13 10 310 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/e1460450831ff20b8084811216a9018a.pdf 0a74f1dacecf775435ba8393699ef753 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 Unattached Representatives re Clean Up Report Description An account of the resource oe Dear. Aw A.R.C.U.K. Please find enclosed a copy of the draft report CLEAN-UP which was passed to a solicitor on 10th March 1980 for advice as to whether the circumstances of ARCUK's sufficient grounds for obtaining a court injunction to prevent proceeding as currently represented. to the lawyer a considerable appended to our own report. available, is omitted from this content but should in any case be would you please assist as follows :— constitution, which it describes, the Council You will note that in the submission amount of supporting reference This material, all of which Any volunteers ? lawyer advises. Very great weight is given to actual cases of provided material was is publicly Z| familiar. The solicitor's comments are expected soon. To help progress this matter to a point where, taking also the legal advice into consideration, we can make a decision whether to proceed or not, 1- Send comments on the enclosed draft to Bob Maltz, 14, Holmdale Road, London, N.W. 6. 26 Indicate the extent to which you would be willing to share in costs. (Initial legal advice will cost approx. £50 i.e. about £5 each among ten, or so. The solicitor recommended seeking Legal Aid for any eventual court action, as this would probably get expensive. This could turn out to be the deciding factor. To get the best chance of Aid it is recommended that the applicant is the most impecunious among us, and with the greatest possible number of dependents, etc. 3. Seek out cases of any registered persons who consider themselves ‘unattached' (i.e. not a member of any of the bodies in Schedule I i - vi, 1931 Act) but who did not receive election papers etc. at the last ‘unattached' election. This excercise is most important, the 67, Romilly Road, London, N.4. 19th March 1980. aggrieved (disenfranchised) persons. It is strongly recommended that @ Such cases are first collected together to form a dossier, rather than raised individually with the ARCUK Registrar thereby merely eroding our argument. 4. Indicate whether, assuming all’ comments on the draft can be assimilated, you are willing to have your name on the report. Many thanks, x Yoursfraternally,Nee ; ~ Distribution: Norman. Arnold David Burney Ian Cooper Peter Cutmore Anne Delaney Peter Howe Alan Lipman Bob Maltz 19th March, 1980. /2 & John Murray ea Marion Roberts David Roebuck Ian Tod Eddie Walker | Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource JA 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 to Unattached Representatives re Clean Up Report https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/8ee6f232bcf170fedddc03f32a4889a3.pdf 299aee1af0db7283b80111827b865346 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence by Unattached Representatives regarding fee competition and certification Description An account of the resource Lx Quechee Q due % Sayan, ROU D2. x y, [rooG-2oh Ft A eh7 pu Co AL Lae @ Cop, ATUWL~0/ Hi Bf Bxtcon xLSr Aira. fy 60 Kingly Street Regent Street London W1R 6EY =f “1 Ce mm), [Tie . ira Pncere :=‘ ers and LandscapeArchitects\ Tel 01-734 857 3 ie withcompliments os CRLat fk |2,4ACU :aoeCTO). Car Gu 5 4-,whichea, lsscnslESs ae from parchewler fee sca la_ WS pro Sions / QSsotahsons hn He mot to promo Panos intere Ko of thee DRAINEAS NAA GopI i/ , ; ARQQA SL a brfos Su. Phar AS, AwwWf_> Cge> oy Aavyelop , P ee) eCncent conckhons (ACL = chverse ae BSiouCann) cha Ciliateshe resort fo ca Vio. aA be. intevezshelo ues yy Tho. tort Ne eras A a neta AVERT theAble. Irterestby a ds enhen ie of a mOTIOA oheh nad face oefeated otk ALCO pine ptt ay Moods. Cee | look). foce-acols of LOS aA-Y. (ouiie eS Ce - ae and Kobback, ye Repraantatves Une Hached ABR CUK of Aycbitets Ve NeueOss “Nice chye on fee Com pehhonr ere n aclisp ce of our Nay on Truartclany . / shad Direhon tke bo draco cnr aHenton fo 44whichA. olsscns/és ARCUK from ey fhok professions] oHempt to promo pachiileA fee Sc QESCASASEAS pr fheir Members , and thee Eoblic Interest La_ 1A, Fhe intere Re of- which Sa fegue rls bg enhoengng tho conckhons ( (in whe = cere of oe Saracens SS cloyelop wihinak Cemm, Hie A , In Pendent resor ann Mootter | look. forward, of: (OFS Zar fo an Vice pire Pncere f= or7 ar «hot aoes SS) Orckn wo) Ae merece EZ Our proposed | enclose for Onr Cconmcevrahon Be interce ote. d to read tho Tort WS, Hallam Shy om Toxscloy pore 24 IDG . London h/. of a MONA chth nuao re defeated ot ARCKESL pene! ‘papi is Ce ce ve kelerin C= Directive on Kee Competition The following rules are required in order to permit fee competitior and at the same time safeguard A.R.C.U.K.'s three "'tenets' of professionalism. (1) (3) Monopolies Commission Report, paragraph 281. Le Prior Agreement Between Architect & Client: 2. Safeguard Against Supplanting: oe Safeguard Against Touting: In adopting these rules A.R,C.U.K. may be required to alter other rules or principles that may contradict or inhibit the operation of these rules. Architects shall inform prospective Clients of the services to be provided and of their proposed fee and shall agree with their Client the terms of their engagement. An Architect shall neither accept an invitation, nor proceed to quote a fee for a prospective commission in knowledge of quotations already offered or to be offered by another Architect or Architects. (2) Architects shall not solicit either commissions or engagements for themselves or business for their Clients or Employers, but may make known their or their practice's availability or experience, including the services to be provided and proposed fee, by giving information which in substance and in presentation is factual, relevant, and neither misleading nor discreditable to the profession, in response to a direct request. The following additional direction is also required in order to safeguard the Public Interest G3)DF 4, Safeguard to Prevent any "Recommended" Scale assuming a de facto Monopoly: There shall be no reference in any A.R.C.U.K. publication to any specific "Conditions of Engagement" or recommended scales of charges. Any revised or new A.R.C.U.K. code should be deposited with the O,F,T.in order that the 0.F.T. may satisfy itself that its directives have been complied with. (1) "Way Ahead", AppendiIxV, “Annexe G". (2) "Way Ahead", page 23. ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION COUNCIL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM a Motion to the 190th Ordinary Meeting 10th October, 1979 on all registered persons. Proposer: Jobn S. Allan This Council no longer wishes to defy the Government's requirement that mandatory scale fees be abolished*, and therefore declares that application of Conditions of Engagement and a scale of charges published by one of its constituent bodies shall hereby cease to be binding Seconder: John D. Murray * "The requirement of the ARCUK Code of Professional Conduct that an arohitect shall not contract with his olient except on the basis of Conditions of Engagement and a soale of charges published by one of its constituent bodies should be abolished.” "The rules of 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 business on the basis of fees". "aArchitects' Services — A Report on the Supply of Architects' Services with Reference to Scale Fees", Ch.8, IV Recommendatione - 286, (i) & (ii). The Monopolies end Mergers Commission, HMSO. i L.G.Packer, Room 1034, Becket House, Lambeth Palace Road, London SE1 7ER Sir, Elected representatives of "unattached" architects, A.R.C.U.K. 75 Hallam Street, London W.1 4 July 1980 Proposed changes in the system of. building control in England and wales, We refer to your letter dated 6 June 1980, ref. BRA/759/23. We note from appendix B that comments have been invited from several architectural professional institutes and from certain trade unions with architect members, but not from the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK)- the govern- ing body of the profession, if it is your intention to seek the views of the architectural profession then only a fraction may be reached through the bodies listed in the appendix 5. This may be due to a misunderstanding and it may help to clarify the present structure of the profession and the role of ARCUK. Briefly, ARCUK is a statutory body constituted under the Architects Registration Acts 1931 & 38 to maintaina register of architects, to control entry to the register by professional qualification and to oversee the professional conduct of registered persons, Only persons registered under the Act may style themselves Narchitect"TM and entry on the register (not membership of a pro- fessional institute or trade union) is the sole definition of "architect", Council, which meets regularly, is composed of. nominees of architectural bodies laid down in the 1931 Act in proportion to their membership, elected representatives of registered outlined we have the following comments :- VW a) The Architects Registration Council maintains, in the public interest, a register of persons competent to provide architectural services and we suggest that in any system of self-certification Any person registered under the Act be considered a "competent person" for