupsintheirownworkstations produced a complete car. This was the aim, but it turned out to be too difficult to achieve and the groups only produce a sub-function of a car—the electrical system or the safety system, for example. Nevertheless, absenteeism, one of the understandable problems with the tyranny of the production line, has been reduced. Clever chaps, these Swedes. Of course, our traditional British conservatism of management and men would quickly puta stop to any such ideas over here. A heartening thing happened a week or two backinOxfordshire: DerekWareham gota certificate. So? Well, Wareham was the project architect for the very pleasant Badge- more county primary school near Henley-on- Thames which won an RIBA award (AJ 7.9.77 p420). In addition to the normal three certificates to county architect (Albert Smith), client (Oxfordshire County Council) and contractors (Stoneshire Construction Ltd), for the first time the RIBA gave a fourth— to the project architect. Maybe a small thing in itself, but encouraging because itacknowledges the importance of the chap who actually does the design and carries the job through. Other award makers take note. I suppose everyone has his own way of looking at a paper. Colin Amery, features editor of The Architectural Review, who last week took his AA audience at a fine canter through the AR’s history from its origins to the present, saw the magazine as a wonderful plum cake, full of delights for nearly every taste. To Amery, the AR is far more than simply the missionary vehicle of the modern movement (from avant-garde to guard’s van) which many have held it to be. Sir Uvedale Price, father of the picturesque, was called in by Amery to define the AR’s approach as ‘an aesthetic based on variety’. And glorious variety in style, ideas, layout and buildings has been the hallmark of the Review for as long as anyone can remember. That the tradition is stil alive is aptly demonstrated by this month’s Jubilee issue—Living in Britain 1952-77—in which writers as diverse as Anthony Burgess and George Melly show what’s been happening in Britain since the Queen mounted the throne. In true AR style, virtually every article hasa little tailpiece in which the editors disagree with the author. Long may AR’s variety prevail. abolished. This was RIBA President Gordon Graham’s reac- tion to publication last week of the long-awaited report on architects’ services by the Monopolies and Mergers Com- mission.* The main recommendations of the Commission are that: @ The ARCUK code should no longer make adherence to a scale of fees mandatory and none of ARCUK’s constituent bodiesshouldenforceafeescale. @ Free competition on fees should be allowed between architects. @ A fee scale could be published by the RIBA and other bodies, provided that it is not mandatory and that it is laid down by an independent committee. This committee would be small (four or five members) al appointed by central Govern- ment and not ex officio representatives of architects or clients. @ The present fee scales should be allowed to be published (though not made mandatory) until the independent com- mittee provides itsown scale. The Commission argues that ‘there are obvious reasons’ why the present system ‘is open to criticism’. Yet, as Andrew Derbyshire (who led the RIBA’s Monopolies Commission team) pointed out last week, nowhere does the Commission produce evidence to validate its ‘obvious reasons’. Graham confessed himself to be ‘depressed’ by the Commission’s ‘lack of logic and reason and clarity’ in its attempt to refute the profession’s case. The marked lack of coherence of style and structure of the Commission’s arguments ‘leads us to fear that the essential nature of the conclusions may have been in somecone’s mind as dogma before any evidence was given’. ‘Commission fails to answer case” ‘The Commission completely fails to answer the central point of our case,’ he said. This is that the profession is more exposed to severe fluctuations in the demand for its services than virtually all others and that, if the scale was abolished, fee cutting would be widespread, particularly in a recession. Fee cutting would have a damaging effect on the supply and quality of architects’ services. Gordon referred to a 1970 report of the Monopolies Commission} in which the Commission itself suggested that control of price competition (ie some form *Architects’ services The Monopolies and Mergers Commission. HMSO, £2°85. +Professional services, Monopolics Commission, o/p- Astragal Derbyshire ‘The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 941 But more intriguing for AJ readers was Gyllenhammar’s acceptance that the car, however desirable, was a useless machine for city centre transport; that the incredibly expensive demolition, bridging and tunnelling to case car movement only allowed more cars in and solved nothing; that the car should be banned or priced out and that more efficient public transport could give almost as good a service. Gyllenhammar had an interest to declare: Volvo make buses and were developing avehicle with an interchangeable body so that rush-hour buses could be easily changed into lorries for delivering goods during the rest of the day. A neat economy in engines, drivers and streets. Commission recommendation that the fee scale should be Architecty’ Senvives Monopolies Commission End fee scale: Commission The profession will fight ‘every step of the way’ the Monopolies 042 The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 Architrets’ Servicns Monopolies report Commission When the report was published, John Fraser, Minister for Prices and Consumer Protection, announced that his boss Roy Hattersley ‘agrees’ with the conclusions of the report and that the Director General of Fair Trading had been asked to discuss changes to the codes of conduct with the professional bodies involved. The Director General has been asked to report to Secretary of State Hattersley within six months. Later, in a BBC radio interview, Fraser said: “The Com- mission have been very reasonable in saying that a recom- mended scale is a helpful benchmark. They recommend that there should be a continuation of the recommended scale, pro- vided that the customers as well as the producers are repre- sented on the committee which recommends it and as long as of fee scale) could be in the public interest in ‘those few pro- fessions in which there were considerable fluctuations in total demand’. Behind the RIBA’s argument is the hypothesis that, broadly, the fee scales represent the cash needed to pay for the costs of design and supervision (and a moderate profit). The it is made clear that the recommended scale can be departed Commission, though it studied architects’ profitability (and found that architects’ earnings do not seem to be ‘high relative to those of other professions’), refused to study the relation- ship between architects’ costs and fees on the grounds that “The investigation would be very costly, and the expenditure could not be justified in terms of the value to be gained from it in the context of our inquiry’. Clients’ evidence ‘ignored’ ‘The Commission’, said the President, ‘has ignored not only our evidence, but that of users of architects’ services’; the Commission itself admits that the majority of clients consulted were in favour of retaining the fee scales. Bodies who spoke up for the present system ranged from the PSA to the Country Gentlemen’s Association and from the British Steel Corpora- tion to the National Trust. Perhaps the strongest voice against fee scales came from the Consumers’ Association, which said that ‘each professional should be free to work out his own system of charging’. The Association was virtually the only body to raise the objection that under the percentage system, the fee gets bigger as building costs rise. RIBA would welcome review body: but report’s proposals ‘completely unacceptable’ Derbyshire admitted that defects in the present system do Virtually all architects approached by the AJ last weck were exist and explained that the RIBA would welcome an indepen- unanimous in condemning the report. Only the New Architec- dent, objective review body to examine the fee scales and, if ture Movement welcomed the Monopolies Commission’s re- necessary, fix new levels. But he explained that the independent body suggested by the Commission was completely unaccept- able—first because its recommendation would not be manda- tory, and second because it would not necessarily contain representativesofclients’andarchitects’interests. ‘Costs of bureaucracy will rise: quality will fall’ Derbyshire pointed to the US where, he said, since publication of fee scales was outlawed, far more resources have had to be devoted to preparing and assessing fee tenders. Institute Secre- tary Patrick Harrison emphasised to the AJ that the report’s recommendations ‘will increase the costs of bureaucracy at a time when there is great public demand to reduce them’ and, as a result, ‘resources for architecture and design will be drastically increased at a time when the public is demanding greater quality’. Keith Ingham, chairman of the RIBA’s membership and public affairs committee, condemned the Commission’s ‘detached, unscrupulous, purely accountancy approach to architecture’ and pointed out that ‘the market place has pro- vided much of the worst aspects of our environment’. The dogmatism of the report, he thought, represents a wish to destroy the independent professional person—‘all professions must recognise this threat’. Prices secretary supports from. They can go above or below so long as it’s clear as well that the recommended scale is not a mandatory scale.” Fraser is completely inaccurate in suggesting that the Com- mission wanted either customers or producers to be represented on the independent review body. The report says: ‘We recom- mend that the committee should be small, consisting of a chair- man and three or four members, who should be appointed by the Government on a personal basis and not as representatives of either architects or users of architects’ services’. Thinking the unthinkable: going to the market place What will happen if the Government continues this hard line and insists on the fee scale being relaxed? Gordon Graham’s response is that “We shall not lose. There shall be no com- promise at all.’ But, ‘if at the end of it al we were forced into the market place, we would have to behave with all the ruthlessness of the market place’. He indicated that present restrictions on adver- tising and directorships might all go if the fee scale were lost. Architects condemn report: commendations. NAM, which claims to have over 200 names on its ‘contact list’, submitted evidence suggesting that the mandatory scales should be abolished and that there should be a recommended scale fixed by an independent body. Not sur- prisingly,NAMwasdelightedbythereport’sconclusions, claiming that ‘the central argument that the mandatory fee scale underpins the architect’s “assurances” of integrity, un- limited liability, competence, accountability, and altruism has been proved doubly false’. Bob Giles, chairman of the Salaried Architects Group, savagely attacked NAM’s stand, pointing out that, if the report’s con- clusions are enforced, ‘architectural workers, for whom NAM claims to speak, will be subject to even greater dangers of ‘ely NAM infavour Harrison being hired and fired than they are now’. architect has actually done. However, the RIBA considers that Gilesfearedthe‘Dutchauction’thatwouldresultifthefee architectshaveaspecialcasefortheretentionofthemandatory scales were to go: ‘quality will go out of the window’, he system under which they operate. We therefore examine, both said and pointed to Sweden where the fee scales were abolished generally and in relation to the particular provisions of the in the 1960s and the general standard of architecture fell scales themselves, the arguments it has put forward to support virtually overnight. Concern should not be limited to the private sector, said Giles. The public sector would have nothing to measure itself against, for ‘the fee scale is the only measure we have’. that case. The RIBA’s case for mandatory scales 224 The RIBA’s case for the retention of mandatory scales rests mainly on its view that their abandonment would lead to widespread fee-cutting, particularly in a recession, and that this would have damaging effects on the supply of architects’ services and on professional standards. The RIBA states that the profession of architecture is more exposed than are other professions to fee-cutting because of the severity of fluctuations in the demand for its services and the strength of the client relative to that of the architect. It refers to the length of the period of the project (and therefore of the relationship between client and architect) and the difficulty of defining at the outset the amount of work which the project will entail for the archi- tect as additional distinctive features of architects’ work. SCALA rejectsreport ‘It is wrong for the Monopolies Commission to so badly ignore the RIBA recommendations,’ says Raymond Horswell, presi- dent of SCALA and Southend Borough architect. He ‘totally rejected’ the findings of the Commission and fully supports the RIBA statement. ‘Asa local authority architect particularly, I uphold the mandatory fee scale for it gives something to measure the value of work against. In a free situation it would be very difficult to decide if one was getting value for money.’ After SCALA’s next meeting, on 1 December, Horswell feels sure that he will be sending a letter of support from SCALA to the RIBA, as well as informing the Local Authorities Associ- ation of SCALA’s opposition. Official reaction from ARCUK has been hostile. Senior officers of the council have considered the report and con- clude that the Commission’s findings ‘are at variance with the evidence with which itwas presented’. The ARCUK view is that since the bulk of official clients support the fixed fee sys- tem, it is illogical to overturn it. The report will be discussed at ARCUK’s next council meeting in December, but in the meantime they stress that the code of conduct remains in force and that fee cutting remains own professional staff to handle much of their work, but they banned. Surveyors attacked too The Monopolies Commission report on surveyors’ fees* was published at the same time as the one on architects. It recom- mends that surveyors (including quantity surveyors) should be able to quote fees freely and compete on the basis of fees, but that recommended fee scales should be permitted provided that they were determined by an independent committee (which might be the same committee which would determine the architects’ scale). “Surveyors” services. Monopolies and Mergers Commission. HMSO £2-85. What the report said We give below extracts from key sections of the report. Paragraph numbers are those of the original. The bold emphasis isours. 223 Architects are alone among the major professions in having mandatory fee scales.! These scales are supported by rules in architects’ Codes of Professional Conduct which prevent com- petition on the basis of fees. There are obvious reasons why such a system is open to criticism. It reduces the incentive for architects to minimise their costs; for the architect who, by innovation or increased efficiency, does succeed in reducing his costs cannot seck to enlarge his practice by reducing his fees. The absence of competitive pressure on fees means that clients may pay more for architects’ services than they would if archi- tects’ fees were subject to normal negotiation. Furthermore, because it is difficult to provide in a scale for the differences of cost and complication between particular jobs, the client may in many cases pay a fee which is disproportionately large or disproportionately small in relation to the work which the "Appendix 13 of the Commission's general Ecport on professional services indicated that, other than archi only the Insti ists and the I. of Landscape Architects stipulated mandatory salegi tend not to vary the size of their staff in response to short-term fluctuations in their total requirements. The amount of work which in these circumstances is commissioned from architects in private practice tends to fluctuate more than total demand. 226 The RIBA has not submitted to us statistical comparisons between fluctuations in the demand for architects’ services and those for the services of other professions and we doubt whether it is practicable to make such comparisons. It is clear, however, that the demand for architects’ services has fluctuated materi- ally and that since 1970 architects in private practice have experienced extreme conditions of both boom and slump. We accept that the fluctuations in the demand for the services of architects in private practice are more severe than those suffered by most professions. 227 The RIBA suggests that it is in the public interest that architects as a body should be paid enough to ensure that in periods when the demand for their services is at its peak there should be sufficient architects in private practice to come some- where near meeting that demand adequately. It contends that mandatory scales mitigate the effects of recession on the earn- ings of architects and hence on the supply of architects and that this is in the public interest. It also cites the general discussion in paragraphs 131 and 132 of this Commission’s report on pro- fessional services in support of its case. 228 The RIBA explains the apprehended adverse effect of removing the mandatory scales as follows. The price of archi- tects’ services has virtually no effect on decisions whether or not to proceed with building projects. Price competition between architects in a recession would not therefore have the effect of obtaining more business for the profession as a whole, but would merely reduce its earnings. In the absence of mandatory scales fee-cutting would become widespread and fees would be forced down to unremunerative levels. As a consequence, many "We refer to the value of new commissions received because figures for the whole of architects’ activity are not available. The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 943 Fluctuations in the demand for architects’ services 225 The amount of work available for architects is closely linked to the fluctuating level of activity in the construction industry. Although exact comparison cannot be made, the work of architects in private practice, measured in terms of the quarterly value of new commissions® received by them, appears to fluctuate even more than the level of activity of the con- struction industry. . . . One reason for this is that many large public and private users of architects’ services employ their The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 roCy LeCTS Commission recession would be necessary to induce firms to expand their capacity, especially to meet levels of peak demand. 