the purposes of certification, c) Architects registered under the Act should not be excluded as "competent persons" solely on the grounds of their residing in Scotland or Northern: Ireland, d) To protect the public interest, any person removed from the Register of Architects should automatically be removed from the register of "competent persons" if he entered that register by virtue of registration under the act. e) Any person resigning from the Register of architects should be deemed to have also resigned from the register of. "competent persons" if he entered this register by virtue of registration under the. Act, by "competent persons!! persons not being members of any of these bodies, in pro- portion to their numbers; and nominees of certain government departments and other professional bodies, It is as elected members of council that we write to you now, Coming to your proposals on changes in the system of building control it seems to us that the proposed system of self— certification is of particular concern to architects, The implications of these changes will no doubt become clearer as more detailed praposals are formulated but on the principles b) Membership of a professional institute or trade union should not endow an architect with greater status on the register of "competent persons" than an architect who is "unattached", De In any system of self— certification care be taken to prevent the increased liability of the certifier leading to indemnity insurance premiums prohibitive to the independent architect, xrours faithfully, YRAD Gut David Burney un behalf of : J.S.Allan n.F. Arnold D.J.Burney ».d.Cutmore P.W.Howe ¢.D,Murray D.Roebuck 2, Walker M.E.R.Roberts When more detailed proposals are formulated we may wish to comment further, if you would like any amplification of the above comments then please do not hesitate to contact the writer, As elected rep- resentatives of "unattached" architects on Council we have held discussions with present and previous Government ministers on matters affecting the architectural profession (including the recent monopilies Commission investigation into architects! services) and we would hope that this precedent would be followed in your consultation with the profession on the proposed changes in the system of building control. flected representatives of "unattached architects, A.R.C.U.K, Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Unattached Representatives Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Correspondence by Unattached Representatives regarding fee competition and certification https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/7e21fd5a359c93e85a2c4a93b79c6dd8.pdf ad6b001cfa859e0fa0a72d5059822548 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 DOE Consultation on Future of Building Control Description An account of the resource A Z LEVY Hh 270640 © Mths ita Cheltal Pages” with compliments fim bette ve hie pa Changs Wehorfavs +Sy Gvy Ai|hidewr cam tak altifafl tr OFTbusinesvsdhe-. Gon -Shepheard-E&pHsunterianctitecis-tounPtaners-end-Lendecape Architects 60 Kingly Street Regent Street London W1R 6EY Tel 01-734 8577 INDYULUNRGUrDUTTINeTUUivastayBivLaueivaThea 3. Comments on the principles of the proposed changes should reach the Department by 4 July; and any further comments you may have on their detailed operation by the end of August. Comments should be sent to: LG Packer Room 1034 b Becket House Lambeth Palace LONDON SEl 7ER Road 1. My letter of 11 December 1979 invited comments from those bodies listed at Annex B on the options for change in the system of building control. Comments were also received from a large number of other bodies and from individuals. I am now directed by the Secretary of State to invite comments from all of you on the specific possibilities for change set out in the consultative paper at Annex A. 2, To introduce and implement a radical reform of building control will take some time, and revisions must be undertaken in a manner which will at no point put at risk public health and safety. ‘Yith this in mind, the Secretary of State proposes that the first steps shall be to take action on: a) reducing the range of buildings controlled under the Building Regulations; b) introducing "certification" as an alternative to local authority enforcement; and ec) recasting the Building Regulations. (Telephone 01-211-7415 ) 4. This letter also goes to local authorities responsible for enforcing the Building Regulations in Fngland and Wales. I am Sir Your obedient Servant alee sir Department of the Environment Room Becket House Lambeth Palace Road London SE1 7ER TelephonotHOAR Ol 211 7415 Our ref BRA/759/23 6 dune 1980 THE FUTURE OF BUILDING CONTROL IN ENGLAND AND ‘WALES 1. My letter of 11 December 1979 invited comments from those bodies listed at Annex B on the options for change in the system of building control. Comments were also received from a large number of other bodies and from individuals. I am now directed by the Secretary of State to invite comments from all of you on the specific possibilities for change set out in the consultative paper at Annex A. 2. To introduce and implement a radical reform of building control will take some time, and revisions must be undertaken in a manner which will at no point put at risk public health and safety. ‘ith this in mind, the Secretary of State proposes that the first steps shall be to take action on: a) reducing the range of buildings controlled under the Building Regulations; b) introducing "certification" as an alternative to local authority enforcement; and ec) recasting the Building Regulations. I am Sir Your obedient Servant A Z LEVY \9 3. Comments on the principles of the proposed changes should reach the Department by 4 July; and any their detailed operation by the end of August. Comments should be sent tos LG Packer Room 1034 Becket House Lambeth Palace Road LONDON SEL 7ER (Telephone 01-211-7415) further comments you may have on 4. This letter also goes to local authorities responsible for enforcing the Building Regulations in Ingland and Wales. (20 THE FUTURE OF BUILDING CONTROL IN ENGLAND AND “VALTS Introduction EXEMPTION ANNEX A 1 1. In his speech of 10 December 1979, the Secretary of State reviewed the nature and extent of criticisms levied against the current system of building control and the Building Regulations. He announced a radical revicw and invited comments from all interested parties. As guidelines he set out four principal objectives: a) maximum self-regulation b) minimum government interference c) total self-financing and in operation d) simplicity and identified a number of possible means to these ends. 2. This speech has elicited a widespread and searching response. Following a careful scrutiny of all the points made to him, the Secretary of State has chosen certain options on which he is minded to take action, subject to furthcr comments which are made to him. 3. Those buildings now exempt from formal control under the Building Regulations are Crown buildings, the operational buildings of statutory undertakers, and maintained schools and colleges. Underlying this exemption is the consideration that the bodies concerned are publicly accountable for their policies and have the continuity and the means to pay any compensation that may be awerded against them. These characteristics give an assurance of public responsibility over the design and construction of buildings and redress if necessary. On this basis it is logical to extend formal exemption to all buildings of statutory undertakers and also to all the buildings of local authorities. The Secretary of State would however exp ct all exempt bodies to comply with the technical requirements of the regulations, or their equivalents. 4. It is also proposed to exempt from the regulations certain types of buildings, of which some are at present partially exempt. Action is already in hand to exempt completely some agricultural buildings at present partially exempt and consideration will be given to exempting industrial buildings constructed solely to house plant or machinery and occupied by people only from time to time for purposes of inspection or maintenance. 5. Alterations and extensions to existing buildings make up most of the applications for tuwilding approval. The jobs are varied and often carried out without professional advice: there is no obvious means of classifying them as likely or not to impair safety and health. Even if such classification were possible local authorities would still have a formidable task in checking public understanding and compliance. Some minor works, however, would be exempt from the regulations: the sort of things the Secretary of State has in mind are: a a) detached domestic buildings such as garages and car—ports, and : b) greenhouses, sun—lounges and porches built on to dwellings. CERTIFICATION 6. At present, enforcement is a procedure entirely for the local authorities. The risks to life from structural failure are low and the present system has undoubtedly contributed to this, but it is frequently criticised as cumbersome and bureaucratic: the Secretary of State considers it desirable that an alternative should be available. He notes that from time to time local authorities make use of consultants to check calculations and to inspect works on their behalf. He notes also that the NHBC already provides a system of inspection for new houses covered by its warranty scheme. He is therefore minded to provide that certification by a "competent person" should be available in all cases as an option to local authority approval. It normally would be for the owner or developer to decide whether to exercise this option. However, there may be a case for allowing local authorities to ask for certification in certain circumstances or for the Secretary of State to require certification for specified matters, such as energy conservation. 7. Local authorities would be bound to accept properly tendered certificates and, beyond checking that the certifier was a "competent person", would have no responsibility; for the works — nor would they receive a fee. The local authority's responsibilities and liabilities for the works, under building control measures, would pass, on acceptance of the certificate, to the certifier. LIABILITY 9. The Secretary of State is aware of the concern over the liability, and in particular the possible duration of liability, now attaching to local authorities in cases where negligence is occuring in the enforcement of building regulations. He is also aware of similar concern on the part of firms and professions engaged in the construction industry. 8. A national list of "competent persons' would be required: this is a matter which the Secretary of State sees as central to health and safety. Professional bodies could no doubt advise on individuals and practices whose qualifications, experience and insured status made them candidates for inclusion. Other bodies might qualify: for example, the N'BC might be regarded as a ‘competent person‘ for certification of new private housing. Minor works, services and thermal insulation might be “self-certificed". For structural works the certifier should be an independent third party. To ensure simplicity, and to clarify liabilities, the certificate put to the local authority should cover the whole of the project and the certifier or certifiers would guarantee that it had been designed, and would be built, in compliance with the regulations. APPEALS INNER LONDON 14. It is for consideration whether the new system that follows 3F 10. However, many of the legal issues which give rise to this concern are not confined to building control or to the construction industry, and the Secretary of State welcomes the Lord Chancellor's proposal to refer the question of latent damage to the Law Reform Committee. In view of this proposal, the Secretary of State believes that any issues which fall within the terms of that reference should first be considered by the Committee. Possible changes to the law such as limiting liability for negligence to actions started within a fixed period from the date of completion of the works would clearly be matters which the Committee would consider. ll. The Building Regulations are widely criticised as too complex, too detailed and difficult to comprehend. They are designed to be all-embracing, precise and justiciable — Objectives which are incompatible with Simplicity of style. It is not possible to deal BUILDING REGULATIONS in simple non-technical terms with Subjects which are themselves technical and involved. 12. The Secretary of State is therefore considering reducing the requirements of the regulations to a minimum number of functional requirements and performance standards set out in subordinate legislation along with procedural matters. For the rest, the formal concept of deemed-to-satisfy would be abandoned in favour of informal arrangements by which the Secretary of State would €ive his approval to codes of practice and other technical requirements as being useful guides to compliance. The increased flexibility provided by these arrangements would ease a number of problems, for example, those which arise in reconciling the regulations with Standards for specialised buildings, such as hospitals. A place could be maintained for energy conservation, expressed as performance Standards; and there would be scope in the system for enhancing the status of Agrement Certificates. 13. Consideration will also need to be &1iven to the system for dealing with appeals, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State does not wish to adjudicate matters which are essentially for local determination; nor is it usually appropriate for such matters to go before the Magistrates! Courts. these proposals should in due course supersede the present system in Inner London. Aluninium Window Association Ainalganated Union of Engineering Workers- (Construction Section) reviers Society Brick Development Association Limited Anglian Standing Conference Architectural Aluniniuin Association Architectural Association Architectural Metalwork Association Asbestos Cement Manufacturers Association British Bingo Association f Asnociated Master Plumbers and Domestic Engineers Association of Ballrooms Limited Assoc of British Chambers of Commerce Association of British Manufacturers of Mineral Insulating Fibres British Blind and Shutter Association British Broadcasting Corporation British Ceramic Research Associ«ntion British Ceramic Tile Council British Combustion Equipment Manutacturers Association British Constructional Steelwork Asseciation Limited British Decorators Association British Blectrical and Allied Manufacturers Association Limited British Floor Covering Manufacturers Association British Gas Corporation British Insurance Association British Tronfounders Association poe British Lead Manufacturers Acsociation British Multiple Retailers Association British Non—Terrous Metals Association Association of British Roofing Felt Manufacturers Limited Association of British Theatre Technicians Association of Building Component Manufacturers Limited Association of Consulting Engineers y AsscciaotfiCounty Councils Association of District Councils J fes0c lation of. Tadenendent Businesses Association of Tadependent Cinemas ~ sscciation of Lightweight hgercgate itenufacturers ; : British Airports Authority Brivish Airways British futomatic Sprinkler Association Ltd British Bath Manufacturers Association British Paver & Board Mdnstry Kederation ayae ~ S Peate 3 = Association of Matropolitan Authorities Asgcciation of Structure] Fine Protection a) NEE Manufacturers and Contractors 7 British Pest Control Association ? NINEX B JWTTYING REGULATIONS List! Gi KOMLLS INVITED TO COMAENT ON PROPOSALS TOR AMPADMENT (OTHER THAN GOVEMNHIN'T DEPARTHENTS ) Aggregate Block Producers Comittee Avrément Board Aluminium Federation » Ausociation of Thermoplastic Domclight Manufacturers Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Products Association ¢ ghish Plostics Fedoravion Rritish Ports Association — pritich Precast Concrete federation Rritish Property Federation British Railways Board H British Ready Mixed Concrete Association British Reinforcement Monufacturers Association British Rigid Urethane Foam Manufacturers Association British Standards Institution British Steel Corporation British Transport Docks Poard British Waterways Board British Wood Preserving Association British Woodworking Fedcration Builders Merchants Federation Building Centre Building Regulations Liaison Group Building Services Research and Information Association Building Societies Association Bye Laws Revision Committee (Isle of Man) Cuke und biscuit Alliance Ceinent Admixtures Association Cement and Concrete Association Cement Makers Federation - Central Electricity Genemting Board Ceramic Tile Council” Chartered Institution of Building Services Chemical ndestrics Association Anse Linited Gi Fire Retardant Additives Vorkings Geom Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association Chief Building Inspector (Jersey C1) Chief Insnector of TOM Local Governmet:it Bourd Chivcboard Promotion Association Limited Churches Main Coanittee Cinenatograph Exhibitors Association of Great Britain and Treland Civil Aviation Authority Clay Pipe Development Association Limited Cocoa Chocolate & confectionery Alliance Cold Rolled Section Association Committee of Associations of Specialist Engineering Contractors Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the U.K. Committee on Restrictions ayrainst Disabled People Concrete Block Association Concrete Socicty Confederation for the Registration of British Gas Installers Confederatioonf British Industry CBi Smaller Firms Council Consortium of Local Authority Programme Consortium of Local Authorities — Wales Consortium for Method Building Constructional Steel Research and Development Association Construction Industry Research and Infor:mtion Association Construction Surveyors Institute Consumers Association Contract Flooring Association / Contractors Plant Association / Copper Cylinder and Roiler Nanufacturers i Copper Titbe Fittings Menufaclurers Association /) Council of British Ceramic Sanitary Ware Nanutacturers ” AS plish Plectics Sederniion British Ports Associaticn dritich Preeast Concrele Federation British Property Federation British Railways Board British Ready Mixed Concrete Association British Reinforcement Manufacturers Association British Rigid Urethane Foam Manufacturers Association British Standards Institution British Steel Corporation British Transport Docks Board British Waterways Board British Wood Preserving Association British Woodworking Federation Builders Merchants Federation Building Centre BuildingRegulationsLiaisonGroup