233 The RIBA’s contention turns on the assumption that the mandatory system of fees serves to limit the outflow of archi- tects and other personnel during recessions. As the mandatory system cannot increase the amount of work available for archi- tects during recession, it follows that the argument implies more unused capacity in architects’ practices at such times than would otherwise occur. 234 We do not overlook the argument that, if architects’ earn- ings were to fluctuate not only because of the fluctuations in the work load, but also because of fluctuations in the level of fees per job, students of the present quality might become less more architects would be forced out of business or would reduce staff on a larger scale than they would with a mandatory system of fee scales in force. This process would leave private practices with insufficient capacity to meet demand when it willing to seek to enter the profession at the present gencral recovered and excessive fees would then ensue. 229 The RIBA suggests that, in the longer term, greater fluctu- ations in architects’ earnings arising from the abandonment of mandatory scales would, by making the profession more risky, 235 In the light of these considerations we have formed the result in a decline in the number of students wishing to enter it. view that fluctuations in the demand for architects’ services are If this were to happen the cost of architects’ services would tend not a justification for mandatory scales of charges. to rise because fewer architects would qualify. A related point made was that the quality of the service provided would fall 236 The exceptionally heavy fall in the demand for architects’ because students of poorer quality would be accepted and services which has occurred since 1973 may not be part of a ‘ial qualifying standards presumably reduced to maintain numbers. typical cycle to which our arguments and those of the RIBA relate. The fal in the amount of work available to architects in private practice has been prolonged as well as severe and at the time of our report no recovery is in sight. This fall may repre- sent more than simply an unusually severe but temporary cyclical reduction in demand. It may include also the effect of areductionindemandofconsiderablylongerduration.Should this prove to be the case, we do not underestimate the difficul- ties faced by the profession. We note that a mandatory scale can do little or nothing to mitigate such difficulties. 231 In the absence of a mandatory system, we think that fee- cutting would take place in a recession on a wider scale than it does with a mandatory system in force, though it is difficult to estimate the extent and severity of the fee-cutting that might occur.Itwoulddependpartlyonthenatureandextentofthe pressure put on firms to cut their fees and in this connection the attitude of public sector clients might be particularly in- fluential. It would depend also on the willingness of firms to reduce fees on individual projects in order to secure a desired share of the available work. Many firms might be reluctant to part with key personnel or to disband well-tried design teams and might well be willing to take on some work at low fees if removal of the present mandatory system would lead to fee- they thought that the fall in demand was temporary. Such firms cutting the frequent disparity in bargaining strength between would tend to regard the salaries of key staff as a fixed cost in the architect and his client. We conceive this point to apply this situation and this attitude, to the extent that it prevailed, | in greater or lesser degree at all times, but to be perhaps of would predispose them to accept lower fees rather than lose the opportunity of additional work. We do not therefore exclude the possibility that fee-cutting in a recession might be deep and widespread, as the RIBA fears. 232 Even if fee-cutting in a recession were widespread and severe, and as a consequence more architects went out of busi- ness and more salaried staff were laid off than would otherwise be the case, we do not think it would have a serious effect on the capacity of private practices to cope with a subsequent return to a high level of demand for their services. The capacity of the architectural profession as a whole to supply architects’ services is determined primarily by the number of architects who are qualified to supply them, and this is unlikely to change much in the four to five years of the typical post-war construc- tioncycle.Architectswhoinarecessionbecameunemployedor took up employment outside their profession would be unlikely to be lost to the profession permanently, but would be attracted back into it when and to the extent that demand recovered. Similar considerations apply to the movement of other person- nel out of and back into architects’ practices. We acknowledge, however, that if as a result of fee-cutting more qualified employees were laid off and design teams disbanded in a recession, private practices might be slower to expand their staffs and individuals more reluctant to start new practices when demand began to recover. Temporary shortages of capa- city might occur, If so, higher fees than those charged in the greater significance in a recession. irch 238 We accept that architects deal with clients who, in terms of their size and resources, are often much more powerful than they are. Such clients would include public sector bodies, large institutions, and other large commercial or industrial concerns. Moreover, such clients will often, though not invariably, be concerned with large projects in respect of which a great deal may be at stake for the architect. 240 The proportion of firms heavily dependent on large pro- jects appears to be fairly small. Our survey indicates that less than one-third of architects’ practices are dependent as to 50 per cent of their fee income on projects costing £100 000 or more and only about 11 per cent are similarly dependent on projectscosting£750000ormore.TheRIBAreferredtothe case of small local firms struggling (unprofitably) with about 100 current jobs, all small. This evidence suggests that many architects handle relatively small projects for which the clients are also likely to be small. It seems to us that the firms most vulnerable to client pressures are those smaller firms which are heavily dependent on one or two large clients whose busi- ness might easily be transferred. We do not know how many firms are in this situation, but they must be a small minority. 241 However, we do not accept that disparity in size between architect and client necessarily governs their relative bargaining level of fees. However, we do not attach weight to this argu- ment. Presumably potential entrants to the profession are well aware that earnings are already subject to wide fluctuations. i The power of the client 237 The RIBA gives as another reason for its expectation that strengths. The strength of the professional firm will depend 246 It is possible that in some respects architects provide a not only on its size but also on its reputation and the amount higher standard of service than some clients would be willing andattractivenessofalternativeworkavailabletoit.Itisa topayforiftheyhadthechoice.Wescenoreasonwhyclients characteristic of other professions, not bound to a mandatory fee system, that practitioners are often small relative to their clients. i The mandatory system and the quality of service 242 The RIBA believes that if fees are cut, the quality of the service provided by architects will fal. It does not claim that al architects now attain the same high degree of conscientious- should not be free to pay a smaller fee for what they know to be a lesser service nor why the architect should not be free to offer it. iv Wider responsibilities of the architect 247 The RIBA states that the architect’s client has an assurance under the present fee scale system that his best interests will always be the architect’s dominant consideration, but it refers also to responsibilities of the architect going beyond those to his client, in particular responsibilities to the eventual users of the projected building and to the community at large for the general quality of the environment. It seems to us that these wider responsibilities may involve the architect in conflict with his client. For example, the client may be concerned to exploit the development of a particular site so that it yields the maxi- ness or the same level of professional competence in carrying out their duties. Human differences alone make it inevitable that they do not. It does claim, however, that architects gener- ally set out to protect their clients’ interests and that if fees were cut architects would be tempted to carry out their work less conscientiously. They could do so, the RIBA suggests, by spending less time on working out the best solution to a par- ticular design problem, or by making fewer production draw- mum commercial return or he may insist on cheap materials ings or by cutting corners in other ways without their clients being aware that their interests were being protected less con- scientiously. However, this fall in the quality of the service provided by architects, even though it would not be noticed at first, would be damaging to the interest both of the clients and of the public at large. Eventually the fall in standards brought about by the squeeze on architects’ remuneration would be on fees) for architects to reconcile client interests with the recognised and there would be greater awareness of the need to pay architects adequately; but it would not be easy to raise standards once they had fallen. wider public interest ‘since the interest of the public could have no place in a close bargain struck between architect and client’. In our view, architects’ existing Conditions of Engage- ment form part of a commercial contract between architect and client. We do not accept that the architect’s motives for wishing to influence his client or his ability to persuade him would be in any way affected if negotiation on fees between architect and client were permitted. It seems to us that, irrespective of the existence of mandatory scales, the architect, if he is in con- 243 We do not think that any of these consequences would ensuc. Contrary to the RIBA’s view we think that the more powerful and sophisticated clients, who often haye architects in their employ, would quickly detect any falling off in the architects’ diligence and that the architect would be deterred fromcuttingcornersbyfearofsuchdetectionandbytherisks flictwithaclient,hasthechoiceonlyofacceptinghisinstruc- to his reputation that would be involved. The smaller and less tions or refusing them. Architects may feel less able to with- sophisticated client would be less well equipped to detect tech- nical shortcomings in his architect’s performance, but we think most clients are able to make an effective general assessment of the way the architect goes about his business and that archi- tects are conscious of this. For example, the client would soon know if building work was being held up through failure by the architect to provide promptly the production drawings which the builder required. stand distasteful pressures from clients or prospective clients when work is scarce, but we do not believe that the mandatory system helps them to resist such pressures at any time. 244 The RIBA has emphasised that although architects at such practices would offend not only against professional but present do not compete with cne another in terms of price they also against personal standards of integrity in the architect. do compete keenly in terms of the quality of the service which We are disinclined to believe that architects’ standards of theyoffer.Althoughnon-commercialmotivessuchaspridein integrityaresofragile. professional skill are no doubt present in competition between architects, desire for success in business must provide a strong motive. Competition in quality of service would be almost pointless in business terms if architects’ clients were unable to recognise and appreciate quality of service when it was supplied. 245 We do not believe that competition in terms of quality of service would disappear if price competition also were permit- ted or that clients would press for lower fees irrespective of the nature of the project or cease to pay regard to firms’ reputation and experience. We would expect the client always to be con- cerned with obtaining value for money in his choice of archi- tect, but not always to choose the cheapest. As the RIBA has pointed out, the architect can save his client far more moncy than could be saved by cheese-paring on his fees. An estab- lished reputation for competence and reliability might well become even more important to the individual firm than it is now if competition in fees were permitted. v Length of the period of the project 249 Architects’ commissions can extend over a very long period. A period of nine to 10 years for large projects was mentioned to us as not unusual and sometimes the period is even longer. We were told that even a fairly small building is unlikely under the present system of legislative control to be completed in less than two years. Once an architect has been engaged on a project, termination of his contract may give rise to much in- convenience and expense, It is important therefore that before a project is embarked upon there should be agreement between the architect and his client on the conditions of his engage- ment including his fees. 250 The RIBA claims for its mandatory fee system that this has the convenience for architect and client that both know in advance how the architect’s fee is to be calculated. There is no need for possibly lengthy negotiations or costly estimating and no call or scope for fee comparisons between one architect and another. ‘The Architects’ Journal 16 Novernber 1977 945 and methods of construction regardless of the effects on the users of the building or the building’s impact on its surround- ings; and such attitudes may be offensive to the architect’s sense of civic responsibility. The RIBA states that it would be ‘particularly difficult’ under the conditions of a commercial contract (that is to say, a contract reached after a negotiation 248 Another danger foreseen by the RIBA is that malpractices which were outlawed in the last century might re-emerge. It thinks it possible that, in the context of fee-cutting, some archi- tects may seek to recoup themselves by accepting payments corruptly from suppliers and contractors. It seems to us that 946 The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 Aechitveny’ Servions OS eC Commission 260 The various forms of competition to which qualified architects are subject test the appropriateness of the general level of RIBA’s scales only to a limited extent; and as tests they are no substitute for price competition between qualified architects in private practice. i Relationship of scales to architects’ costs 261 The RIBA suggests that, if fees were too high in relation to costs, the scales would in the long term be eroded by price- cutting, both overt and secret. It claims that it is testimony to the sound basis of the fee scales that they are so widely upheld in practice, even during recessions. 262 We doubt whether this conclusion can be drawn from the fact of wide adherence to the scales. The obvious explanation for adherence to the scales is that they are mandatory, and have been formally mandatory since 1945. 270 The RIBA said that there may be imperfections in its present scales of charges and said that it would be happy to sec—indeed wished to see—an independent review body set up if we reported in favour of a mandatory fee scale. It believed that a detailed investigation of several hundred projects of different sizes and types would be necessary in order to deter- mine what further differentiation in the scales, if any, would be appropriate. We decided not to carry out such an investiga- tion ourselves. Conclustons on the mandatory system 271 We are not persuaded that architects have any special case for the retention of their mandatory system of charges whichcanoutweightheinherentdisadvantagesofthatsystem (see paragraph 223). We do not accept the RIBA’s contentions that fluctuations in the demand for architects’ services, or the power of the client, or the need to sustain the quality of archi- tects’ services justify it. The features which we have criticised of the structure and detail of the scales may be remediable to some extent, but they illustrate the undesirable results which are likely to occur when a mandatory system is used. 272 WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ARCHITECTS’ SYS- TEM OF MANDATORY SCALES TOGETHER WITH RULES WHICH PREVENT COMPETITION FOR BUSINESS ON THE BASIS OF FEES OPERATES AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO AN END. 273 If the mandatory system is terminated, there remains the question whether the existence of scales on a non-mandatory basis would perform a useful purpose. We therefore go on to consider whether the issue of scales on a recommended basis would be justified: and, if so, whether an independent review body (such as that suggested by the RIBA for the determina- tion of mandatory scales) would be necessary to determine such 251 The RIBA considers it to be of great importance that the relationship of trust between the client and his architect which has to be sustained over a long period should not be put at risk by argument about the fees to be paid. It visualises that the mandatory scale system puts fees, in a sense, into a separate compartment removing them as a possible source of conflict between client and architect so that the latter can concentrate on looking after his client’s interests at all times without regard to his own. 252 In our view, the RIBA exaggerates the difficulties which might arise from negotiation on fees, Assuming the mandatory scale of charges were to be replaced by a recommended scale, the architect and his client would continue to be free to agree upon whatever conditions of engagement formed the basis for the recommended scale. If departure from a recommended scale of fees were agreed, this might involve no more than an agreement to apply an ad valorem percentage different from that specified in a recommended scale. In neither of these caseswouldtherebeanydifficultyinestablishingattheoutset, as now, the conditions of the architect’s employment including the method by which his remuneration would be calculated. It would, of course, be open to both client and architect in the absence of mandatory scales to propose and agree upon either a fee or a method of calculating the fee which differed from the present ad valorem method of charging and to vary other con- ditions of his engagement. The provisions and effects of the scales A The general level of the scales 254 The RIBA contends that architects’ earnings are not exces- sive in relation to those of other professions, that the scales would not survive if they were seriously out of line with com- petitive prices on a long-term basis and that architects in private practice are subject to price competition from other suppliers of architects’ services. sone “7 iArchitects’ earnings relative to those of other professions 255 With regard to the first of these contentions, the RIBA study... indicates some of the difficulties of making com- recommended scales. parisons and drawing conclusions from such comparisons be- tween earnings in different professions as can be made. We accept that the available evidence does not suggest that archi- tects’ incomes are high relative to those of other professions but does suggest that they are particularly subject to fluctua- clients. The RIBA’s existing Conditions of Engagement have tions. However, such comparisons of earnings with other pro- fessions are in our view of little value simply because different professions do different types of work, operate in different markets and are subject to a variety of rules. Even if useful comparisons of professional incomes could be made, no con- clusion could be drawn from them as to the appropriateness of the general level of the architects’ fee scales. Unless archi- tects’ fees are tested in the market it is impossible to judge whether there are too many architects or too few or whether architects’ costs are higher than they should be. the merit of setting out in detail the duties and responsibilities which the architect assumes in return for his fee. They provide a useful standard for regulating the relations between the parties but we see no reason why those duties and responsibili- ties should not be modified by agreement between the archi- tect and his client to suit particular circumstances. 