Building Services Research and Information Association Building Societies Association Bye Laws Revision Committee (Isle of Man)~ Cuke und biscuit Alliance Cenent Admixtures Association Cement and Concrete Association Cement Makers Federation ~ Central Electricity Genemting Board Ceramic Tile Council” Chartered Institution of Building Services Linited Cif. Fire Reievdant Additives Vorkinys Gem Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association Chief Building Inspector (Jersey C1) Chief Insvector of IOM Local Governmer:t Bourd| Chivboard Promotion Association Limited Churches Main Connittee Cinenatograph Exhibitors Association of Great Britain and Treland Civil Aviation Authority Clay Pipe Development Association Limited Cocoa Chocolate & confectionery Alliance Cold Rolled Section Association Committee of Associations of Specialist Engineering Contractors Comnittee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the U.K, Committee on Restrictions ayainst Disabled People Conerste Block Association Concrete Socicty Confederation for the Registration of British Gas Installors Confederation of British pndustry CBI Smaller #irms Counc ConsortiumofLocalaoa Programme Consortium of Local Authorities — Wales Consortium for Method Building Constructional Steel Research and Development Association Construction Industry Research and Inforimti6n Association Construction Surveyors Institute Consumers Association Contract Flooring Association / Contractors Plant Association } Copper Cylinder and Roiler Nanufacturers i Copper Tube Fittings Menufacturers Association 4J Council of British Ceramic Sanilary Ware Nunutacturers + Chomical Tndustr AS wetl for Small Industries in Nural Areas Country Landowners Association District Council Tectmical Association District Surveyors Association Domestic 0i1 Burning Equipment Testing Association Limited Domestic Solid fuel Appliances Approval Scheme Door and Shutter Association Dry Lining and Partitioning Association Federation of Master Builders Wederation of Piling Specialists lederation of Stone Industrics Meit Roofing Contractors Advisory Board Fencing Contractors Association i Fibre Building Board Development,, Organisation, Fibre Building Board Federation Fire Brigades Union Linited Ductile Iron Pipe Association ;; Electrical Contractors Association Electyical Electronic Tele— communications & Plumbing Union Tilectric Cable Makers Confederation Mlectricity Consumers Association Vlectricity Council Ingineering Equipment Users?’ Association Invironmental Health Officers EPS Association: Information and Technical Centre Faculty of Architects & Surveyors Paculty of Building A Pederation of Associationosf Specialists & SubContractors Guild of Surveyors Incorporated Society of Yalucrs and Auctioneers Fire Insurers! Research and Testing Organisation Fire Offices Committee t Fire Protection Association Fire Service Technical College Flat Glass Manufacturers Association Food & Drink Industries Council “ocd Nunufeacturers Federation Inc Forestry Commission Georgian Group a ie Glass and Glazing Federation Greater London -Building Sufveyors Asscciation Greater London Council Architect to the Council Department of Architecture and Civic Desig Gypsum Products Development Association Heating and Ventilating Contractors Federation of Civil Engincering Contractors Association House Builders Federation Housing Centre Trust : ~ Federation of Concrete Specialists. : Imperial College of Science & Technology Federation of Epoxy Resin Formulators & Applicators / A .neorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors Independent Proadcasting Authority Inner London Building Surveyors! Association Institute of Administrative Management Institute of Building Institute of Clerks of Works of Great Britain Incorporated Institute of Construction Management Institute of Housing Managers Institute of Plumbing Institute of Quantity Surveyors Institute of Registered Architects Laminated Plastics Fabricators Association Leathercloth and Coated Fabrics Manufacturers Associetion Lighting Industry Mederation Limited Liquefied Petroleum Gas Industry Technical Association (UK) Liverpool Polytechnic: Department of Architecture” London Boroughs Association London Transport Executive Manufacturers Association of Radiators & Convectors Mastic Asphalt Council and Employers Association ‘ Metal Roof Deck Association Methodist Church Division of Property Metropolitan Architectural Consortium for Education Wilk Marketing Board Modular Society Limited National Association of Fire Officers National Association of Licensed Bingo & Social Clubs National Association of Liftmakers National .Association of Local Councils Nationil Assoc of Loft Insulation Ontractars National Association of Shopfitters National Building Agency National Building and Allied Hardware Naenufecturers Federation National Cavity Insulation Association Netijensl Chamber of Trade National Clayware Federation Institution Officers Institution Institution Institution Institution Institution Institution of Building Control of Civil Ingineers of Electrical of Fire Mngineers of Gas Ingineers of Mechanical of Municipal Development Group Engineers” Engineers Mngineers VY Institution of Professional Civil Servants Institution of Public Health Ingincers Institution of Structural Ingineers Inter—Council Co-ordinating Committee Interdepartmental Construction Joint Conmitice on Building Legislation wwtionel Coal Doan, Sceeretary's Department Nation) Consumer Council Wational Cowicil of Building Material Producers National Council of Social Service National Farmers Union National Federation of Building Trades Employers National Federation of Clay Industries National Federation of Constructional Glass Associations National Federation of Housing Associations National Federation of Master Steeplejacks and Lightning Conductor Engineers National Federation of Painting and Decorating Contractors National Federation of Plumbers and Domestic Heating Ingineers National Federation of Roofing Contractors Nat Fed of Self Employed & Small Businesses National Fireplace Council National Fireplace Manufacturers Association National Freight Corporation National House-Building Council National Joint Council for the Building Industry (Operatives Side) National and Local Government Officers Association National Master Tile Fixers Association National Ports Comcil National Society for Clean Air National Union & Need orionbem and Allied Yorkers e. National Union of General and Municipal Workers National. Water Council Wew Towms Acsociation Orgenisation of Northtlest Authorities for Rationalized Design Paintmakers Association of Great Britain Limited Patent Glazing Conference Pitch Fibre Pipe Association Polytechnic of Central London Polytechnic of North London Portsmouth Polytechnic Post Office Prefabricated Building Manufacturers Association of Great Britain Ltd Refractory Contractors Association Registered Plumbers Association Retail Distributors Association Incorporated Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation Royai Institute of British Architects Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Royal Society of Health Rubber & Plastics Research Association Sand and Gravel Association Limited Scout Association Sealant Manufacturers Conference Second Consortium of Local Authorities Trent Polytechnic ‘frinity House and Wales) 6F. South London Consortium for LAs Building Research & Development Spiral Stair Manufacturers Association Spray Contracts Technical Committee Steel Window Association shop and Display Equipment Association Society of Architectural and Associated Technicians Society of British Gas Industries Society of Chief Architects Society of Chief Building Regulation Officers Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Solid Fuel Advisory Service Solid Sinokeless Fuels Federation South-Eastern Architects Collaboration Storage Equipment Manufacturers Association Structural Insulation Association Supervisory, Technical, Administrative, lianagerial and Professional Section (UCATT) Suspended Ceilings Association Swedish Finnish Timber Council Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association Test Research & Inspection Services (International) Limited Timber Trade Federation of the United Kingdom UX Particleboard Assodtationi Yarsley Testing Laboratories Trades Union Congress Construction Industry Committee Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians University of Bristol: Department of Architecture Vitreous Ynamel Development Council Volume Housebuilders Study Group Wales Council for the Disabled Wallcovering Nannfacturers Meeccietien Warrington Research Centre White Lead Manufacturers Association Wood Wool Slab Manufacturers Association Timber Research and Development Association Transport & General Workers Union UX Alowie Mnergy Authority UK Association of Frozen ood "rcoducers Youth Hostels Association (England Zinc and Lead Development Association Ss a QP L 72 alti Stet CYA wl. ae1451 Jie ne LO blades, bin (02, brckeyHeyot lend Lam byt Vadece ANA |. _4 / / Pn aaee i , a fi CAAT. LTMCALN ViIAECVLT Lairdcamgiaur_PraliigCl ur bnglind 4 Walte — yori. SPA [ast [22 Atos ly Jo pteuK VE, The mdvergned, ae Meh tema d- ti Whites begistrion (anes 4a Vaid Kingday(420K).wewpathatferry de wiutdts nqistitd unde the Ayla Lequstadion bilo 1971, BB adstghalta "unpttaced -lEP MT brag Mnubae ang 4Ti piprssunal in the AT) . ustiitle end tare lla nad Ne nile yar 1990, gud avolav Pha 1999/23 fb fe that conde KIM Onin Tad Uwe whith avtulliet Nims. In 20 dV asthe payed Hungqes Te The Sup Pibissiine have bem Inktivns pnultd and 4 pildwiqg Gate afer al syrhatele LIRA f AT pebasaltMala "Unattached" putts *- *) Avg poem Vqislird umdw Tht act I. WE har weCoit atThis athe Pnapal dieters WW Frpnfinm- nvm er piltsate CWtificalia, 2- In The pavioat 4 Cntifiahin Westra Ainge thet tr doetem He pate of fur unattached biti” say be Hhetiatd if Me fran de (Niriatim is ystadttd Te Minntw 1) hfrssimat brats N nad PUMEE. The tybitile lrgistata Act hinendgne ,MTA fibt ulitet, 4VAqiAUK VEGGIE malty Th AT Ay¥:ay at4 Ti biting Comin fr Yeh f 4 ‘|‘ t} Nd£0 = tae 4 nels Wi Fe a> GiAAA Livy‘YatTeplatAVtiulfilres Cony C4 7. And WE Sug4freT 7VATA 5 [Mg Ve iunvbiditd a CO tint bisa tN The pmperes A ENbrentita. 