277 We are impressed by the evidence that users of architects’ services favouring the abolition of scales are far fewer than those favouring their retention, though many of those who want Recommended scales 275 We think it likely that the issue of recommended scales would have some effect on the behaviour of architects and scales consider that they should be subject to negotiation to Suit particular circumstances. None of the public authorities whom we consulted favoured the abolition of scales even though there were some criticisms of the existing system. For our part, we appreciate the administrative convenience and economy for public bodies of having available published scales which, if they are considered to be appropriate in the generality of cases, may offer an acceptable basis for fixing charges for individual projects and so avoid the possibility of difficult or contentious negotiations. A large majority of those private sector users of architects’ services who expressed a positive view one way or another also considered that scales should be retained. 278 We consider that, on balance, architects’ scales on a recom- mended basis would not operate against the public interest pro- vided that, first, the rules of the ARCUK, the RIBA and other professional associations are amended so as to permit architects freely to quote a fee in competition with other architects, and, second, certain conditions as to their determination are fulfilled, to which we now turn. Determination of recommended scales 279 Some important users of architects’ services favoured the Setting up of an independent body for the determination of recommended scales. This was advocated by several public authorities who gave evidence to us, including the principal Government departments concerned with construction pro- grammes, the County Councils Association, the Greater Lon- don Council and the Inner London Education Authority. The Government departments did not consider it satisfactory for them to negotiate general fee scales on their own with the professional associations, and for this reason preferred the scales to be determined independently. are free to settle fees without reference to the scales and that an architect may quote a fee in competition with other architects. 283 We recommend that the committee should be small, con- sisting of a chairman and three or four members, who should be appointed by the Government on a personal basis and not as representatives of either architects or users of architects’ ser- vices. We suggest that the same committee might also con- veniently determine recommended scales of fees for surveyors’ services to the extent recommended in our report on the supply of surveyors’ services. The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 947 IV Recommendations 280 It seems to us that the setting up of an independent com- mittee to determine recommended scales is not without pos- sible drawbacks. An independent committee might be expected to give greater authority to the recommended scales than they would have without the backing of such a committce. Clients might for this reason be less inclined to negotiate with archi- tects the fees they would pay or to seek competitive quotations. Thus the issue of recommended fee scales by an independent committee might serve to limit competition more than the issue of similar scales by the RIBA and other architects’ associations. Furthermore, the work of the committee would inevitably involve expense. 281 On the other hand, we think it against the public interest that recommended scales should be determined by architects. However conscientiously their professional associations prepare the scales, it is difficult for them to give as much consideration to the interests of others as they do to their own. Moreover, as we have already pointed out, recommended scales limit to some extent the operation of competitive forces. For this reason we think it is necessary to ensure that clients’ interests are explicitly taken into account in the determination of the scales. We think that the scales would be likely to be improved by an independent committee, although there are bound to be serious difficulties in the construction of a scale of fees designed to be related to the differences in the costs, skills and respons- ibility necessarily involved in the various categories of work. 284 We cannot foresee the extent to which recommended scales would be used, whether merely to provide guidance or to deter- mine the fee charged, after the removal of the restrictions on fee competition. If it should turn out after a period, say five years, that recommended scales were not widely used, the case for retaining the committee should be reviewed, 282 On balance we consider that if recommended scales of fees for architects’ services are not to operate against the public interest they should be determined by an independent com- mittee. Furthermore, in order to mitigate any adverse effect which the existence of such scales might have on competition, we recommend that all documents in which scales are published should state prominently that the scales are not binding in vii Until the independent committee which we recommend has been set up and has had time to determine scales, the publica- tions of the existing scales by the RIBA and other architects? associations (and associations of architects and members of other professions) should be permitted provided that: relation to any particular transaction, that architects and clients a the scales are not mandatory; and b al documents in which the scales are published state promin- ently that the scales are not binding in relation to any particular transaction, that architects and clients are free to settle fees without reference to the scales and that an architect may quote a fee in competition with other architects. 286 iThe requirement of the ARCUK Code of Professional Conduct that an architect shall not contract with his client except on the basis of Conditions of Engagement andascale of charges published by one of its constitutent bodies should be abolished. li The rules of the ARCUK should be amended so as to permit an architect freely to quote a fee in competition with other architects and so as not to prevent competition for busi- ness on the basis of fees. ii The RIBA and other associations of architects (and associations of architects and members of other professions) should cease to require architects to comply with scales of charges for the supply of architects’ services. iv The rules of the RIBA and other associations of architects (and the rules of associations of architects and members of other professions) should be amended so as to permit an archi- tect freely to quote a fee in competition with other architects and so as not to prevent competition for business on the basis of fees. v The publication by the RIBA and other associations of architects (and associations of architects and members of other Professions) of scales of charges for architects’ services should be permitted provided that: a they are not mandatory; b they have been determined by an independent committee; and ¢ all documents in which the scales are published state promin- ently that the scales are not binding in relation to any particular transaction, that architects and clients are free to settle fees without reference to the scales and that an architect may quote a fee in competition with other architects. vi The committee referred to in recommendation (v) should consist of a chairman and three or four members appointed by the Government on a personal basis and not as representatives of architects or clients. The same committee might conveniently perform similar duties in relation to recommended scales of charges for surveyors’ services to the extent recommended in our report on the supply of surveyors’ services, 948 The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 NEWS Shore carves up Chancellor’s £400 million The building industry will get a £181 million boost in 1979-80 on top of the £400 million promised in the Chancellor’s mini budget for 1978-79. This was made clear by Environment Secretary Peter Shore in the Commons last week. The newly revealed cash would, said Shore, keep construction programmes working at a steady level. English housing will receive about half the Chancellor’s £400 million. Shore said: ‘This will enable housing authorities and housing associations to restore some of the cuts that had to be made in 1976 and put the housing capital programme back on to a rising trend’. He told Labour MP Dr Edmund Marshall in a written reply that the increases will halt the decline in the construction programme and give scope for modest in- Creases in some sectors in 1978/79. Most of the increases will affect building, but civil engineering will benefit from in- creased expenditure on roads and some other environmental services. Local authorities will undertake most of the work and allocations to them will be worked out by the DOE in accordance with normal procedures. No charges for building regs Shore said that of the sum, £5 million is to go to the British Waterways Board to ‘undertake urgent repair and mainten- ance work’. A further £4 million will go to the urban pro- gramme. He said that in order to assist the construction indus- try ‘I have also decided not—repeat not—to introduce any scheme for imposing charges for building regulation applica- tions in 1978/79. This will mean that English and Welsh local authorities will forgo an estimated £13 million and I shall be allowing local authorities an additional £13 million out of the £400 million to count as relevant expenditure for the purpose of the rate support grant settlement which I shall be making shortly.” The money will go to: housing, £150 million; other environmental services, £33 500 000; health and personal ser- vices, £37 million; transport, £23 million; education, £26 mil- lion; defence and trade, £8 million each; Home Office, £5 million; Property Services Agency, £3 500 000; Lord Chan- cellor’s Department, £3 million; employment and other pub- lic services, £1 million each; energy, £700 000; and agricul- ture, fisheries, food and forestry, £300 000. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ircland secretaries will each receive £76 million. Which leaves £24 million yet to be allocated. Shore said it is available for other purposes and future announcements will be made. Help for Tyneside and London Two new inner city areas will be getting extra government help toward solving urban problems. Announcing the latest of the Government’s partnership schemes last week, environment secretary Peter Shore named Newecastle/Gateshead and Hackney/Islington, bringing the total of such schemes to seven. In each of these areas, central government agencies will be working with the local authorities on long term plans to reverse the effects of inner city decay. Tyneside and Hackney/Islington will be getting an immediate £5 million each for construction work in this and the next financial years. Another £1 million will go to all the partnership areas next year for schemes to improve the environment which can be set in hand, while inner area programmes are being prepared. nevertheless merit special help. These local authorities will be getting powers to make loans and declare Industrial Improve- ment Areas as set out in the Inner cities White Paper. Up to £25 million will be available for these areas under the urban aid programme from 1979 onward. Another 15 areas have been identified as having inner urban problems which, while not justifying partnership treatment, bricks. Prohibitive price of public .s. .ase.a participation The rising costs of expert advice may make the public inquiry system break down, says the Town & Country Planning Assoc- lation in a paper published last weck.* The Association detects a growing imbalance at planning inquiries between public authorities or commercial interests with unlimited cash and ordinary members of the public who find that even putting a simple case can cost thousands of pounds. ‘Something must be done to make it easier for people to exercise their right to participate’, says David Lock, author of the paper. He suggests that a tax on planning applications could provide the money to help participants in inquiries, in the same way that legal aid operates in the courts. Alterna- tively, a national professional assistance fund could be estab- lished to help pay for the expert advice needed. The TCPA are inviting further comments and suggestions on the subject from professional bodies and activist groups. *Planning inquiries; paying for participation The Town & Country Planning Association, 30p In brief Register of buildings for handicapped people A national register of buildings designed or adapted for handi- capped and disabled people is to be set up by the Centre on Environment for the Handicapped (CEH). The centre needs information on day centres, schools, hostels, group homes, housing or other projects (especially small ones, which might slip through the net), particularly where human needs, as well as physical, have been considered. Wolfson College, Cambridge, which was opened by the Queen last week, was designed by Michael Mennim of Ferry & Mennim, architects and surveyors of York. The central block tsfaced instone and tsflanked by two courtyards, themselves surrounded by residential accommodation, clad in facing ARABcust WELonue*s BUTOFFICER HOW CAN WE BE A MONOPOLY Y 7? E ONLY REPRESENT A SIXTH OF THE WHOLE PROFESSION ./ Readers who have information about suitable buildings are asked to contact Ros Purcell, Research Officer, CEH (126 s Diary 17 November Future events Green Belt management illus- Albert Street, London, NW1 7NF (01-267 6111 ext 264). A Brain research—implications for trated talk by Alan Hall, author selection of successful schemes will be published when the the designer lecture by Dr Colin of the Bollin Valley Management survey concludes in 1979. Blakemore, fellow of Downing Study, at the TCPA, 17 Carlton College, Cambridge, in the Cord- House Terrace, London SWI, at ingley Lecture Theatre, Univer- 18.30. Details: Sarah Gostling Top architect jailed for fraud sity of Manchester School of at the TCPA (01-930 8903). Strathclyde’s director of architectural services, Graham Ing- Architecture, at 13.00. (061-273 13 December ham, began a one year jail sentence for fraud last week. Ingham, formerly Lanarkshire county architect, was found guilty of defrauding Lanark County Council of £600. He had used council workmen to repair fire damage at his Bothwell home while the men were being paid by the council. He was also convicted of submitting false claims for fire damage to his insurance company, and of defrauding Crudens Ltd. But Ing- ham was cleared of corruption charges. 3333.) courses at the Institute of Ad- Housing strategies and housing vanced Architectural Studies. Come backCorb,alisforgiven Reg Freeson was in a mellow mood at last week’s Institute of Housing Management conference in Brighton. In a burst of generosity, the minister refrained from pushing al the blame land Place, London WIN 4AD, King’s Manor, York, YO1 2EP for the tower block disaster on architects. Housing managers and even his own department were just as much to blame. But now that official policy is to keep densities below 70 ppa, Freeson is concerned that the attack on high rise has gone too far. Properly managed, there is no reason why they should be difficult to let to people without children. Government housing forum goes at 18.15, Free (01-580 5533). 13-17 March 1978 Air conditioning and energy con- servation conference organised by the Chartered Institution of The London Housing Action Group has been disbanded, it was discuss SPAB’s attitudes towards announced last week. Environment minister Ernest Armstrong, its chairman, has decided that, in his department’s words, ‘the group’s continued existence as a forum for non-partisan dis- cussion on housing problems is no longer necessary’. restoration and repair of old for fees received before 1 Janu- buildings. (See articles in next ary 1978. Details: CICC Ltd, week’s AJ.) At the RIBA, 66 PO Box 2, West PDO, Notting- Portland Place, London W1, at ham, NG8 2TZ (0602 282257). 10.45. Entrance fee £2; lunch £2. 20-21 April 1978 The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 22 November investment programmes mecting of the TCPA, speaker Alex Henney of the DOE Housing Policy Review, at 17 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1, at 18.30. Admission 20p. (01-930 8903.) Course A, for architects and building control officers, covers recent and proposed changes to the regulations. Course B, for architects only, covers applica- tions of the current regula- tions to buildings with public access. Fee for each course, in- cluding full board, £69-£75. De- tails: David Rymer, Secretary, 22 November RIBA inaugural address of Presi- dent Gordon Graham at 66 Port- IAAS, University of York, 26 November All-day seminar on the Philos- ophy of repair, sponsored by the Society for the Protection of Building Services, the Royal In- Ancient Buildings (SPAB). Speakers, who include Prof Baker, Bob Organ, Niall Phillips, Donald Insall, Paul Simon, will stitution of Chartered Surveyors and the Institute of Refrigera- tion, at Nottingham University. Registration fee £70, accom- modation £16, reduction of £8 Building Regulations two short Al PR MINIM linge The Architects’ Journal 16 November 1977 Amtico.The last word GA19 AMIICO. The unmistakable touch of Amtico Amtico, 22 Hanover Square, London W1A 1BS. Tel: 01-629 6258. For additional information—use the inquiry form at the back of the journal 77 AMTICO, in floor tiles The last word in any flooring specification shouldbe Amtico. Because Amtico tiles give that unmistakable finishing touch. The touch that lasts. Amtico tiles are tough and beautiful. Only Amtico etch moulds from original materials, grind individual tile edges, and hand finish deep grouted patterns. And now, the best vinyl tiles havea distribution system to match. It will cover the length and breadth of the country. Depots in Bristol, Coventry, London, Manchester and Sheffield and distribution points in Aberdeen, Belfast, Glasgow, Hythe and Southampton, mean that when you need us you'll find us. Right at your fingertips. So, ifyou're specifying floors, specify Amtico. The tile that does justice to your designs. 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 16-Nov-77 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/add83f54b282d4ba1b34ada684109935.pdf eed61c93101d71311161acb47413e83e 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 Notice of Unattached Architects Election Description An account of the resource .J. Cutmore .W. Howe David Roebuck Edward Walker 5 5 4 37 cL f 2 8 5 21st November, 1980 A Notice. Confidential The Regulations governing the Election are Nos. 43, 44 and 45 of the Council’s Regulations. If this document is sent to you in error, please return it to the Registrar with particulars of your membership of the Constituent Body concerned. The following representatives were holding office on 31st October, 1980, and are willing to serve again if nominated and elected: Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom On the 31st October, 1980 there were 4638 ‘unattached’ registered persons on the Voters’ List, which entitles the ‘unattached’ Architects to elect 10 representatives on the Council for the year ending March, 1982, i.e. in the proportion of one for every 500, or fraction thereof. Election of Members of the Council for the year ending in March, 1982, under Paragraph 1 (vii) of the First Schedule to the Architects (Registration) Act, 1931. This document is intended only for registered persons who are ‘unattached’ Architects; that is to say, those who on the 37st October, 1980 were not ‘Architects Members’ of any of the following Constituent Bodies, or of their provincial associations: the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors, the Architectural Association of London, and the Stamp Section of UCATT. (The term *‘Mem- bers’ comprises Corporate Members (including Fellows, Associates and Licentiates). Students, honorary, corresponding, and retired members are not regarded as ‘members’, and if their names are on the Register of Architects they are classified as ‘unattached’.) 45(3).) S. Allan meetings attended out of a possible .F. Arnold .J. Burney You are invited to complete the enclosed nomination form, which, in order to be valid, must reach the Council’s offices not later than the second day of January, 1987. No person is eligible as a candidate for election unless he is nominated by not less than six ‘unattached’ Architects; a candidate may not nominate himself. (Regs. 44(b) and 45(3).) Nominations must be made on the official form enclosed with this notice. (Regs. 44(c) and An election by ballot will be held if the number of candidates nominated exceeds 10 but not otherwise. If an election by ballot is held, a voting paper will be sent in due course to every person on the voters’ list who has not renounced his voting rights in accordance with Regulation 45(11). Qonwhoan vvoOze (ae ; ; al By order of the Council, Kenneth J. Forder, Registrar VaAnieeE MURRAY amis oe ' BORO ARCHS SERVICKY L,8,OF HARINGEY? 73HallamStret,London,W1N6EE GROSVENOR HSE,THE BROADWAY? LONDON, N8 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 November 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Notice of Unattached Architects Election https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/87ce43c09683564a0abdadae0de09b06.pdf e255b15186b0277e123913fe77acbfca 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 Minutes of Special ARCUK Council Meeting to consider changes to the Code Description An account of the resource In Attendance: Mr. K J Forder MINUTES ook) . 29| Apologies: Messrs. Buckle, Campbell, P D B Groves, Melvin and Nicholson. a Special Meeting of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom was held on 21 January, 1981 at 2 p.m. The minutes of the 195 Ordinary meeting were confirmed and signed by the Chairman subject to the addition to the list of those present of Mr. DA Penning. Code of Professional Conduct - Proposals for Change (Appendix E2 - co : : 2 RY inserted (previous ref: Minutes 112-116/80) in Minute Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 1998 73 Hallam Street London W1N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 8/81 Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Council's Regulations Present: Mr. Alan Groves (Chairman) Professor Denys Hinton (Vice Chairman) Messrs. Adams, Allan, Arnold, Barclay, Bartlett, Basil, Miss Beddington, Messrs. Bell, Benroy, Bingham, Brill, Professor Broadbent, Burney, Burns, Critchlow, Darbourne, Professor Dunbar-Nasmith, Messrs. Godfrey-Gilbert, Howe, Hutchinson, Janes, Johnson, Jones, Knight, Kretchmer, Leggatt, Lewis, Macnab, Metcalfe, Nickolls, Owen, Penning, Percival, Messrs. Roebuck, Sargeant, Messrs. DH Smith, J Smith, Messrs. Taylor, Thornley, Wearden, Wightman, Wright, 120. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. David Waterhouse the Chairman of the Code Working Group, introduced the circulated document entitled "a Syllabus". The Code Working Group had taken document E.1 attached to the agenda for the meeting of Council on 17 December, 1980, as its operational instruction. The purpose was to produce a ‘new approach' which had been briefly referred to at the previous meeting of Council but it had not been possible at this stage to produce a final version without knowing some of the bases on which it could be formed. The Syllabus was therefore a descriptive proposal for further development - a skeleton on which could be put something which would eventually replace the Code of Professional Conduct. The Group had considered three or four alternative versions and he stressed particularly the last line of the document which indicated that the intention was to move away from any fixed form of permanent guidance to a document which would enable registered persons to see the way in which they should conduct themselves rather than facing a set of prohibitions. Astins, Balls, Beckett, Messrs. Bullivant, Cunningham, Cutmore, Professor Tarn, Walker, Waterhouse, Wykes and Yorke. Mrs. Foulkes, Latham, Meyrick, Murray, Ms. Roberts, Mrs. Silvester, Present: a Special Meeting of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom was held on 21 January, 1981 at 2 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Alan Groves (Chairman) Professor Denys Hinton (Vice Chairman) Messrs. Adams, Allan, Arnold, Astins, Balls, Barclay, Bartlett, Basil, Beckett, Miss Beddington, Messrs. Bell, Benroy, Bingham, Brill, Professor Broadbent, Messrs. Bullivant, Burney, Burns, Critchlow, Cunningham, Cutmore, Darbourne, Professor Dunbar-Nasmith, Mrs. Foulkes, Messrs. Godfrey-Gilbert, Howe, Hutchinson, Janes, Johnson, Jones, Knight, Kretchmer, Latham, Leggatt, Lewis, Macnab, Metcalfe, Meyrick, Murray, Nickolls, Owen, Penning, Percival, Ms. Roberts, Messrs. Roebuck, Sargeant, Mrs. Silvester, Messrs. DH Smith, J Smith, Professor Tarn, Messrs. Taylor, Thornley, Walker, Waterhouse, Wearden, Wightman, Wright, Wykes and Yorke. Messrs. Buckle, Campbell, P D B Groves, Melvin and Nicholson. Mr. K J Forder Apologies: In Attendance: The minutes of the 195 Ordinary meeting were confirmed and signed by the Chairman subject to the addition to the list of those present of Mr. DA Penning. Code of Professional Conduct —- Proposals for Change (Appendix E2 - coRY inserted (previous ref: Minutes 112-116/80) in Minute ook) ~ 19) Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 19398 73 Hallam Street London W1N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 8/81 Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Council's Regulations 120. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. David Waterhouse the Chairman oe the Code Working Group, introduced the circulated document entitled "a Syllabus". The Code Working Group had taken document E.1 attached to theagendaforthemeetingofCouncilon17Se 1980,asitsoperational instruction. The purpose was to produce a ‘new approach' which had been briefly referred to at the previous meeting of Council but it had not been possible at this stage to produce a final version without knowing some of the bases on which it could be formed. The Syllabus was therefore a descriptive proposal for further development — a skeleton on which could be put something which would eventually replace the Code of Professional Conduct. The Group had considered three or four alternative versions and he stressed particularly the last line of the document which indicated that the intention was to move away from any fixed form of permanent guidance to a document which would enable registered persons to see the way in which they should conduct themselves rather than facing a set of prohibitions. 8/81/2 IPAIle The Chairman said that progress could be made if Council expressed a : general acceptance of the issues particularly those raised in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 in that part of the document described as "Principles". He asked Council members at this stage, not to look at particular words but to express general agreement with the concepts. After some discussion this procedure was agreed. 122. The Council then broadened the debate to include consideration of the motions and amendments contained in Annex 1 to Annex J to the agenda for the Council meeting of 17 December, 1980, together with tabled amendments 1 and 2 by Mr. Latham and Mr. Darbourne: Mr. Waterhouse then moved, seconded by Mr. Bingham, that Council formally consider Motions A, B and C together with the listed amendments and the two further tabled amendments on the basis that the Motions were formulated by the Code Working Group in their own language to summarise the intentions contained in the formerly tabled four motions by the Unattached architects' representatives on the Council and to the motions tabled by RIBA representatives. The amendments were designed to reflect differing viewpoints. 123. Mr. Godfrey-Gilbert noted that one of the professions listed in Rule 2.1 was that of estate agents; he recounted that the FAS had brought pressure to bear on surveyors to dissuade them from making use of the description ‘architectural' and this had been successful on the basis that architects forebore from involving themselves in the work of estate agents. If the present proposals were adopted this would mean the collapse of the tacit agreement. 124. Mr. Adams expressed concern that through the "new approach" the second of the two Principles might be incapable of being sustained. He referred to Section 17 of the Architects (Registration) Act 1931, and the vagaries of simultaneous practice occupations. He referred to the difficulty of controlling limited liability companies because of their abstract personality when seen side by side with the unity of the registered person. He foresaw that companies would freely advertise and behave in a variety of other ways with ARCUK powerless of jurisdiction. Mr. D Smith said that he too felt concern that architects would no longer be in control. He warned against moving into an area which the profession would regret. He foresaw that such a course would be paving the way for others to profit from the situation. Professor Broadbent stressed that each proscribed activity should be looked at separately: he could just not see architects as manufacturers and suppliers of materials, with the potential problems of untested materials, however the architect as developer or contractor could lead to improvement. Mr. Darbourne suggested that simultaneous practice was full of pitfalls and said that the burden of declaration and the other conditions were too large to leave to the freedom of the individual. He pointed to the impracticability of a declaration of interests being made in the middle of a two or three year contract, and the possibility that a firm can change its status at any time. There was a danger of the architect being seen as a competitor by the builder. He advocated further thought before any decision was taken. Mr. Bartlett sufported the proposals of the Code Working Group. He referred also to the legal situation of estate agents, to Section 4 of the : Architects Registration Act 1938 and to the Defective Premises Act. 125. Mr. Percival thought that the "new approach" gave more responsibility but it did not absolve architects from being answerable. He felt that the time was overdue when ARCUK should only intervene when disgraceful misuse occurred. Mr. Latham pointed to the poll carried out by the RIBA which would indubitably lead to the end of proscribed activities. He said that ARCUK could not prevent what 70 to 80% of architects wanted. He acknowledged however that there was danger in simultaneous practice through the receipt of two incomes leading to the possibility of suspicion that a lower fee would be charged for architectural services. Mr. Leggatt said that the "new approach" was attractive but he had serious reservations mainly based on the difficulty a practitioner would face without a ready guide. Professor Hinton gave full support for tue new approaca and said by giving responsibility to the individual we will be setting a higher standard of conduct and directing it. 8/81/3 following substituted: 126. Messrs. Owen, Beckett and Kretchmer spoke supporting one or another of the “motions. Mr. Allan suggested that it was wrong not to maintain the present Code fully in being until it was replaced in total. Mr. Benroy spoke on behalf of himself and the IAAS and asked Council members to note the Registrar's memoranda on the original Motions from the Unattached architects and from the RIBA. He supported the action taken to simplify the Code but was opposed to the particular changes suggested. He considered that further thought should be given by Council to the insurance implications of these changes to the Code. 127. Professor Dunbar-Nasmith welcomed the new approach, but expressed the view that ARCUK could arrive back at a Code similar to the existing. He expressed concern over the control a professional body could have over individuals when they were acting on behalf of a limited liability company. 128. Mr. Hutchinson said he welcomed the new approach. Mr. Metcalfe supported the new approach and said it fell into line with the legal advice given to ARCUK in 1934. He said professionalism had its own Code built into the people who practise that profession. 129. There followed some debate on what conditions should operate in the interim situation during the first half of 1981 while the new approach was still being prepared. One viewpoint held was that the existing Code should stay unchanged through the interim period until such time as it would be. replaced in entirety. But finally it was proposed by Professor Tarn, seconded by Mr. Hutchinson, that for the interim period the Code would remain in unchanged form but that the effect of the Motions being considered today would be to suspend any disciplinary action being taken on the relevant sections of the Code. This Motion was adopted by 38 votes with 22 against. 130. Council then turned to the MOtions and relevant amendments. Mr. Darbourne proposed. seconded by Mr. Godfrey-Gilbert that Motion A(ii) be deleted and the "(ii) and subject to the prohibition of the combination at any one time of any such occupation with the independent practice of architecture." the amendment was lost with 7 votes in favour and 44 against. 131. Mr. Knight proposed, seconded by Mr. Percival, to add to Motion A (ii) the words: "so that an architect who combines any such occupation with such practice must make clear to those concerned in what respects the combined service differs from independent professional service." the amendment was adopted by 53 votes in favour and 1 vote against. 132. Professor Hinton proposed, seconded by Mr. Metcalfe, to add to Motion A (ii) the words; "so that an architect may not combine any such occupation with such practice unless one element is subordinate to the other or only occasional." After some discussion the amendment was, with the agreement of Council, withdrawn by the proposers. 133. Mr. Latham proposed, seconded by Mr. Darbourne, that the following be substituted for Motion A(i): 8/81/4 "(i) Subject to prior written declaration to the Client of business interests relevant to the engagement and to further notification should the circumstances of the architect change materially during the commission." Mr. Waterhouse suggested that the amendment merited further consideration and undertook that the Code Working Group would take it on board for examination if it was withdrawn. Mr. Allan suggested that there was merit in the amendment but the declaration to the client alone was much too restrictive. Finally the matter was withdrawn as an amendment but referred by general agreement to the Code Wording Group for examination. 134. Mr. Allan proposed that the following words be added to Motion A(i): "and to provisions for a publicly accessible register of business interests." There was some discussion on the operability of the suggestion and finally the matter was referred by general agreement to the Code Working Group. 135. Finally the original Motion A in the following terms: "That a registered person shall not be arraigned for conduct prima facie disgraceful to him in his capacity as an architect solely by reason of the fact that he carries on any of the occupations listed in Rule 2.1 of the Code of Conduct: (i) subject to provisions for a prior declaration of business interests relevant to his engagement; (ii) and to provisions for the combination of any such occupation with the practice of architecture; as proposed by Mr. Waterhouse and seconded by Mr. Bingham, amended by the addition of the words as follows to (ii): "so that an architect who combines any such occupation with such practice must make clear to those concerned in what respects the combined service differs from independent professional services." was adopted by 51 votes in favour with 6 against. 