6) MouAuyp Goa pllrsabal wsttte w Tndleuna Shadwlprdortrqbalict hal wai Statice om the vigikte D CliftTa PMS" hy bn hve? phy iz l Wattnthtd .YW (x) / :hy Mo be adadtd adity wth gitwdsA flv folhng 2udtond Ww Neltaln Nand. (cmmecnred/h 7) Te pittict” 4) jon Thr pple ullitsT, hay poem void hin The Legg, K i} prduticte Shivd z Linnbby — ? ap‘lafirelUwT14 AcA 6higd Pours" 246 "Cpt altiaaltically ve trurved o ‘Ch fart (MW2M4 itibAye hvtwid Thisnq byvrA46am Wn Te Act Korte gist é ) Yay [K5TM WWaghingy fin Th Liqust cy HUWlets shold be diriid te haw atc 151g AMnTheqb ¢}.CMlit Home "ie be poled this vqisti by Vie ob pgustiatim undies the Act. Thee BluA net,bye, piquMcr his bang linsitirda“Ympettiran“byGi he, her Catena . Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource DOE Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 1980 Subject The topic of the resource DOE Consultation on Future of Building Control https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/1d4113e4536fb68028f50aca03950a17.pdf f7f08464c32612ed593dd82cbf80327d 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 ARCUK Registrar re RIBA actions in Council Description An account of the resource i \ \ A LilAsh f es 21% SRUUD web Gh Ceo. gy128)ashyHe? wvLIGg im Questv | er dytU4IvoIespowseAKwerelCrd thenteed. Crudiuy Udalktelurd: WaartricabletateIsta, Vvnk tah byRIP cowtiert ? Tue runy’ Lud [urn file bnigiu\aghatedKarpv’ MaaleficePROV dinedastibuking \ Va luktuste DpteDe>) ie “yin Weba Codes6]Doct and CordihousJLengageuaxok 15 KRU poli. Wadkatlved wudlikels An vee Was, »Ow bowkuianelly aye VMs Unncctlils i pein | PAduc:aed meee snrMOU une wie Ww Lanny ewh We dneliews of bu Kegistvaluion Kiks by i on postin) Ku WAN Pw WAH ulzevslurp rules ou PROUIA . AWA ye Duyowuad he ATW full. | Wau paniiuwlan awn of ability WstdA du BD wus Mei. peeiawunnelANbyPPChnteNowSew @ PACK awd ovpuueKRWE crdalrility vould be erm be ng onyAAneMAA fiaaupsANweldtoe wip ihUyCaysvtcouldbanfinMpthe pale Krad |Bea aan u U 44 wel McPRC- o-¥yi oAlnYessI ee Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource PC 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 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Draft letter to ARCUK Registrar re RIBA actions in Council https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c31abd23455bb0664bdd313bde83f5c2.pdf e25ad5cfa1c255f4fae451ef903df79a 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 John Allan from A. Leggatt re. ARCUK Council Meetings Description An account of the resource ®& 14th December 1979 Cur reference: M12/AJL/HC John F. Allan Esq. Shepheard Epstein & Hunter 60 Kingley Street -Regent Street London W1R 6EY Dear Mr. Allan, A.R.C.U.K. ae Nice (bA afer Cur Aon F arr:O NACHSHEN CROFTS& EGGATT ; Consulting Engineers 192-198 VAUXHALL BRIDGE ROAD LONDON SW1V 1DXx J ECROFTIS MC FICE FGS MSIC(France) MConst AJ LEGGATT BSc FICE FiStructE FIArh MSIC(France) MConst G E BRATCHELL BSc FICE FIStructE MIWES MConsé 0WSWAINBScOMNICE Private LCJOMNScDEICMSiStroctE Teli01-8341575 ameserrryre Telex 917502 JGACH FIStructé GMPINBScFDICOFILCEFDiStuctt ae we [Rarbof Lyre Bs ths SORE sets) ae By way of brief introduction, I am a more or less permanent member of A.R.C.U.K council, representing structural engineers. I am not an architect - attached nor unattached. I can thus afford to be neutral and objective in my dealings with A.R.C.U.K. but nevertheless I am very keen that the objects of A.R.C.U.K., which are to administer certain acts of Parliament, are properly and fairly achieved. It occurs to me now that I might possibly be of some help to A.R.C.U.K. in respect of the position of the unattached council members vis-a-vis the chairman and officers. For the last few years the unattached architects on council @ have provided an interesting, and at times - welcome, intrusion into the otherwise monolithic conduct of the meetings. For the general health of A.R.C.U.K., I think this is good but I am now becoming worried that too much antagonism is building up between the unattached members and the "establishment". The December 12th meeting was about the worst I have attended and was most depressing. Although I think the Chairman tried hard to maintain the order and the dignity of the proceedings, there were times when matters proceeded ina thoroughly bad way. Certainly a great deal of time was wasted and meetings such as that can only bring eventual discredit of A.R.C.U.K. as a whole. Responsibility for this poor state of affairs, in my view, lies more or less equally in all directions but that aspect does not particularly concern me. What does concern me very deeply is that A.R.C.U.K. should not become a shambles and I am sure that this view is shared by yourself and the other unattached members of council. Now the point of my letter is to offer myself as a link (or if you prefer it, a "go-between"), neutral and disinterested, whereby unattached members of council can have a communication channel through to the chairman and officers and - most important-vice versa. If I proved acceptable to both sides, I could not guarantee that all issues could be speedily settled but in a percentage of cases I feel that a lot of time, heat and exasperation could be avoided at the council meetings. My three main qualifications for this task might be summarized as follows:- ts Die I am independent of the issues likely to arise but at the same time feel a responsibility to promote and support the proper and fair administration of A.R.C.U.K. as a statutory body. I am experienced in the conduct and behaviour of a number of organizations which are democratically based. All of these organizations have, from time to time, their ginger-groups, rebels, protest movements as well as their reactionaries, "establishments" and the like. At various times I have found myself a member of almost all such factions! I have served on the council of my own professional organization (the ACE), I am President elect of the consulting engineers Common Market liaison committee and I have written the constitution for and helped with the administration of, a successful national charity - apart from all my technical work as an engineer. Bo Any services I provided in this respect would be confidential i.e. I would not be known outside the parties using the channel of communication nor would I be known in this role to the council itself. I am making this suggestion off my own bat and there is nothing lying behind or underneath the offer. I have not so far approached the chairman and obviously his co-operation would be essential. I hope you will pursue my suggestion for at worst, nothing would be lost and at best, both time and temper would be saved and perhaps some of the objectives of the unattached architects would be achieved more speedily. With best wishes for a happy Christmas. Yours sincerely, A.J.Leggatt » Mo De.Kappa OA yr o_ Fae eneGUO oe ain. ere GN Ja QU yor a) CS CRS ES Ane Gun x HikeDaven Cs. Bppnsec Cink - Sots i aoe Zs Fe et rofess rofessor Gabriel Epstein AA Dipl (Hons) Hon D Litt FRIBA SADG ‘eler Hunter Dipl Arch (Oxford) RIBA FSAI ssociate John Thacker Dipl Arch RIBA onsultant Derek Bridgwater B Arch FRIBA 60 Kingly Street Regent Street London W1R 6EY Tel: 01-734 8577 s Nos, CSL ee aeee inUSA The Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Pa 19104. inFrance 43 Rue Mazarine 75006 Paris. in Belgium in association with CERAU Architects, 12 Avenue du Venezuela, Brussels 1050. J Shepheard Epstein & Hunter Architects Town Planners and Landscape Architects orPeter Shepheard CBE BArch Hon DLitPPRIBAFRTPI PPILA O>uwDT ee 72- JS Ulu QU rol dy AT Acq Uk A ” Valen OD cau Len Novy NAG, DWNx j LNG e ase I herey prs Gly Whee one Prfmeails Osi (ay ay OR eae MaCLUS Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource AL/JA Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource December 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Letter to John Allan from A. Leggatt re. ARCUK Council Meetings https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/89d8c78c51182c032dada2c8b4a4ce3b.pdf f4e8f6a6c003e82eece100136eaf41c7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Representation of Unattached Architects, 1979/80 Description An account of the resource Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNCER THE ARCHITECTS IMEGIBTRATION) ACTS #8! TO 1838 73 Hallam Street London W1N 6EE Tel; 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. REPRESENTATION OF 'UNATTACHED' ARCHITECTS John Duncan Murray 500 Robert Maltz Thomas Adrian Woolley 489 Ian James Tod 478 John Stewart Allan 433 David Greensett Robson 391 Peter John Cutmore 356 Susan Mary Jackson 343 Marion Elizabeth Ruth Roberts 338 Edward Walker 337 Maxwell John Buckingham Jackson 333 tb Hugh Philip Massey Ian Peter Cooper The 35 disallowed were as follows: 16 unsigned envelopes 6 wrong signatures 3 spoiled papers 10 had no inner envelopes 315 299 492 rie H M Smith James Keeble We, the undersigned scrutineers, report that the votes cast in this election were as follows: 772 voting papers were received, of which 737 were counted. Election of Members of the Council under sub-paragraph (vii) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the principal Act for the year 1979/80 9 February 1979 Scrutineers 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 Feb. 