136. Mr. Waterhouse then proposed, seconded by Mr. Bingham, Motion B: "That a registered person shall not be arraigned for conduct prima facie disgraceful to him in his capacity as an architect solely by reason of the fact that he carries on his practice in the form of a limited liability company." There was no debate on the Motion which was passed by 53 votes in favour with 2 against. 137. Mr. Waterhouse further proposed, seconded by Mr. Bingha, Motion C: "That a registered person shall not be arraigned for conduct prima facie disgraceful to him in his capacity as an architect solely by reason of the fact that he makes his availability or experience known, Without a direct request to do so." 138. It was then proposed by Mr. Percival, seconded by Mr. Hutchinson that the following words be added to the above Motion: "provided that he does not advertise independent consulting services by public means." 140. Mr. Knight proposed, seconded by Mr. Godfrey-Gilbert, that the following words be added to the Motion: "provided that he does not make direct approaches to individuals or organisations. Mr. Roebuck suggested that both these amendments could be noted by Council for further examination by the Code Working Group. 141. Mr. Knight's amendment was then put and lost by 17 votes for with 30 against. 142. Mr. Percival's amendment was put and was adopted by 23 votes in favour with 20 against. , 143. The original Motion € proposed by Mr. Waterhouse, seconded by Mr. Bingham, amended as proposed by Mr. Percival was then adopted by 31 in favour with 9 against. 148. Mr. Latham said that the Council was to be congratulated on an excellent debate with a minimum of sectional campaigning. 149. Date of next meeting: 18 March, 1981 at 2 p.m., followed immediately by the 49 Annual Meeting. 139. Professor Dunbar-Nasmith queried the fact that Couacil was denying any firm of architects who did not wish to practise as a limited liability company the possibility of introducing themselves to prospective clients. There followed some discussion on the activities of limited liability companies. 144. Mr. Roebuck then proposed, seconded by Mr. Knight, that Appendix 1 to the Code of Professional Conduct be deleted and this was adopted by 38 votes in favour with 1 against. 146. Finally the Chairman moved that the Council approves in principle Appendix E2, and instructs the Code Working Group to develop on this basis a new document to replace the existing Code of Professional Conduct. Chairman and was agreed with 2 v oting against. This was seconded by the Vice 147. In reply to a question by Mr. Yorke, the Chairman replied that a document propared jointly by himself and Mr. Waterhouse, incorporating the decisions made, would be made public as quickly as possible. (Copy of press release inserted in Minute Book). 145. Mr. Bingham proposed, seconded by Mr. Waterhouse, that the Council immediately publicise for the guidance of registered persons the effect of its decisions and this was agreed, 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 January 1981 Subject The topic of the resource Minutes of Special ARCUK Council Meeting to consider changes to the Code https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/06d8bc2e9e9ec771db00afad0d9fc55d.pdf 5281a63d7f93c64667907360526128d2 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 Draft letter to BAE Nominating Authorities Description An account of the resource DRAPT . [re Canal,rahe—expen,oe m_thefactionwisdpor:4oe unit the Nomimiatinn 2AyTRi® wate 117 A0_Nominatingauthorifiestothe Gp Nonin of Architectural Education Dear sir, ARCUK recognition procedures We wish to draw your attention, as one of the nominating authorities to the BKaard of Architectural Education, to certain areas in which the board is no longer fulfilling its duféss, and to call for your support in restoring the Board to its statutory function under the Architects Registration Act, 1931. TheBAE,establishedbyparliamine1n93t51,hasthestatutory function of recognising examinations the passing of which qualifies persons for admission to the Register of Architects. its duties are therefore of prime importance both to the profession and to the public interest in that the great majority of architects enter the Register by virtue of having passed an examination approved : by the Board. Unfortunately the board haye, since 1963, delegated if thetr responsibility to assess the standard of courses to an outside non-statutory body whose recommendations x£ form the sole evidence for the approval of courses, the enclosed notes, prepared by the ARCUK Registrar, illustrate the stages by which the board has devolved its responsibilities for assessing courses to this outside body (the Royal Institute of British Architects), and then made some attempt to regain control. From 1932 to 19635 the Board sought evidence, covering all aspects of their courses, from schools wishing to have their courses rec- Ognised, From 1963, however, the board decided to abandon this direct relationship with the schools and rely upon the findings of RIBA quinquennial Visiting boards, the recommendations of which were "rubober-stamped" by the Board.of Architectural Education, in 1974, however, the Board had second thoughts and secured token representaftion on KIBA Visiting boards to the effect that - "€t least one member of each Visiting Board should represent the interests of both ARCUK and the RIBA." (Registrars note p.3) This is the system which prevails. today; in which the ARCUK representative is a minority on an KIBA visiting board, and moreover has to date always been an RIBA member (twice yearly) it approves visiting board recommendation. also. iihen the BAE sits of the KIBA system of assessment of architecture degree courses in the public fonda Wl . ohn 0 e —_ courses solely on the basis It receives no evidence from the Universities themselves nor from the CNAA which operates its ow Nhe sector of higher education, because of the heavy RIBA involvement in the running of the architecture schools, and the complete absence of lay representation on the visiting boards (despite their majority on the HAE), this system cannot be seen to provide members of the Board with adequate impartial evidence on which to base appoval (or otherwise) of courses, The Board has a statutory function by act of parliament; the RIBA, as a4 private institute, owes allegiance only to its membership, In 1974 the Board, recognising this, attempted to regain the initiative by securing ARCUK representation on visiting boards, In 1980, however, the Board has yet to regain that position in which, to return to the Registrar's notes - " if the statutory bAE was properly to undertake the task of recognising examinations in architecture for the purpose of registration, it must have first hand know- ledge of the courses leadin, up tovthose examinations," Wie would like to see the Registrar's sentiments fulfilled, In our view the board, with 75 members, should be capable of making direct contact with the 57 schools whose examinations it recognises, The Board meets again in May 1981 and between now and then we would{to open informal discussions with the nominating authorities with a view to preparing a proposal for discussion by the poard, We would very much like to discuss this with you in more detail and would be most grateful for any initial comments you may have. Yours faithfully, David Burney Bob Maltz (members of the board representing Unattached architects, ) 2. = tTf inL 1} if 1! / Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ‘ Id TU a 4oan ARCUK Recognition Procedures eee Catia yet In 1932 when the 1931 Act came into operation, the General Purpose Committee of the Board of Architectural Education reported to the Board that it had inserted a notice in the Times, the Builder, the Architects Journal and the Architect and Building News to the effect that the Registration Board were prepared to consider applications, for the recognition of such examinations as a qualification for registration under the Act. The Committee had also sent letters to the RIBA, the IAAS and the FAS, and to ten schools of architecture mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Act, inviting them to supply the following particulars for the consideration of an ad hoc Committee: (1) Present scheme of examination - whether single or a series of examinations. (2) General educational standard demanded for candidates (3) Date of foundation of course or examination, (8) Examination methods, as for example, whether results are approved by a Board of Moderators or External Examiners or otherwise. (7) Names and qualifications of Examiners and subjects taken by then. (10) Any other particulars thought desirable by the school or examining body making the application. (a) by schools for entrance to the course, or (b) by examining bodies for entrance to examination. (4) Figures showing percentage entered, passed and relegated during the last five years, or from such later period as the examination may have been founde (5) Syllabus of course or examination. (6) Questions set for each examination held during the last five years or less period since foundation, (9) Representative work ef five successful candidates both in Testimonies of Study and in examination or examinations themselves, together with programmes for design. Not more than five sheets of original drawings should be submitted of each student's work. Eight members were deputed by the GPC to examine the particulars, drawings etc. received from the applicants, and two computations were made in each case. First the standard and scope of the course and examination as shown by the requirements of the Examiners in preliminary drawings and reports, the subjects included and the quality of the papers set; syllabuses and curricula were consulted; all questions sent in were read and subjects assessed on an agreed basis of comparison, that being the RIBA Intermediate and Final Examinations as being the best known. Secondly, the standard of the work done by the candidates and the standard of marking etc. were assessed. Finally, on these two data, the scope and standard of the examination and the quality of the work submitted, the whole course or examination was given an assessed value. PEEEEEEEEEOOE Oe Over forty years later there can be no objection to the marks of the successful schools being disclosed: 1. Liverpool School of Architecture, University of Liverpool | 44 2.- School of Architecture, The Architectural Association, London 13 3. The Welsh School of Architecture, The Technical College, Cardiff 13 4, School of Architecture, University of Manchester 12 5. The Bartlett School of Architecture, University of London 11 6. Royal Institute of British Architects, Final Examination 10 7. Royal Institute of British Architects, Special Final Examination 10 8. School of Architecture, Leeds College of Art 10 9. School of Architecture, Birmingham 10 By 1949 the requirements for initial recognition had been amplified and each school applying for recognition had to send the Council examples of work as specified below: 1. The syllabus of the course. 2. The present scheme of examination, whether single or a series of examinations. 3. #The date of the foundation of the present scheme of examination. 4, The names and qualifications of the Examiners and the subjects taken by them. 5. Are the results approved by a Board of Moderators and/or External Examiners? If s0, give the names and qualifications of members of the Board or the External Examiners. 6. The general educational standard demanded of candidate entering the school. 7- j##The number of students who entered the course, the number passed and the number of students relegated at the completion of the course during the last three years, or for such shorter period as the complete course has been in existence. 8. A complete set of examination questions set in each year of the course for the past three years, or in the case of the senior years of the course, for such shorter periods as the examinations have been held. 9. In addition, the following drawings, notebooks and examination scripts are to be submitted on behalf of three students who have obtained high marks, and also two others who have just satisfied the Examiners, in each year of the course for the past three years, or for such shorter period as the examinations have been held. If there are fewer than five students in any year of the course the work of all those students shall be submitted. (a) Portfolios of work and/or testimonies of study in each year of the course. (b) Complete sets of students' notebooks for each year of the course. (c) The worked examination papers in each subject in each year of the course. The maximum mark obtainable, the pass mark, and marks actually awarded should be clearly indicated in each case. 10. Any further particulars thought desirable. This procedure was followed in every case, including overseas schools until 1963 _ when ARCUK started to be represented on RIBA first recognition visits to the schools “instead of the schools sending voluminous documentation to the Board of Architectural Education. April, 1980 Kenneth J. Forder Registrar te From 1963, following the increase in the number of schools, a sophisticated system was designed and administered by the RIBA with a roster of architects and architect/educationalists from which visiting teams were drawn. Guides were drawn up for schools to provide information and material prior to visits, as well as guides for conducting visits and reporting on them. Through these quinquennial visits in the 60's the experience of members of Visiting Boards led to increasing expertise in assessing the resources of schools and the standards they achieved. In addition the Visiting Boards took on the task of monitoring the examinations in Professional Practice and Management. These had increased in scope following the introduction of Practical Training in 1961 and the structuring of courses, supervision and examinations had been delegated to the schools, In 1965 the forming of the Commonwealth Board of Architectural Education extended the UK system to schools throughout the Commonwealth on a voluntary basis. During the following years UK members of the RIBA roster were invited to participate in many visits abroad on a ‘sampling’ basis to help in establishing common standards and report to the CBAE. From 1963 until 1974 ARCUK piayed no part in the quinquennial Visiting boards, but in 1974 it was agreed that conditions had changed and that if the statutory BAE was properly to undertake the task of recognizing examinations in architecture for the purpose of registration, it must have first hand knowledge of the courses leading up to these examinations. Hence in 1974 it was agreed that ARCUK should be represented on all the RIBA Visiting Boards to schools whose Part 2 was recognized by the Council. / é 3 } At least one member of each Visiting Board should represent the interests of both ARCUK and the RIBA. On quinquennial Visiting Boards ARCUK has one such representative although in fact frequently two or even three of the members of the Visiting Board are members of the BAE or Council; but when a School requests initial recognition of their Part 2 course ARCUK has two to three members on the VisitingBoard. ame The General Purposes Committee of the BAE receive very full reports on all Visits; and make recommendations to the BAE. A precis of each report is circulated to BAE members, and the full report is made available at ARCUK for any BAE (or Council) member who wishes to refer to it. aoe | Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource DB/BM 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 April 1980 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/29d6977be771dbd38dc86f8f01532ba1.pdf c4693c18dca9faa20092c316fbc1e3c5 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 Notice encouraging unattached architects to vote for 10 NAM candidates Description An account of the resource ARCUR. é UNATTACHED! ELECTIDOS. INDEPEW D&T On ARCLEK. Pp SYMPATHETIC. RERRESERDTATIOAD VOTE Foe THE NINE NEW ACHITESTLLE MovVEMENST SMDIDATES Fore A STRELG ARevie. ‘UMATTACHED> EeLvecTIOUS PETER WILLIAM HOWE * Now serving Bob Make. ext 231 Duke Houce. (cos Reeere “xt 280 Grsvenst focse, gD As Hawrgey collea Serving om Aocue we tee tae sone a: a Came Yo htm a Ben bie pemnnd Abe nine New tretiiechure Motyed Candidalts Avrdiecalid belay). KKXKX< XKXXX JOHN STEWART ALLAN* NORMAN FRANK ARNOLD MICHAEL DAVID BROAD DAVID JOHN BURNEY PETER JOHN CUTMORE* JOHN DAVID MORGAN GAMMANS JOHN CHARLES PHILLIP GIBB DEREK GLAISTER MANNING HUGH PHILIP MASSEY JOHN DUNCAN MURRAY* MARION ELIZABETH RUTH ROBERTS: DAVID ROEBUCK DAVE SUTTON EDWARD WALKER* You Aan ret yet eearred a Batlet Form Aecvil w 7.Your awuldA Lhe ST es ae please Marg YAS “unettache ol“architects : Ge: AZOUK Elections lw the com! “unattached “ avehitects hes= Bir’ vi ballet ra wun the annvel elec lon of Al2CUK councillors. We hope that yor wml trke ee opportnitt +o rebrin a ston lneleperrclennT Te: and Sy theta re presente CN en APCUK. We recommend the ten Movement ”cavdidates John Allan Norman Avnolel Mick Broad Andy Brown Daar eee 4Now dveb itectre )s@d below. Feter-Cutmore Dovid Hay how Giles Febed David Seaver Eddie Walken Ifyouwoulalae Lirtheruntormation, wie (F AndasSroun (ext, 244) TJebhn Murra (2 @) .Qtepee See eedtsSernce Londo. Berens ofeel Ol-340-803|. Davia ae 7BY Bob Ma (tere 236 26 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource BM/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 Unrecorded Subject The topic of the resource Notice encouraging unattached architects to vote for 10 NAM candidates https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/652fdd71b97004b799e65fa16e320989.pdf 1450fb3cd4d5761123c7bf40859ee560 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 to John Murray re joining Board of Architectural Education Description An account of the resource Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. Dear Mr. Murray, Yours sincerely, 9th May, 1980 Borough Architect ee Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATIOACNT)S 1931 TO 1956 73 Hallam Street London W1N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 One of the items that was discussed at the meeting of the Board of Architectural Education on May 7th was ARCUK representation on the RIBA Visiting Boards during 1981. The procedure the Board has recently adopted is for nominations to be notified to me for presentation collectively to the General Purposes Committee which meets later this year, so that a final list can be sent to the RIBA for selection. At the Board meeting last Wednesday your name was given to me and I am therefore writing firstly to obtain from you confirmation that you would be available for this purpose, and secondly to ask you if you could kindly let me have a summary of your qualifications and experience. With regard to the first I enclose herewith a copy of the set of criteria which the Board has made use of and which may be helpful to you in coming to a conclusion. On the second it is necessary for background material to be provided in respect of newcomers 50 that the General Purposes Committee can make some sort of assessment. There is no immediate urgency about the matter but I should be grateful if you would let me have a reply within say the next month if this is at all possible, John D. Murray, Esqe, Borough Arch. Service, L.Be of Haringey, Grosvenor House, The Broadway, London Ne8 1 2 MAY1980 98/79 Criteria for service as ARCUK representatives on RIBA Visiting Boards At the last meeting of the Board I gave an undertaking that we would look again at the criteria followed in assessing eligibility for service as ARCUK representatives on Visiting Boards. The matter has been discussed by the GPC, and their conclusion is that the five criteria previously outlined to the Board would be more suitably expressed in the following terms: October, 1979 D.W. BERRY Chairman To take part as a member of the Board, the ARCUK representative should be on the Register and acceptable to the Schools and their parent bodies and the profession. This requires a wide experience of the academic side of the profession including a knowledge of educational trends and educational administration together with an understanding of trends in practice; additionally or alternatively a wide experience and knowledge of the needs of practice with a sympathy for educational requirements and if possible some direct knowledge of the work of students. Both of these mean a known commitment to education. In all cases there is need for the time and commitment to join the Visiting Board for about 4 years and to give the equivalent of 3/4 days at least to the visit, preparation for it and follow up 3/4 times a year. Some visits involve much more work. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource 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 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Letter from ARCUK Registrar to John Murray re joining Board of Architectural Education https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/eac17e4ca20e1816cb43043eb550cc1c.pdf a27e3fda5dc604f90ca31bdc1a149b36 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 Guardian re operation of ARCUK Description An account of the resource =z /4.2 Gare (aan //7 Farriagdér Loal Lendon ECIL BER By Lareoce Road % London (V9. g AngursT TRC. — .Ree Jo The Guardar ame Wiis Ie Ans arfhicle ax ery archilecTs place po ree preHe Crrinrert cal, a Step herr Games writes of yafegvar/s unposed SevregqislereeeVigeCEC Kayafithefle7]BunArch Achatiets.” Saree (73/ whew Farbeewen© 2 perses oa Ayclitets Posiatratee ee Gees (CEG (eel, Wahea,fEAS(Oe: iesprefeesSr een ‘aeenvftae iv ShatYtarArcch.fectsRegistrationWietotFLYe Kensefoon, {PLAGEY by ARCUAkK fas feen 4 4 Polen “LoCease Sa fegeeel Ea eealee ;kegstrFinn astheARG? ait ieeebershue of 4h. eIBA IS A recon séef Lea architect(Justasbewonorlaclcepdtpsnbershep of thea RAC, whatever 7s presemect men , GS G plshb & ye elyivagCE eae Ba C/A ee e ;subshadVe gees oeEe Ayitp numberof UR, antilects a1e cheosirg rot fo be rembces g te Kea tileon Thaes, Fhereare coh registered Mier esol Sf RIEA rere as artilects wrthARCHUK. Arhanes PMOL teatpresenT Yirbiell. LEE puppet itr ‘Gouncul packed «th 2) ped,CaAfellowTheR/LA“Loe, Cvternthat hag Us eos EEaBote peWe.xr Pafh eeeClaiioeLe ArchTeefeJoxrns/:AO of een RIGA meusbecs Prevsht Bal carbo! ARO by he.VeBAN Corea) se an Ye ream of interes tS of Ta pub le. /fore over , By. Though t aa gra lfrca ho aaa itself “ (jibe hue io Ay, fre Bro Wr Da vi Heyheu/ Roberz Me VieeTM Toho Nv (aSects) Was Peavs CVveiw a Phe best te,(OresTs of Ska Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource JM et. al 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 August 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Letter to Guardian re operation of ARCUK https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c064efa845e939528ae056ed02d7f844.pdf 1e008b977637354348fcb8e095f66c73 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 seeking legal advice re Clean Up Report on improper constitution of ARCUK, enclosing report Description An account of the resource A REPORT BY ELECTED COUNCILLORS OF THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION COUNCIL (A.R.C.U-K.) at‘—I f;a ; — Fem AGndt Rarbuck . 25 NE Georges Aronia . W~Dry, Nee | Akxs Craw, <99, |Vos ant “Pack (4° oa wae Ze aCape 2MPRMR Cry 7z7IrS CR AREA, haQsee)euee. 42lhecteahARK, ]Connrecions : Loa 4alsin box ea matey meets SALWMG |foo AL AQ 420 o ARK iy Ypposttect 4 |4s ABACure Qwoe es |ee &QchibckeuwmeCakyenaALLK& RALSH TH Gobwa Lear Achar aS IQMuchGAOtoorteheae Bowes wea_s 104 Aarcl.. 1980 ESA SA| ElL# WeYO ANO|OD ; Ga Gslae Yar mas oo. 4a Adheees Omar! COeeyOleaneeegowbeens)tasConeAG.CN & Prvenin Se QypeQecnAck ia | Gs Wsk @oluie @ & ben Ader aa.he eee ae Gus Q-fake & ae = CeorlAuce an hsaa) . Aap WAG CremCLOTee 2. b. Qkockso( olecm 2.5 @-© “4. ARQeWr,K B5ow ‘paper,he Cscw(hRtGeR Gechee: SOGCCLORaieersoa)aCue GeAQhoLesh youCoe GeonomeKune G CRCa Oc Cnet hemaCoy Clones Niemen Tne Coke CG Qu nko coveAnta) Q@ wow 1 OME ONOCNtn hg Soe frum : Loo Dhertt “Qo Ajgarcak tu Golreg A, Sk, iae Akot Oe Go eae Oo 4 shor orola. eyEASI CreeOS re On foe GQ Kok. Sarl C2 4 ne :oa avs Su. Gols LO CaG a) wa TL > G GodoneQusol,meAyrewel6450.60 bm Qleck La Acten gt Dootet uo Detunmye@);OifraseorkUuuwat vl, CO. | Y ,Grdue, Ge Ca Pavole an, Ants, peforGets GQuradactAmtOe {mae fe RokerMatte(Sto~Fos)286)\RuAlla.(P54 $572) er Js) (637 - C685) \ Vunconn ae Bowes wea_s S out | OOD Wd Caml grade yr Colre2 on Hey A0nG p Lack, El # WeYOD ANO|OD Lek of Confe-ts. —Uce £ ALCirk 912 DE aarEyig Combrred slahskeof implicahoro of L TfT Sa mem Conca Ny Areas” —— Bowe awea_ aay CTe feuo>) ‘ Peatle Pulte) Hews‘seatsor.POEIED,POPS apporhored: in accordance ifs fre Avch tet’ Begichaten fet ef 193/. HawsACR TYEEZE)cnchhnfedCL). Has A2euUkeo a By cImplcohoredf parven P_SPOOR. a) Lee APEC mopreply constrhtad CHE) rege" Tspple re - Flea APCUE is empropert, corchhitedcz) -'bhr does on LIBRA eo é a eee, anshAtlea Zl Frepesed sycters ty enero eae ALCUK, PeeLy Less £ De brine nt enfferad &4y ’ Unattached Archlet® aca reef of fre imprope- Censhtutes ofACU. Nis er puuheo ef ARCH a7s ree =comchtr:te d. Ca Zk a Speafe hamed induritlielos arch. techs Cheviced fe Atchtectsee. 5C1931). Arch tect { Gag Kchahor 1 At’ C1988) ArchteetbBapenonCrendreont-)Act(1965) Beogulahsns asspprndby fh a, Arscaphins. ag. &hons SS = PRG a ae ey ARCAIK Shanckag orleans C73/25) « Ge-k lewen's Azyree rant _ conshtrhon ef Comnsttaz> C254f04). Nihee A. 23. feck Coe of Profesor! Cra ch- 4 CGuwdence fo Nes Gude. Boe ACHE Code. 2e- 3. Arnucetl Reports 1973/4, (974) 9S, 1975,(2&, (976/77, 1977]78, 1878/79, ed Oo tt Complants en Spe=hon of Canes RIBA Chote 4Bie fos 1971. FIBA Cota of Prof Corot PIBA Seoles of Charoes Conch tee fo rule a > March 1922, Conch tisbhen Crresponckenca— in Comrachon cihy FIBA subseriphens. EIGA "Becorbung an Acchilect! Bxckack fr Ly ARCUK Cerves POM cLercoe_ Report (2H) 72 29m feeG Leotle— Se Li # Registrar (C;— aportes sp, Ae. BA Connie Mong of hich gees 87/2/97) 4b. fy fredle ty PzdAchin en 47. Arhreles om BeesCCN peLPsse eciges Pricer “fo frG.,- ac ins hucley Foy ey)te blue)(er9) OPOKAsshererre 4].32-/-1230. Belrect frev~ PUA Annnol Reyort C1974-) . Bevel fre P2IBK Ayaie/ Reperr (19 2) ee 09 Gegn (S-4-/475 rHehon7Ah, #2exis Grower Seilert, Sealey & Lo. 14 Jooks Gourt London EC 4 = d4 nolmdale hoad 4cngonu Wa 6 11 march 1960 vear bir Grower, Iwproper Constitution of «iCUK further to our Jetter of yesterday with attached aocu. wents, foliowing our conversation, 1 enclose the remaining documents listed as “to tollow" on Document 2, List of Contents. i enclose also two further documents: 48 - Counsel's opinion in Keyte case 49 —- Notes on the apportionient of seats...etc. No. 48 was recently sent me by the khezistrar of ARCUK and concerns a case which AKCUK is considering under Sec.7 of the act. You night tind it of interest in its discussion of the act. I thought the discussion of literal interpretation of the act night be relevant to our case regarding the no lon-er existent "icllows, associates and liceutiates" o1 the kiss ana the Fisst Scheuule, var. 1 (i). (see vocunent 1). No. 49 contains no aduitional iniormation bat is incluueu as a very briet suniary o1 the situation. vocunents ob waltz E14 WeUD ANO|OD seats on AKCUK should be properly apjoitioned in accordance with the architects hegistration Act 1951 The Architects kegistration Act 1961 requires the Council to be constituted in accordance with the First Schedule of that act. The Scbbaule proviues for appointment of menbers by various bodies and Gov't. winisters as well for the direct election by architects of architect abers. There is no explanation of the intention of the constitution, no systematic approach. The members nay, however, be broken down into 5 groups (1) Those appointed by the Councils of a nunber of named rganisations presumea to have architect nenbers, in propoition ol one appointee ior every 500 (o1 part thereof) of s kinds of their architect nenbers. Appointees nay, but need not, be architects See Far. 1 (i-vi) subject to 0 (a-c). Those elected by sone architects not considerea by the Act to be some kinas of architect members of the above organisations, again on a 1:500 basis. Those elected must be architects. See Par.1 (vii) subject eo One member appointed by the Council of another organ- isation of architects, who may, but need not, be an architect. See Par. 1 (viii). Five menbers in total appointeu by various Gov't. entities, who may, but neea not, be architects. Se area Ct) One member appointea by the Council of each of 7 organisations connecteu withthe building industry, who may not be architects. See Par.2. ots] a | | | 2 | | | El # WeYO ANO|OD they are menbers (f). (a) Account is to be taken only of "teliows, associates & licentiates" of the bodies citea in Par 1@i) ana (ii) but no such qualification appiies to the bodies cited in (iii-vi). Account is not to be taken of stuaent members of the body cited in Par 1(iv) but no such qualification applies to the bodies cited in (iii) (v) and (vi). Architect members of nore than one of the bodies cited in (i-v) are taken account of in all the bodies of which they are members. (Accordingy to AC figures as of 31-i1U-79, there are 21406 individual architects reckoned for the purposes o1 the Act t be members of the boaies citeu in (i-V), but seperate totals ada up to 22196, thus 792 multiple nenber ships. Honorary, corresponding or retirea members of the bodies citeu in (i-v})#NkxxBk are to be taken account of under (vii) and not under (i-vi). Par 3(c). E-g-, although ARCUK's Regs. refer to those architects taken account of under (vii) as "unattached", they may well be membe! ot one of the hodies citea in (i-vi). The "anomaly" of (3) above. although seats on ARCUK covered by (1) and (2) above appear to be on a basis of 1 seat per 50U people, the Act clearly does not establish a consistent system of 500 architects = i AR€UK member. note for example that {aj as below, some architects are not to be represented (a) (b), some architects are to be represented more than others (c)(a), only some architects must be represented represented and not represented by the body(s) of which by architects (c), and some architects are to be uirectly Eye SYP lily) as non-architect booklet published arch 1976, attached, and note total absence of elected Councillors. See also “aaverts" on )---is that ARCUK is composed of architectural “constituent bodies" (a term of ever-changing meaning which appears nowhere in the act or kegs) of which the RIBA is "the leading constituent body" (see p.15, draft AKCUK Annual Report for 1979-80) if not the only one of any signilicance. (Note that despite AkKCUK kegs lo and 14, nenbers of AKCUK appointed under Far.1(ix) and 2 are never (£) The varying qualitications for Councillors, architect or not under (1) (2) and (3) above. ») Only architects ordinarily resident in the UK are to be taken account of although the appointing Councils of the bodies cited in Far 1 (i-vi) pre- sumably represent architects resivent abroad as well being fellows, associates or licentiatesS," while the Notice and licentiates)." The notice also makes no distinction between the bodies cited in (i-vi) regarding (a) ana (b) aiscussed above. (see attached docunents) it should also be noted that the Act definitely gives no special importance to any Councillors as opposea to any others. Ali are equal. The mouel of ARCUK'S constitution aspropounded by the KIBA---and even AKCUK see "Composition" on p.3 of peach-coloured AKCUK info. it may be of interest to note that the wording, and thus the meaning, on the ofiicial notice calling for nominations sent out to "unattached" architects by AKCUK departs trom the Scheaule in some way , the Schedule under Par.l(i) and (ii) states “...architect members reads "Corporate member (including fellows, a ciat PESTice Blire[ere) elected to the Council's important Finance & General Purposes ana Professional Purposes Com) ittees.) When the Council was first constituted in harch of 42 members there were 12 appointed by the KIBA, 15 by other "arch." bogies, 5 "representing unattached architects," 5 appointed by gov't. and 7 appointed by eae g] tae | | (mot merely of the so-called "arch. constituent bodie nay have a member of that body apvointes to a viscipline Comittee ot ANCUK hearing a case oi "disgraceiul conduct against him or her and (2)that those archs. not considered tor the purposes of the First Schedule to be menbers of one of the bodies referrred to in Par.1 (i-vi) may elect members of ARCUK. =| Finally. it should be noted that in no way does the Act sugpest that akCUK should be composed largely of architects, should be controliea by organisations with architectmenbers,orshouldservetheinterestsofarch- |EE | itects. ‘| -E | other construction industry organisations. (see attached). | By March 1940, by which time the 1958 Act had made regis- tration mandatory for architects, the figures had changed to 15 KIBA, 15 other "arch." boui x "unattached", with the remaining unchanged. (see attached). he only ways in which the Act appears to treat one architect differently trom another are (1)that any arch. who is a member of any boby reierreu to in the Schedule Pye STNe Blile)|er0) xx Zi tow K is improperly constitut ( The electea Councillors believe that AKCUK is allowing the xk&#K RIBA Council to appoint more members of AKCUK than callea tor by the Archs. Keg. Act 1931. proviaes {or AkCUK to include "one member appointed by (1) The First Schedule, Par. 1(i), of the 1931 Act the Council of the KIBa in respect of every 5UU architect wembers of that Institute, being tellows, associates or licentiates thereof." (our underlining) About ten years ago the kIBA amended its hoyal Charter (with Privy Council approval) to create a single class of “Corporate Member" ( a term not found in the Act) and eliminated all "fellows, associates and licentiates.” Although the Act seems clear that only architect members of the KIBA who are fellows, associates of licentiates houla } taken account of under Par.1 (4), ARCUK, ignoring the change in the kIp/ Charter, takes account of architect members 01 the KiBA under Par.1(i) who are not fellows, associates or licentiates. it should be noted that at a similar time, the K1IBA also amended its Charter to eliminate the class of ketired Members. hetired members since then have been classed as Corporate Members". (Figures supplied by the kIBA to an kkIbA member confirm that the hiBa now has between 1000 and 1500 such retired members classed as Corp. Members who pay reduced sunscriptions because they are retired.) Although the Act is very clear that Ketired henbers are not to be considerea as architect mewbers of the PIRA but shoula be taken account of under Par.1(vii) as "unattached architects, AkCUK has ceased to do this since the change oveEv I-lUroel are)(ole) in the hi#bsA's Charter. It may also be noted that although the Nat. Feu. of Building ‘raves Operatives (more recently known as the Nat. Fed. of Construction Unions) is entitlea to appoint a Council member under Par.2, since it dissolved (although its member unions still exist) its seat has remained ant, Annual Keports of AKCUK indicating “Not entitled noninate" rather than “not nominating.” | The electea Councillors believe, therefore, that | according to the Act, | (1) The RIBA Council has at present no right to appoint any AKCUK Councillors (and should not have been | allowed to do so since it changeu its Charter to | elininate teliows, associates anu licentiates). | Those architect menbers of the kibA who are ordinarily resident in the UK and who are ueened not to be architect wenbers of kIBA because they are honorary, cori esponuing or retired menbers--and only these--should be taken of by AKCUK under Par 1(vii) and be "represen- accordingly as "unattached" architects, as Par (vi) and (vii) excludes from reckoning all architect menbers oi the k1BA, not merely those who are iellows, associates or licentiates (subject of course to the proviso in Far 5 (c)). The Act should be applied to Par 1 (ii-vi), covering other organisations with architect members, in the sate way as it should be appliea to the k1BA. Assuming that ii the KIBA were not alloweu to appoint menbers of akCUK as per (1) above it would make appropriate changes in its Charter to make such appointments again legal, action should also be taken i EL# WeYO ANO|OD to insure that at that time seats on ARCUK are apppr- tioned strictly in acco:aance with the act. ‘here is good reason to believe that AKCUK at present considers as members of the RIBA many arch who are not kKIBA menbers and considers as "unattached" fewer architects than required,. The consequence o1 this is that there would still be more k1BA-appointed Councillors than called for by the Act and too tew “unattached". ihe evidence for be- lieving this is presenteu below, I1-1i1-I Sib, 4 Das How _AkC improperly constituted Gi In response to a questionaire published in the architects Journal of 30-1-80 (see attached), 28 (that “< ‘> tl | 25%) of the 112 architects who said they were "unattached" and answered the question whether or not they had received | | architects should) said they had not. (Obviously, 112 architects responding is a small sample of the presumably over 5000 unattached. There is no 1eason om the face of it to believe, however, that the sample is nec rily biased regaraing the giestior Of these 28, 16 gave their nanes on the questionaire official nomination papers from ARCUK (as all "unattached" SyEvI-re lave)(eye) and the elected councillors have checkea their staterents against AKCUK records. Oi these,16, SNCUK records showed 6 claimed by one o r more of the bodies cited in First Schedule, Parl (i-v) incluging 5 claimed by the bIE Three were clained by no body but were not included in the unattached total (!). Une TM listea as unattached but was not shown on the list of unatiached voters (')- It has not yet been possible to ascertain whether he has been included in the total of unattachea used for