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Representation of Unattached Architects, 1979/80 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/103dc5807ba2f7928c88f9c8e713974e.pdf 1bc57b345d16fb44e0b00f22784e8f9f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Representation of Unattached Architects, 1979/80 Description An account of the resource Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS INEGIBTRATION! ACTS Fes! TO 1830 73 Hallam Street London W1N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5851 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. REPRESENTATION OF "UNATTACHED' ARCHITECTS election were as follows: John Duncan Murray 500 Robert Maltz 492 Thomas Adrian Woolley 489 Ian James Tod 478 John Stewart Allan 433 David Greensett Robson 391 Peter John Cutmore 356 Susan Mary Jackson 343 Marion Elizabeth Ruth Roberts 338 Edward Walker 337 Maxwell John Buckingham Jackson 333 Hugh Philip Massey 315 Ian Peter Cooper 299 The 35 disallowed were as follows: lb 9 February 1979 16 unsigned envelopes 6 wrong signatures 3 spoiled papers 10 had no inner envelopes ar H M Smith Y/ue Scrutineers Z WaneasKeeble Election of Members of the Council under sub-paragraph (vii) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the principal Act for the year 1979/80 We, the undersigned scrutineers, report that the votes cast in this 772 voting papers were received, of which 737 were counted. Copies to Councillors Nominees ae phn, ( RE: -Unattached Election 1979 David Roebuck 25, St, Georges Avenue, LONDON N,7 OBB 01=607=4103 et Ol = 828 = 2323 (Office) lstDecember, 1978 5. John Allan 6. Ian Cooper 7.- Eddie Walker 8. Susan Jackson 9. #Marion Roberts >< 1, For those who are standing Existing Councillors Existing Committee Members (i) Constituent Body (ie. state "Unattached") (ii) Year on Register (iii) Age (iv) Present Employer/Professional post wih (v) 100 word statement of Committee ;experience (architectural or otherrwise) (State that you are a N.A.M member) Please send to me a letter to ARCUK saying that you accept nomination 2. For those not standing Anne Delaney, Alan Lipman Please write to ARCUK stating you decline nomination. You will now have received from ARCUK the nominations for the 1979 Election at the Cheltenham Congress the following list was agreed to fill the 9 places available : 1. Tom Woolley ) 2. John Murray 3. Bob Maltz 4. Ian Todd In addition, Alan Lipman is to be nominated to the B.A.E. and an out-of-towner is to be nominated to Admissions Committee. Unlessyouhavealreadydoneso,wouldyoupleaseensurethatyousendmeyour(a statement by return as follows := aK 3. Everybody Please note that you should send in the nomination list with the 9 names overleaf before Christmas, but after the next Council Meeting 13th December 1978. This is a tactical move so as not to show our hand before the crucial debates that may take place in that meeting. There is to be a pre-meeting on December 13, at top Floor of 10, Perey Street, London W.1, commencing at 11.00. Please ensure you attend. PK 4. 1978 Councillors Please note your contribution to this years' unattached letter is £3.38p payable to me. Please let me have your cheque by return, Yours sincerely, AyeONComingks(SDIraySSeS fen g«apecAn firs h CAmL ce Pro mahk bare Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK/ Unattached Reps Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Feb 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Representation of Unattached Architects, 1979/80 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c72c1f2de394362452f511677ff5603a.pdf 70df5afd00e542a87919d44ae9f15dfa Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Article for The Architects’ Journal re results of Elected Councillors Questionnaire, March 1980 Description An account of the resource Dan Cruikshank The architects' Journal 9 Queen Anne's Gate London SWIH SBY Dear Dan, 14 Holmdale Road London NW 6 31 march 1980 Yours sincerely, Yee rN Pm 72 1,N¢4 Vine C \ Bob Maltz Here is the 1000-word article on the etestem results of the elected AKCUK Councillors' questionnaire, together with the necessary information tor bar graphs which your studio can araw (see examples of Figures 1 and 2). Like the previous article, this one is written on behalf of the elected Councillors acting us a group, though the article should be credited to the authors, John Murray and myself. Following my letter of 16 January ana our telephone conversation of 18 Siarch, I coniirw our agreement as follows, upon wnich terms the article and intormation are submitted: 1. The AJ to publish article in issue of 9 April 1980. 2. John murray and tiyself, as authors, to be paid the fee of One Hundred Pounds. S. As the article is on a "sensitive" subject and has been written on hehalf of ane with the consent of the group oi elected representatives, the AJ will clear with the authors any alterations, aduitions or deletions it wight wish to make. (if such con- Sultation is neces~ary after 3 April, when i shall be away, please contact John Murray: work 34U-8U31, home 340-4559.) of the RIBA. 61 per cent of employee architects responding maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 1 End ARCUK's “ban” on directorships, end the RIBA Council's control of ARCUK and give all architects the right to elect their representatives on ARCUK, with employee architects given These are some of the conclusions to emerge from the over 500 responses to the recent questionnaire drawn up by the elected architect members of AhCUK and pub- lished in the AJ of January SO. Despite the seemingly controversiel seven tuents. Where marked differences of attitude did emerge, employee and self-employed these were more often between architects on the one hand other hand, rather than and architect members of the RIBA. Of the total of 524 cent came from people working, responses received, 94 per m@ or employers, in the protession. were employees, 18 per cent without employees. 70 per cent of these employers and 12 self-employed Among architects responding,y(again, the total), 32 per cent were 94 per cent of "unattached" and 67%,members their fair share of seats. nature of most of the, questions, the results on all but one were unequivocal. Only on the Architects Kegistration on ARCUK was the response other hand, a whopping 91% to allow the elected Councillors questionnaire in AKCUK's question of reforming the Acts to require a lay presence tairly evenly divided. On thought AKCUK should continue to insert a report and annual mailing to their consti- and employer architects between "unattached" architects the on the insert Fig. 1 insert Fig. 2 were RIBA members and 29 per cent of these said their employer required them (contrary to employment legisla- tion) to join the kKIBA. 99 per cent of employer architects responding were kIBA members. OL the self-employed, 70 per cent were RIBA members. Of all the respondents, 70% were under 45 years old. Only 5 per cent were women. These were the results, question by question: 1. "Do you think ARCUK should continue to allow the elected Councillors to insert a report and question- naire in ARCUK's annual mailing to their constituents?” (Last year, the RIBA Council's appointees who control ARCUK forced through a ban on further reports and ques— tionnaires.) Not only did $7 per cent ot "unattached" architects answer "yes," but even 87 per cent of KIBA members did. 2. "Should ARCUK amend its Code to allow architects to be owners or directors of firms dealing in property, construction or building materials?” 57 per cent answered "yes," with "unattached" archi- (65 per cent) tects more enthusiastically in favour of the change than RIBA members (53 per cent). On this issue there was little difference of opinion between employees, employers and self-employed. 3. "Do you think the Architects Kegistration Act 1931 should be reformed to: A: allow all architects directly to elect their represen- tfLAP PDOL2!OUPem maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 2 insert Fig. 3A tatives on ARCUK? B: give employee architects representation on AKCUK in proportion to their nunerical strength in the profession?" {At present, only those considered "unattached" may elect ARCUK Counciliors and “constituencies” are drawn on the basis of organisational membership rather than employment status.) 86 per cent favoured extending the franchise to all architects, with a strong vote of confidence in democracy coming from the "unattached": 99 per cent! 79% of all architect members of the RIBA who responded favoured elections. Among them, 85 per cent of employees, and even 64 per cent of employers, WEKEXxNX<HxXBUEX answered "yes." Likewise, 70 per cent said “yes" to giving employee architects their fair share of the profession's seats on ARCUK. Only the employers (36 per cent) opposed the idea. 80 per cent of employees were in tavour, as were 57 per cent of self-employed. 4. "Do you think that control of ARCUK by the PIBA Council is in the best interests of: A: the public? B. the profession?" (Ever since Parliament, refusing to give the RIBA a monopoly on the use of the term "architect" for its own members, set up ARCUK and kegistration, the RIBA Council has stopped at nothing to keep ARCUK a puppet of Portland Place. Through its control of ARCUK, the RIBA Council gave insert Fig. 3B maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 3 insert Fig. 4A itself nomination rights to 41 ot the 68 seats on ARCUK this year.) Not only did a massive 80 per cent reply that control of ARCUK by the RIBA Council was not in the public interest, but even 70 per cent of RIBA members agreed! Employees (87 per cent) and self-employed (84 per cent) were most strongly opposed to RIBA control of ARCUK; only the employers (49 per cent) had their doubts. Even more surprisingly, nearly as many respondents, 76 per cent, said that control of AkCUK by the R1BA Council was not even in the best interests of the profession, and this included 66 per cent ot responses from architect members oi the RIBA itself! Both employees (83 per cent) and selt-employed (78 per cent) favoured an independent AFKCUK. As many as 47 per cent of the employers responding thought control of ARCUK by "their" Council was not in the best interests of the profession. The views of “unattached” architects who responded were nearly unanimous on these issues. 9&8 per cent thought RIBA control of AkKCUK was not in the best interests of the public and 95 per cent, ot the profession. 5. "A?though the Architects Registration Act 1931 allows for ample lay representation on AKCUK, those bodies free to appoint lay members invariably refuse to do so. Do you think that the Act shoula be reformed to require a lay presence on AkCUK?" insert Fig. 4B maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 4 insert Fig. 4A itself nomination rights to 41 ot the 68 seats on ARCUK this year.) Not only did a massive 80 per cent reply that control of ARCUK by the RIBA Council was not in the public interest, but even 70 per cent of RIBA members agreed! Employees (87 per cent) and self-employed (84 per cent) were most strongly opposed to RIBA control of ARCUK; only the employers (49 per cent) had their doubts. Even more surprisingly, nearly as many respondents, 76 per cent, said that control of AkKCUK by the R1BA Council was not even in the best interests of the profession, and this included 66 per cent of responses from architect members oi the RIBA itself! Both employees (83 per cent) and selt-employed (78 per cent) favoured an independent AKCUK. As many as 47 per cent of the employers responding thought control of ARCUK by "their" Council was not in the best interests of the profession. The views of “unattached” architects who responded were nearly unanimous on these issues. 98 per cent thought RIBA control of AkCUK was not in the best interests of the public and 95 per cent, ot the profession. 5. "A?though the Architects Registration Act 1931 allows for ample lay representation on AKRCUK, those bodies free to appoint lay members invariably refuse to do so. Do you think that the Act should be reformed to require a lay presence on AkCUK?" insert Fig. 4B maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 4 insert Fig. 5 52 per cent of those responding said "yes," but there was a clear difierence of opinion between the "unattached," strongly in fuvour (64 per cent), and RIBA members (44 per cent), as well as between the employers who were opposed (43 per cent) and employees (v3 per cent) and self-employed (55 per cent) in favour. Ihe questionnaire also asked those architects who did not consider thenselves members in good standing ot the RIBA, AA, IAAS, FAS or STAMP whether they received official nomination papers trom ARCUK in November 1979, as all “unattached" architects, theoretically, should. Inexplicably, only 57 per cent replied that they had; 43 per cent said they had not. Many people who responded also took the trouble to include comments and suggestions. For example, although not a subject covered by the questionnaire, quite a few respondenots, many of whom were RIBA members, wished to see control of architectural education and entry into the protessioen taken out of the RIBA's hands. The following comments give some idea ot the very broad range of those received. maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 5 y maltz & murray AJ 9 april results 6 HOARE ---a non-architect, under S5 years old, public sector "The N.A.M. cannot be considered representative of the "unattached." ---an architect member of the RIBA, over 54 years old, private sector &-nIn theory AXCUK should have been the body which not only democratised British architecture, out also reformed professionalism in Britain across a bveaad front. In practice the RIBA"sS control and domination was an act of hypocritical compromise which denied both the publics’ interest in Scrutinising the affairs: of the profession, and the Deofession’s own interests in organising its own affairs representatively. Fifty years after the Rezistration Acts ve still have the same problems and the same legal structure. It works for no ones fre Registration Acts should be reformed to constitute ARCUK as it was originally intended. The problem is, thouzh, tecl(ororession is in too much. disarray to even consider that its public responsibilities are not being © Met, and the pudlic has no r2al notion of how its professions Should be brought to heel." Bal aes => ‘ tfa — Carnplouec! ~ a AY oO) —————/ ~——/ See ee malrz a Conga Sea Cs eCVenwy Mm eu) iw _ ri y| & wv Ue IeO 5 Jey oe gO 20 ec eciwe \|- eeeNe eres e SS FSeune & wa) (O) (a) ese i 1 eer = | mi) Lj it met ee - . ) \ D \ ' seSSSSa SAEEROPct “| al oa maltz - mn SAU AY SNao-l +P 49 COFiHOR Coal iSBAS :Or. ‘ue 9Voy We rrr | Seen Es |12 Pee)Oserieceeeegee \ to | in dQ EN) GAS CaylO ar HG)|eeLiG)e eae CON eS) a c ND ri ND tite) 2 so oe {lo pone nf Sa) eo ap Sa) OP CON cay aes Oe (Vy a Co) (ae ace Se)58) =sO RM SS ep 9 GS) @ Ue oa ——ee: |! |e aman VA \! bef eeeee- ha Fas If i) eal [Salen tees iat ae, } oh) Im iV) {a Li Yim Dey, Aaa > S&S Wee N of ra La Pee Sees ez Sw es SI <= Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bob Maltz Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource March 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Article for The Architects’ Journal re results of Elected Councillors Questionnaire, March 1980 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/46461c4f7d6695dec040a18fea4e0eba.pdf fe5f661ce46ed8dce53d69324d3d4a76 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Article for Building Design on ARCUK issues, Dec 1979 Description An account of the resource a boards AkCUK kKetention Fees help subsidize, 4+(2)bemoreopentothepressWUCteoersiae,be/ 64 more accessible to the public, and abandon its 8 | oiticial-secrets-style paranoia (even the papers BUIDINGIDESIGN page issue datell jan writefialtz&murray Catch unattached 6 | | | 4+directorships of firms dealing in property, construction :| or building materials. This while the KIBA Council (sane 6 people switching hats for a mu.ent) was deciding that 8 lye a director of such a firm, tar Lrom Heing disgrace; 0 ene really was quite protessionally Ea ES OG arter all. 5 During the past year, the unattached Councillors | 4+ have also pressed AhCUK to | fay. assert its independence 3 MNERBXXKXresponsibilitiesforSUL educa— oF tion so long abdicated to the KibA, whose Visiting 304 inviting nominations sent out to 4500 architects 24 are boldly erblazoned "Confidential"), | 34(3)aiamoreneedystudentsinsteadofeearchitects' a khetention Fees to fund pet E York Centre, 04 (4) stop tolerating advertising KIBA Feeeeie like the | by i1BA frembers which it goes not tolerate among unattached | architects and cevelop an approach to the | question of gavertising and reassune ate statutory | speed up the nailing of ballots in AKCUK" s elections to minimise disenfranchisement At the same time, the elected Couned llors have of unattached voters. ' redcepaeiene which treats all architects equally, ait ——t-—bt ae nm also become concerned by what appears to peldbereeard 4 ooQ)ae) “~~ ul a <csbyAKCUKfortheproperapportioningWNotre onthe 44Council, as called for by Schedule Une ot the hegistratiagn || = 6tact. Although widely reported figures indicate that the | || B{kina's U.K. architect menbership, even including all | | 124year or at best remained stable, AKCUK has hevertheless | || }deciaed that it has risen by just enough tolgive kIBA | ® i6-jan extra seat on AKCUK at the expense of elécted repre- sentation. While the elected Councillors have PELOnE accustomed Sood : |i . Se Near | shown by their constituents in past quests ones res o1L | assistance 23 cousiderable xxnkxexkxk and Support and thus hope that fotjthese in long-term arrears, either declined! further this| ] } to obstruction, harassment and abuse iron most of the | I ee members on AkCUK, they have found the interest how : | mY. i.. .i SO XNUSXNERK NS tiany more of them will take aavantage of | ad : ye : ; peene reply-paia iacility proviued by Bu and answer the | 8 344iive questions they are asking this year. They would xx }| = 35-at the same time be happy to hear the views|ot those . i i| ae aercaderswhoarenot"unattachedarchitects!