appor— tioning seats on ARCUK. The other 6 are indicatea by AKCUK as being unattached (presunably a postal problem). Thus, | | not being considered by AKCUK as unattached, a coniirmation rate of 60%. Applying, this rate to the total of 2& who said they had not received papers, suggests that 16.8 of | | \ Pe a | | ot 1G traceable, 9 or 10 can be considered confirmed as the 28 might be confirmed, 15% of the tw 112 respondi i At the sane tine, ot 4K, 4391 +737 traceable, be elected and 40, not 41, appointed by the RIBA. it should be noted that the kegistrar oi A\CUK has papers in Nov.'79 returned them (as requested on the form) because they were members of one oi the relevapt bocies and were thus mistakenly considerd unattached. Assuming that AKCUK considerea then only 4815 (allowing for 66 istakes) as unattached, the above figures would be modified to 5076 unattached, 19790 KIBA. No change in implications ror seats on akCUK. It should also be noted that in addition to those responding to this questionaire, some of the elected coun- ciliors know personally architects who claim they resigned from the kiBA several years ago ana are still classilied by AnCUK as hIBA. They also occasionally meet architects who say ARCUK regards them as kKIBA althoush they have never been menbers oi the kKIbA. (One case vavid Heath, ym r= q E| | This implies that rather than there being now 4381 "un- attachea" archs. as claimed by AKCUK, there may really 5 were attributed to the RIBA, a confirmation rate of 51.25%. Applying this rate to the 28 oi 112 who said they had not received papers suggests that 8.75 might be confirmed. Thus, ARCUK may be attributing 8.75 to KIBA for each 16.8 | it may be wrongfully denying the "unattached." This implies that rather than there being 20090 KIBA members on the kegister (for Ist Schedule purposes), there are only 19719. The implications for the apportionment of seats on AKCUK of this alone is that 11, not 9, Councillors should pointed out that 40 os tue 1 supposedly sent nomination | 3 | be 773 nore, or 5154. / HL= 18 433] 5) S yeBTL eBlile)[<re) still regaraea as il#a by AKCUK even though he has never been a hibA member and has written expressly to akCUK to say so apd to ask to be properly consiuered as "unattached".) The iigures includea here o1 people wrongly classi- fied by ARCUK could include some of the architects who had been expelled by the KIBA, or resigned, after the Oct. 31 ARCUK "cut-off" but before the jan/Feb 1980 survey date. See(ZI) for how K1IBA uses Regs. loophole by admitting and reinstating members just before 31 Oct. and expélling nembers just after. The figures would not include people who still consiaerea themselves K1BA members, despite not having paid their subscriptio perhaps for several years, because they had not bee expelled by the k1Ba. See 625 (Vv) iow AKCUK is improperly constituted (111) One reason why the KIBA Council has been allowed by ARCUK to appoint more members than the Act calls for is that the kegs. of ARCUK (made under Sec 15 of Act, by K1BA-controlled akCUK, with Privy Council approval) call ior the membership submitted to AkCUK to be that on a single day only, 1 Uctober annually. ‘the k1BA Council conveniently admits new menbers ana reinstates ex-nembers annually just before that date but expells members annually just aiter that date. Thus, once a year%at Oct.351 the membership of the RIBaA for ARCUK purposes is higher than during the rest of the year. For the past three or four years these expulsions have averaged ahout 750 per year. As about 76.3% of the k corporate membership is consiuered by AKCUK to be architects resident in the UK, one may assume that of those 75U, £ 76.0 or 570, are creaited by AKCUK to RIBa. The tigure which AnCUK uses to apyoition seats tor appointment by the kIA Council thus ought to be 19520, not 20090, on this assumption alone. Fresunably most (95y0, or 545) of thes O should be added to the total of those considered by AKCUK to be “unattached," with the renainder still members of another body enabled to appoint members of AKCUK under Ist Schedule, Par 1 (ii-v It s pointed out by the fegistrar that in 1977 the kIBA Council considered that it had by error not enployed this aevice. Apparently, the ‘true" menbership was thus for once reported to AKCUK. 4 figures for Y, Use of AkCUK Regs. "loophole* by kIBA (Oct.51 date) eL# WED INo|OD the "unattachea" reitlect this: in 1975, 2707; in 1976, 3128; in 1977, 4120; in 1978, ,4s64. ELE -a5999- 6 bey ce CQyeayorn) ) sedieci?, ery Bs SAVEie h Fproewa4y)eyoey Arnab mo How ARCUK is improperly constituted CV When aoes an RIBA member cease to be a member for WhendoesanKIBAmembercesseoore AKCUK purpose: the guestion of KIBA arrears. Having heard continued stories of architect members of the RIBA resident in the UK who had not been expelied by the K1BA despite long subscription arrears, the elected councillors were also struck by what appeared to be an annual discrepancy between the number of corp- orate members clained by the k1bA and the subscription De 4-42 income actually received from those nenbers. According to the RIBA's treasurer, this apparent [Doe.38] discrepancy is due to the fact that many RIBA members pay subs at reduced rates, thus accounting ior the apparent rortfall in subs income (compared to the total to be expected if all corporate members paid full sub). In recent years this apparent discrepancy has been the equivalent of 550U members (approx.) not paying any sub out of a total of 26500 if the remainder paid full sub. It is difficult to find out the nunbers ot members atfullandreducedsubsandinarears. KIBArefusesto givesuchinfotonon-members andevenmembershavefound it so far inpossible to secure the info fron the kIBA. Fion seme figures recently supplied by the kIBA to a menber, account can be taken of those who pay reduced subs and the apparent discrepancy described above brought down to a more realistic figure. kIBA full sub for 1979 was £50. an assumed apparent discrepancy of 5500 members (it was 5811 in 1978) would 7 Document @ EL# WeUD ANO|OD 488 "semi-retired" to account for It is known, however, that of the RIBA's approx. 5500 overseas corporate members (5522 in 1976), those in BEC countries are expected to pay full sub and all others, half. We have not been able to obtain a breakdown into these categories from the k1Ba, but examination of several pages selected at randow trom the kIbA Direct of Menbers suggests that roughly 9 (say, 500) are irom other EXC countries, principally Mire. An examination of I membership figures at the time (1970-71) when Eire members ceased to be shown in kIBA's UK figure and begar to be shown in the overseas figure confirms this estimate. Thus another 5000 members wust be reckoned at a reduction of£25, accounting for£125,000 #191,075 (4rom above) -{125,000 =£66,075 still unaccounted for. This could be accounted for if 1322 members on full sub were completely in arrears haa not paid any of 1979 sub. But menbers at full sub are expected to account for only 62.6% of the total expected sub income. So it is really more likely that there are 1601 members in arrears, if TEES 7 fas -fes925 =f191,075 still account for a shortiali of £275,000. 3335 newly-qualitied members 1026" o 53 "semi-retired" ove 219 retired members © reduction it 922 "fully retired" members & Peay eBlaTe arrears are assumed spread evenly aniong all members regard— as "mewbers." income. we think it safe to assume that of the architects whom AKCUK presently counts as h1Ba members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK, approx. 1500 of 20090 are in arrears and that the great majority of these, 95j or 1 (since les than 5y of KIBA menbers so counted by AKCUK are also members of one of the other bodies mentioned in the Ist Schedule, par 1 (i-v}), should be considered as "unattached." Ii this were done, on these grounds alone the kIBA Council shoula get 38 (not 41) seats on AKCUK and 12 (not9) councillors should be elected. It possible that there may be another explanation for the discrepancy in the RIBA's membership and sub income 2 less of sub level they are on, li these arrears are then distributed proportionally among those KIBA members on the Kegister of Architects and resident in the UK (76.3% of total), and those who are not, one can assume that 1222 are people whom ARCUK counts as RKIBA members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK. However, it is probably correct to assume to assume that this figure should be higher, for two reasons: (2) It can be assumed that a higher percentage of the people being kept on as menbers despite arrears are on the Register and resident in the UK since the K1ba has little to gain by keeping others on Pye stale PUlere) Presunably, some people have paid some part of their sub, so the total number of people in arrears must be increased to account for the same shortfall in described above. 1t could not, however, be fully accounted incone. > less of sub level they are on. li these arrears are then (76.3% of total), and those who are not, one can assume that 1222 are people whom ARKCUK counts as RIBA members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK. However, it is probably correct to assume to assume that this be increased to account for the same shortfall in ve think it safe to assume that of the architects whom AkCUK presently counts as k1Ba members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK, approx. 1500 )0$0 are in arrears and that the great majority of these, cele (since les than 5y of kiBa members counted by AKCUK are also members of one of the other bodies mentioned in the lst Schedule, par 1 (i-v}), should be considered as "unattached." grounds alone the kIBA Council should get 38 (not 41) seats on AKCUK and 12 (not9) councillors should be elected. It is possible that there may be another explanation for the discrepancy in the RIBA's membership and sub income If this were done, on these distributed proportionally among those KIBA menbers on the kegister of Architects and resident in the UK figure should be higher, for two reasons: (2) It can be assumed that a higher percentage of the people being kept on as members despite arrears are on the Register and resident in the UK since the k1ba has little to gain by keeping others on as "mewsbers Fresunably, some people have paid some part of their b, so the total number of people in arrears must EYPETL-WOBIT(-ro) described above. 1t could not, however, be fully accounted tor by short term (one year) arrears, since tre sub income from members in arrears one year would be largely compensated for by members paying off their arrears of the previous year. There seems to us to be only two logical conclusions: (2) as described above, that there are many members in long-term arrears who ne pay off their arrears e.g., "terminal" arrears, or (2) the number of people in short-term arrears is already very large and is growing at an ever so that those paying off their arréars can never make up for the ever larger nunbers just going into arrears. This seens implausible. E1# WeUD INE|OO A. “unattached “architects laisse _e 425° Ame |29390 2440 The combined stehstical eerie TTBeDouments4-7+ “towPROUAKU6 aecoed“) |. Totad acording teARCLK 31-l0-74 = 4351 ; | scbsequerbyonvmodwsahached’byMOKnom () Z. (EL ie om a Assum Ft wleryreked m 1336 | | Spunk(wotti), Feler,sna Heantiates ley Members. but R160 I \ i OF 1131 w UK assume YaonRefs =505 “vetived” cout ag “unattached ae 3.(E) [en re ees 4.() Add hecaure4 eas ole+54S ¢ J“i(240|| Deduct est.240 fou =240 | \ (O00 151000 \ | Yoceclep’ of iandIE 6.(BL) Ade becauseoflangle Ores PIP Sco lirclcre) FST. REAL porat“unarTAcuen'= 73 26 THIS SUGGESTS “UniaTiacHeD “ swoucp BE ENTITLED To ELECT I5 Counaiees (NOT 4 AS | 3 a FRESENTLY AUD ATED.) | - THis SUGGETS AREUK S18ULP AeeeepioN 35 SEATS Fee APPOINTMENT BY The RIBA Count. (NET 4) AS PRESENTLY ALLS ceTED) 2 RIGMMoccia a eae of eae Seals on CUR [, Tetel accercling 4 ARCUK 3(-107R = 20040 assumedslestoycfrmaARALMC +40 ( ; ZO\ZO A (Z) See prenens 3,(qs) ct n page 565 mA -300 My Ley O70: 870 | Deduct est. (Fofer x72 | “oeclap” ofTardI 6.Gf)SlotrectCe -.Foo ounvea<S Esp RAL yerac “eIeA” = 17365 =/S00 suetrncr 2765 =27b5_ Peetlow litelco) ie AKCUK not constit qd) There is no outside agency to insure that ARCUK really is the ARCUK aescribed in the First Schedule of the 1951 Act. No person or body is held responsible for so ensuring. ARCUK, under Sec 15(1)(£) may make Regs. "generally for carrying out the purposes of this Act," but apparently is not obliged to. It should be noted in passing, howeve: that the ist Schedule did provide for such a responsible agency for the first constitution of the Council (the Secretary of State and a committee appointed by him), and that Kegs. made by ARCUK must be approved by the Privy Council and that "any person aggrieved by the hemoval of his name from the kegister Recon t appeal to the High Court or Court of Session, whose “order shall be final." (Sec 9). (2) The Regs. (43-45) made by AKCUK under the Act to prescribe the manner of the election of members under lst Schedule Par 1(vii) are not adeguate to insure that seats on AKCUK are apportioned in accordance with the Aét or may even tena to prevent their being so apportioned. (a) In a nunber of ways, hegs 45-45 do not strictly follow the Schedule (eg, compare Par 3(b) and(c) to delinition of "unattached" in keg 43). (b)The use of one day as a reference point for determining the relevant members of various organisations provides a loophole preventing the ist Schedule fron being properly inplemented. (see III) (c) The kegs do not proviae for an outside and impartial body to administer the appo1tionnent of seats ed by eye yey InojoD those with a vested interest in the outcone o1 the apportionment , their control of akc (dG) In oraer to determine the nunbers of "unattached" archs. and elected councillors---and, in practice but not according to any keg., coincidentally the number other Councillors to be appointed by bodies in Par 1(i- keg 45 allows for, but does not require, those bodies to supply the Clerk of the Couicil with a list of their members. In the case of those lists not being supplied, the Clerk is to use the "last published list" of such boay. At a time when the relevant UK memberships of all those bouies are apparently declining, while the “unnattached" are increasing in number, this provision is clearly insufficient to carry out the act. im any case, there is no provision in the hegs as to how the Clerj is to use or interpret these lists in determining the nuiber of unattsched archs. (e) No keg provides explicitly tor determining the number of AkCUK members which each of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) may nominate. (£) The kegs provide that the only infornation to be used to deternine the number of votinig archs. under Par 1 (vii) shall be proviuea by the bodies cited in (i-vi), rather than allowing for or providing that into be supplied by the indiviaual architect regarding his or her membership o1 such bodies. And when AiCUK has asked individual archs. for info (Ann. heport 71/72, par 27, attached, and attached Form A), it has only asked "unattached" architects whether they night be attached, without ing attached archs. whether they might be unatt, el# Mello) AINOJOD ‘ibere is no mechanisi Lor reiuting a claim by one of these bouies that an arch is a menber. the system is clearly one-sided and open to abuse. (eg) There is no system for determining the validity of such menbership claims by such bodies. (h) The lists of members called for by the kegs are not required to specity the class of membership, thus giving AkCUK insufiicient info, to apportion seats aetermine the number of "unattached" as per the Scheaule. (i) There is no explanation 01 who (akCUK or the body concerned) is to determine what tor the purposes oi the Act constitutes being a meuber of such an organi- sation and on what grounas that determination shall take place. For exanple, the ketention F_e which each arch. nust pay AKCUK under 13 (1)(a) is due Jan. 1 of each year in advance and AkCUK normally strikes off the ister the following Lecewber 31 all those who owe any The various bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) may keep tembers in arrears on their rolls ior varying amounts of tine. AkCUK goes not appear to question any claim by a body that an arch. is a member oi that body for any reason. Like AhKCUX, KIBa memb. subs. are due Jan 1 annually in aavance and the kIBA's Charter allows it to expel] menber after only 7 w.onths in arrears. It appears to us (see IV) that the kIBA claims for AKCUK purposes many architects in long-term, terminal arrears and others who have resigned or were never members at all and that AiCUK accepts theese claims. (1t may be noted that the Faculty of Architects & Surveyors, seePar. 1(iii), currently claims as menbers for AhCUK purposes only"those whose subs. were fully paid and with whon we were in contact." See attached document.) 2 1t is also open to question whether the purpose of the Act can be servea when seats are apportioned t appointing bodies based on memberships totals which those bodies can inflate (gaining extra seats on AKCUK) with architeets who are members under duress. Employee architects probably couprise at least 75% of those on the kegister resiaent in the UK. Although the kIBA publicly claims to be a voluntary body (see attached), many employee architects are members of the KIBA only because their employer requires them to be so, in violation the Employ. Protect. Act and TULRA, as the kIBA is not an indepenuent trade union (being enployer-aowinatea) and because k1bA menbership is in no way’a higher qualilication than kegistration with AlCUK. be estimate that 4000 01 the #Kis k1Ba's UK arch. members are required by their employers to be hiba members, ana it is probably sate to say that at least 2UUU are probably k1BA members for that reason only. 1 should be notea that many other arch. members of the kIBA who are employees are "encouraged" to join the kIbA by their employer, usually an KIBA member, paying their kIBA sub. This is probably as widespread as invol- untary membership. It should also be noted that Inlana }evenue permits *ke KIBA subs to be an aliowance against income (eg, public subsidy of Kiba) but does not vo this in respect oi all the bodies in Ist Scheaule Par 1(i-vi) who are entitled to appoint members of AkCUK on the 1:500 basi Ea evel Blircl(cre) (3) Though AKCUK'S Kegs are clearly totally inadequate A) sure that the Council is properly constituted in accordance with the A€t, it appears also that they are not being properly implemented. Thé lists provided for in keg 45(1)(b) are not being supplied to the Clerk. Nor are the ast published lists", as required by the Act, apparently used. (4) e believe that human error and fraudulent intent hate been given free rein because of (i)(2) ana (3) above. Given the political complexion oi AhCUK as it is presently, and apparently wrongly, constituted, it is very unlikely that this AkCUK will make ana inplempnt any kegs which could ensure that the Council is properly constituted. For the sane reason, it is also very unlikly that tkehibA & ARCUK will proauce and make public the info wich would indicate exactly to what extent the Council is wrongiully constitute €1L# weUD INE|OD oposed tem to ensure properly constituted AR ARCUK for what at present pretends to be ARCUK) needs to be obliged by some outside agency to amend its Regulations under Sec.13 of the 1931 Act, as well as taking equivalent short-term measures despite its present kegs., to, (1) require apportionment of seats on ARCUK in accordance with the First Schedule of the 1931 Act to be the responsibility of an external, impartial, lay (non- architect) agency which would each year tell ARCUK what its constitution would be for the following year. define membership of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) of the Ist Schedule to discount menbers in arrears longer than AKCUK itself permits and to discount members who affirm that they are members only because they are obliged to be as a condition o1 enploymen plug up the "one day of the year" loop-hole so that menbership for AKCUK purposes is a realistic 1epre- sentation of the organisation's membership. consider an architect not to be a relevant member of one of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) unless confirmed annually by the architect (not the body) that he or she is a member of such a body in accordance with the definition of membership in (2) above and in full accordance with the provisions of the Ist Schedule. (ARCUK already writes to every architect twice a year.) if (4) is not acceptable for any reason, require bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) to furnish ARCUK such information at it requires in order to ensure that the Council is constituted in accordance with the First 7d | | ese | >| g| = 2| — -| EYPETB (oro) the proper nunber of eected councillors Scheaule, in abseuce o1 which alleged mewbers tor whose "case" the into. is requireu would be considered "unattached" ana voting. Furthermore, in the tirst instance, we propose that it be required €G) that persons improperly appointed to the Council by the RIBA Council be imuediately removed trom the Council, that any election by the Council 01 persons to serve on the Board of Arch. Education, Admi ions Cttee, biscipline Cttee, F&GP, PPC, other Council boards, panels, delegations etc. as well as the Council's ana their chairpersons, anu Council appointments, be considered void it held while the Council is improperly cousituted ana provision maae for new elections ana appointnents by the properly constituted Council. (8) that as soon as practicable a special election be that those bouies, incl. AkCUK and FIBA, which have information which could clarify the extent of mal- apportionemént of seats on ARCUK should make freely available that info. (40) that the legality o1 acts of the Council carried ELi#WUD sNo|OD held to elect adaitional councillors so that there is out while it was ivproperly constituted be clarified. LOSS AND DETRIMENT SUFFERED BY ‘UNATTACHED' ARCHITECTS SEE AS A RESULT OF THE IMPROPER CONSTITUTION OF A.R.C.U.K. oO 1.01 It was clearly the intention of The Architects Registration Act 1931 to provide equal rights of representatiom to all those persons who, though registered, choose not to become members of those bodies referred to in Schedule I, 2. (4) = (vi), and that such persons should enjoy equal benefits and likewise be equally subject to the Council's disciplinary powers as provided im respect of all registered persons. persons. entrance qualifications. / yeBTL eBlile)[er0) 1.02 To the extent that correct representatiom of registered persons under Schedule I, 1 (vii) is currently not acheived, both the spirit and the letter of the Act are being thwarted. To be denied their due representation in the Council's affairs in itself constitutes a fundamental grievance of this category of registered 2.01 The primary functions of A.R.C.U.K. as enshrined in the Architects Registration Act 1931 are the establishment of a Register of Architects (1,(3)), the admissioomf names thereto (1,(3)), and the removal of names therefrom (1,(3a & b),7 &11). The recognition and holding of examinations suitable to qualify successful candidates for admission to the Register is made the explicit duty of The Board of Architectural Education to recommend to the Council, (5, (2a & b)). In this way, through their representatiom on Council; tunattached! architects were intended to participate in the determination of EG 2.02 However, by its undue dominance of the Council, the R-I.B.A. bas removed the exercise of this duty out of A.R.C.U.K. into its own system of Visiting Boards, im which BsA.E. representation (invariably by R.I.B.A. members) is merely a token gesture. (See A.R.C.U.K. Annual Reports 1974/5 (101/2), 1975/6 (49), 1976/7 (71), 1977/8 (62), 1978/9 (60/ 61). N.B. the latter Report in which the B.A.E. is actually referred to as "a wide ranging assemblage of educationalists .. called together LOSS AND DETRIMENT /2 atconsiderablepublicexpenseforamereformality.") The‘unattached' architects have thus been denied their due part im establishing the quality of those eligible to enter the Register. 3.01 In the matter of removals from the Register, the Discipline Committee is appointed (1931 Act, 7(2)) to examine cases where a registered person may have been guilty of conduct disgraceful to him in his capacity as an architect. The criteria employed in considering such cases are as embodied in the A.R.C.U.K. Code of Professional Conduct. 3.02 However, the disproportionate representatiom of the R.I.B.A. on Council has enabled the Institute to extend the applicatiom of its own association rules beyond its own membership to all registered persons. This illegitimate extension of R.I.B.A. control is clearly evident in the content of the A.R.C.U.K. Code, which is substantially identical to that of the R.I.B.A., and indeed is published with the R.I.B.A. Notes appended. to practice in ways which the Registration Acts do not prohibit. continued defence of the Conditions of Engagement in defiance of the Ze 3-03 In this way ‘unattached’ architects may be disciplined to the detriment of their livelyhood for breaches of a code not freely determined in their own Council, but emanating from a private associatiotmo which they do not belong. 4.01 Equally, this illegitimate protection of the R.I-B.A. Code by the identical A.R.C.U.K. Code curtails the freedom of non-R.1.B.A. architects 4.02 Thus ‘unattached' architects are, for example, obliged by Rules 1.1 and 3.2 of the 'A.R.C.U.K. Code' to apply the 'recognised' Conditions of Engagement of bodies listed in Schedule 1, 1 (i) - (vi). (A.R.C.U-K. Code of Professional Conduct. p.5, footnote.) 4.03 These Conditions of Engagement (in fact those promulgated by the R.I-B-A.) require that an architect's fees are charged in accordance with a fixed Scale of Charges, thereby denying ‘unattached' architects their proper freedom under the Acts to enhance their livelyhood by quoting fees in competition with other architects. The degree to which A.R.C.U.! thus improperly controlled by the R.I.B.A. is evident in the Council's LOSS AND DETRIMENT /3 Monopolies & Mergers Commission's conclusions and recommendations (accepted by the present and previous Governments) that such fixed Scales of Charges be abandoned in the public interest. (See "Architects' Services — A Report on the Supply of Architects' Services with Reference to Scale Fees", The Monopolies & Mergers Commission, H.M.S.0., 8th Nov. 1977, paras. 285 & 286.) 5.01 Likewise an 'unattached' architect's freedom to carry on his practice in the form of a limited liability company which isnot proscribed by the Registration Acts is nevertheless denied by Rule 2.4 of the (R.I.B.A.surrogate)A.R.C.U.K.CodeofProfessionalConduct. Inthie way the R.I.B.A. bas improperly used the 'A.R.C.U.K.' Code to protect its own members from what "unattached" architects may consider to be more advantageous forms of practice. 6.01 Another constraint in the manner of practice that the R.I.B.A. is at liberty to impose on its own members, but which is extended to all registered persons by means of its improper inclusion in the 'A.R.C.U.K.! Code, is the prosziption of advertising. (Rule 3.6) In this case, moreover, while through A.R.C.U.K. the R.I.B.A. prohibits 'soliciting' by registered persons, it simultaneously engages in vigorous advertising on behalf of its own members. Here again the improper constitution of A.R.C.U has prevented ‘unattached architects in their enjoyment of equal rights | in pursuing their means of livelyhood. 7.01 Lastly, and again by virtue of illegitimate R.I.B.A. representation | and dominance in Council, the equal opportunities in obtaining employment that are envisaged in the Act's single level of registered persons - (ise. equal qualification conferred by entry to the Register) - are prejudiced by the the widespread imposition of R.I.B.A. membership as a pre-requisite for job applications. Although A.R.C.U.K. has frequently been advised of this practice it remains negligent in informing employers of its injustice. (R.I.B.A. membership entails no higher qualification.) 8.01 In sum, through the improper constitution of A.R.C.U.K., ‘unattached’ architects are seen to suffer loss and detriment in the equal treatment and right to livelyhood to which under The Architects Registration Acts they are entitled, tee elaOecd ese) / at © me notes on the politics of AKCUK as it no! D: uted (b) 6 persons appointed by the Councils of certain other i | 6 non-architects appointed by certain other bocies involvea in the construction industry Since 1977, nearly all of the elected councillors have been enployee-architect nembe of the New architecture Movenent, a group aiming to make the profession more accountable to the public ana more democratically con— a trolled at ali levels. These NAN. members elected as | are all members of the relevant trade union, TASS or NALGO as the case may be. Although probably of its own (non-retired) UK member ship are employee architects, the K1Ba Council regularly appoints 90) management architects to AlCUK. The RIBA Council and its committees are similarly dominated by employers, whose interests the KIBA is widely seen as pursuing y | Es xcept for the elected members, other akCUK councillors generally rally behind the kIBA appointees' position, with one or two exceptions. sl ARCUK at present (1979-80) consists of 66 members, (a) 40 persons appointed by the RIBA Council bodies because they have architect member | (c) 9 architects electea by architects one person appointed by the Council of the koyal Society of Ulster Architects (part of kIBA) 5 persons appointed by gov't entitie < | Those under a, b, d and e need not be architects but invariably are and are with at most one or two exceptions per year, nembers of the k1BA as well. 6. Previous to the passage of the architects hegistration Act 1931, the K1Ba had sought trom Farliament a monopoly on the use of the title "architect" for its own members. When Parliament refused this and set up ARCUK and the Register instead, the RIBA Council apparently resolved to control AKCUK (see Loc. 46) as an RIBA puppet in its own interes and to prevent its proper functioning as an independent, public interest boay. The present situation can be compared to a classic "banana republic" (AKCUK), with the United Fruit Co. (i1BA) manipulating the puppet with little attempt to apply a veneer of derocracy over all the usual procedures of a tin-horn dictatorship or one-party state. (see voc. 14). {he agministration 01 AKCUK is carried out by a kegistrar and h taif. The present Kegistrar was selected in secret by a committee of KIBA members, some of whoni were no lounger members of AkCUK, and presented to the Council for reatification only, two years ago. The RIBA's UK membership, after increasing for man years, has been in decline since 1975, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of UK architects. Ihe nuiber oi UK architects in other boaies entitled to appoint persons to AKCUK on that basis is also declining. A recent survey published in the Architects Journal (see boc. 37) indicated that 70 of 294 KIBA members responding (anu 99% of 153 "unattached" architects) thought that RIBA control of AKCUK was not in the best interests of the public. 66% of the KIBA members (and 95% of the “unattached") also thought it w not in the best interests of the proiessior = Pye staleBll cre) A.C.Drysdale of Architecture Guildhall Portsmouth Hants .David Heath Levitt Berstein Assoc. 30 Oval Road London NW1 WSreertve Named (ncindvar Cazes o Hsontranchsement ot “vuattachoA ’Archdtcely Evidence of disenfranchisement of "unattached" architects. In response to a questionnaire to the profession published in the ARCHITECTS JOURNAL of 30 January 1980, 21% of a sample of 150 "unattached" architects claimed not to have received nomination papers for the 1980/81 Council elections. If representative this indicate assive disenfranchisement of "unattached" architects and a loss of at least 2 seats on council if these 21% are excluded from the ARCUK list of ache a to the "unattached" would be made worse if the 1% were attributed by ARCUK to one of the 6 nominating bodies thereby increasing their representation on Council at the expense of the "unattached". € es yweuo Tatel[oto) vespondents(14%) gave their name and that the elected councillors were able to r statements against ARCUK records The results of this eck are as follows:- A.-Registered architects considering themselves "unattached" but listed as 4a member of one or more of the 6 nominating bodies. Name & address Registration No. Body J.S.Dodd 23271 AA 37 Braemar Road Worcester Park Surrey Ian Redford Lowden 44945 101 Turnbert Avenue Ardler Dundee Martin Goodwin 38515 Dept. of Architecture London Borough of Southwark L.Tek Ong 41849 ; | Architects Dept. London Borough of Hammersmith Roger Thompson Sevenoaks Kent W.J.Wintle Dawn Dartington Totnes Devon TQ9 6HE 30144 The RIBA has informed ARCUK that thi are their members. ARCUK accept this despite at least one written request to ARCUK (from David Heath) to be listed unattached. David Heath is not and never has been, amember of the RIBA. L.Tek Ong Roger Thompson and Martin Goodwin resigned from the RIBA in 1978. Sworn statements to this effect can be obtained. Dept. of Architecture and Civic Design Civic Offices Guildhall Portsmouth PO1 2AT B.1.Patel Dept. of Architecture and Civic Design 7 1 | ; | | Saale ] Civic Offices Giuldhall Portsmouth P01 2AT . M.G.Watts Directorate of Architecture Telford Development Corporation Priorslee Hall Telford Salop TF2 9NT had walker toAe inae : architects Kxaned RIGA 1 ] A| Bayleys Hi Registered architects not attributed to any | of the nominating bodies and yet not included on the list of "unattached", and therefore not sent nomination papers. z oyeeele telre) P.Lowendon 31348 C. Registered architect listed as "unattached" but not included in mailing of nomination papers. D.W.Olden 35906 28 Bell Place Edinburgh EH3 SHT Bey LOE mus is on the arch itect to inform the Registrar of any change of addr and failure to do this mi account for those sent to old addresses. No explanation was given by the Registrar for groups A,B,&C above. This short investigation was only possible because a sample of names was available and the elected councillors were prepared to devote their time to checking them. It is alarming that this should reveal 12 architects wrongly disenfranched and the fear is that there are many more as yet undisclosed. There is at present no intention within ARCUK to carry out a thorough scrutiny , nor to allow an independent scrutiny ofmembership status. CTE tLe bluaicre) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NAM Unattached 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 Letter seeking legal advice re Clean Up Report on improper constitution of ARCUK, enclosing report https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/9d4a69afea6c347f2d309798eec19ed9.pdf 64633f2370416e320e4b7366ad264c96 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 Draft Ten Point Plan from Burnham Mill Meeting of Professional Issues Group Description An account of the resource BURNHAM DRAFT The Architect's Registration Council of the U.K. was established by Parliament to regulate the architectural profession in the public interest. All U.K. architects are subject to its discipline and must pay an annual retention fee to remain on its register. The Royal Institute of British Architects has, however, for its own self interest, prevented ARCUK from properly carrying out its statutory responsibilities. The undersigned all the elected councillors for 1979/80 and 1980/81 call for the immediate implementation of the following Ten Point Plan to enable ARCUK to operate in a proper manner in the interest both of the public and of the architectural profession. TEN POINT PLAN ( i) ‘The chairperson should be neutral. Council business should be conducted in an impartial manner. The chair of all committees, boards, panels etc. should be rotated among their respective members on a meeting to meeting basis. ii) All council meetings should be held at a neutral venue, not at the RIBA headquarters. ( iii) Al] ARCUK committees, visiting boards, selection panels, delegations and other bodies should be so constituted that their representation reflects accurately the composition of the council, that is, Elected architect members, nominees of the professional associations, Government nominees and non architect nominees from other professions, and other bodies. ( iv) The council should strictly observe its standing orders and its Regulations, as for example those governing the apportionment of seats. v) Votes taken in Council and Committees etc. should be properly conducted with the names of members voting for, against, and abstaining accurately recorded. ( vi) Full minutes of preceeding Committee meetings should form part of the Committee Reports to Council. ( vii) ARCUK should provide the elected councillors the facility to report back to and obtain the views of the electorate in order properly to discharge their responsibilities. (viii) The Council's Annual Report should include a minority report when necessary. Past reports have not accurately reflected diversity of opinion within the Council. ix) The misuse of ARCUK funds to subsidize RIBA activities should end. ARCUK should ensure that it takes the leading role in all activities that it sponsers and for which it has statutory responsibilities. Coappecto backs onc a Ab bz. YE Esliwesys ( x) All Council meetings, committees, boards and panels should be open to the public. BURNHAM MILL 24 February 1980 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource 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 March 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Draft Ten Point Plan from Burnham Mill Meeting of Professional Issues Group