|"andhope aa,Re: .,: ‘O-they too will fill in and post the questionnaire, which such as | }2-considers issues X#NXXxxXxXxkxENM directorships; kIBA contol || 4-jof AKCUK, enployee and lay representation oy the kegistra caAbite : | 6>tion Council, and AKCUK's suppression of the electeu i,::| “8-Counciliors' report and questionnaire, | 0 The Councillors welcome also —4 2j0r suggestions concerning any adai{ibnal connents issues which ought to be raised be kept in contiuerce. ‘the } 4-on AKCUK. All names will | | Y LONG HSEN page issue date 11 jan writermaltz&murray catchunattached 7 | | | ———— issue date]] jan writer naitz&murrayCatChynattached & | | elected Councillors can be reached on any matter of | } | concern by writing to John Murray, c/o AKCUK, 73 Hallam Street, London Wl. BUD INGIDESIGH 3/3 élp end | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ie ; | | Yes: No: Unaecided: 172 (650) 64 (2440) 29 I%»( 110) | f" | | | | option of not using | | | | | permit architects the Conditions ot Engagement?" the KIBA Yes: No: 170 (64%) 79 (30%) Undecided: 16 (6%) || Yes: 295 (96%) No: Undecided: 5 (2) 2 5 (2%) | | | |j | | | | | } | | | BUD INGIDESIGN ‘hesults of last questionvaire o “should AKCUK change its Code to permit architects to “Should AKCUK follow the recomuendations|oi the Monopélies Comiission by changing its Code to | “Should AKCUK take stronger measures to h discrimination in enploynent against arctriitects who page issue datell jan writer Maltz&murray catchunattached 9 practice as linited liability companies are not menbers of the kiBA?" mMoOQa=NM ‘r >?) N eeeones Sete eee tee Katee | | | 1j } ; © la. bo you think that control of ARCUK by wc RIBA Source is in the best interests of | 26 2 B. give employee architects representation on AKCUK in proportion to their present nuneri¢al streneth in the protession? Yes | 30-4 page issue date 11 jan writerMaltz&murray catchunattached 10 | | 24New questionnaire: QUESTIONS 4jn. bo you think AKCUK should continue to ice the 5 | 2 012. elected Councillors to insert a report ana question- naire in AkCUK's annual mailing to tnediiconertnentey Should AKCUK amend its Code to allow architects to be| 42 | owners or directors of firms dealing in property, 44- construction or building materials? | = 1645. Uo you think the Architects hegistration ict 1931 | —18- Should be retormed to 20-4 their A. allow all architects airectly to elect ,representa- 22 24 tives on AkCUK ? Yes | No | 24 No| || S| A. the public? Yes | io No| A Bb. the protession? Yes 4| No| 645. SNSNIMXAKEHRXARSNMALESANONEXLKD | Although the architects Kegistratiou Act 1901 allows 85 for anple lay representation on aAlCUX, those bodies 0 tree to appoint lay members invariably rétise to do So. bo you think that the act should be reformed to | UIUDINGIDESIGN require a lay presence on ARCUK? LiaVe SPACE ON FUKM FOR "COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS"”........ ||| | 2 New_questionnaire: BACKGROUND INFO TO APPEAR ON FORM | ete Name 6/2. Address go. AKCUK status | | | 10+ a. "unattachea" architect | | | b. architect member ot 144 ¢. architect, not member a. under 5 b. 35-44 the KiBA | || of hIBA, but meiber of AA, | || |) (check one): | | 5 Cc. 45654 | } d. 55 or over ) sex (check one): | || a. tenale b. nale 38 a. employee, public | | sector | 04 b. employee, 421 c. employer private sector | ! | | | |: A | d. seli-enployed = e. unemployed 84 f. retired 94 g- other | 14 KIBA, does your with no employees enployer | | for == page issue date 11 jan writermaltz&murray catchunattached 11 g | FAS, LAAS or STAMP | |' 1 d. not on Kegister of Architects | 44. age group (check one): | ; roma GOT —— )6. employment status (check one): - It you are an employee architect and a metiber of the 2 A. require you to be a member Yes | | ot the KIBA? :| B. pay your RIBA suhscription? Yes | 12+ No| | 14-8. if you are an architect and do not consider yourself wn a 16 | a nenber in good standing of the hibaA, Ad, ITAAS, FAS or STAMP, Gid you recieve otiicial “nomination papers" 20+ fron AKCUK in November 1979? No | | SUD ESTER age issue date 1) jan writemaltz&murray CatChinnattacheda 12 Oo a eee ieeanpitanendornesiamsants Hugh Pearman Building vesign 5U Caluerwood Street London SE 18 6QH bear iiugh, 14 Holudale koad London Nw 6 19 december 1979 tHlere is the article (2000 words) on the elected Ai.CUK Councillors' report and questionnaire, tozether with the new questionuaire and initio. on the last one which your studio can vraw into bar graphs. Although the questiennaires aire a product o1 the repre- resentutives of the “unattached” architects acting as 2 sroup, the article itselt shoulu he creuited to John hurray and myself, who have written it on behalf ot the gnoup. He and I can be described in the byeline as "“nembers of ANCUK elected by unattached architects." Following our recent telephone conversations, I confirm our agreement as Ltollows, upon which terms the article and questionnaire is submitted: 1. BU to publish article with questionnaire in issue of 1] January ISt. 2. jWuestionnaire to be on reply-paid facility provided by GBD 3. Jobu Murray and myself, as authors, to be paid the standard Buy journelists rate for teatures plus £15 to help cover expenses incurred in article anda questionndire. 4. bv may open ana tally the auswers to the questionnaire but all questionnairs received by BLD will be turned over to john Murray and niyself (on behslt ot the elected Councillors) who will write any Lollow-up report in Bu on the results. Such a Lollow-up article @r articles) is to be cone on the sane terns as the present article. 5. All names anu addresses ol; guestionnairs to retain confidential to the elected Councillors. 6. ‘Ihe article and questionnaire are consioerea to be in the conmon interests of the elected Councillors, bu and the profession. 7. While aimed prinarily at “unattached" architects, all interested Hv readers wiil he invited to reply. A space will also be provided for conrents. &. As the article and questionnaire are on a “sensitive" subject and was written on behalf of and with the consent of the group of representatives, Bb wili clear with the authors any alterations or celetions tt night wish to make. (iif one of the Live questions needs to be aeletea, it should be no. 5.) AS I Shall be away trom 2U/12 to G/1, please contact John \.urray at O40-6651 (work) or 540-4055 (home) if such consultation is necessary. Yoursa2siHnpk‘ely cc;: John hiurray PA Y Hob Malt (4 BUIDINGIES|GN page issue date 11 jan writermaltz & murragatchunattached | | "Unattached" architects by now accustomed to recei :| the expense of their elected AkCUK Counciliors may have | been disappointed when they opened the envelope enclosing the official “nomination papers" sent to them by the : hegistration Council this past November. inia caretully— : i4- orchestrated nove ot unprecedented vindictiveness, and 1 in violation of even AKCUK's own Standing Orders, the | || kKiPA Council nominees who still control AkCUK pushed a 20-wotion through the kegistration Council's October meeting! >Jthanning further reports and questionnaires.| ;a3 | | vespite angspnxkxxuxxe unassailable majority on || e6441.CUK, the Portland Place delegation apparently seens : junable to cone to terms with the continuing |support which sO/the unattached electorate has shown tor those New archi- | 32-1ecture Movement members representing them and with | these Councillors forthright defenge both of the rights of unattached architects and of the public interest. .8ihe KlséA spokesmen said they believed the enone and o4questionnaixe drawn up by the elected Councillors were | 124no longer needed now that, in the event of ne election, _| ae ee Fecaeklae S-personai statenent with their election iniarmation. 84No rnatter that Councillors and candivgates might not be | ithe sume people, that such an electiog the folowing ‘year might not xxkexyinge be required, or tiat the t }“unattached representatives—--the only elected Councillors al s ; bail : 44candidates would have the opportunity oi iugluding a ! ee ores {-ing a brief report and questionnaire prepared by and at o page issue date 1) jan writemaltz & murrayatch unattached 2 | | on AKCUK---found such a report and questionnaire useful ‘ in carrying out their responsibilities on AKCUK. Iron- |}ically, it was a suggestion in response to jone of their :| previous questionnaires that Lea the unattached repre- | sentatives to press AhCUK to change its hegulatibns to aliow candidates to include such a personal statenent! | It was only at the recent December meeting of | the Council that the RIBA'S strategy of attlempting to silence the representatives of the unattached becane CU ceeast —S more obvious. ,ihey retused even to allow unattached Councillors to speak in opposition to majority policies, | to raise the question of the apportionment of seats on | ARCUK, to put relevant motions or to record! opposition ;| votes. | | The nine elected Councillors whohave| been repre- | ' senting unattached architects during the 1979-80 session |---John Allan, Freter Cutmore, sue Jackson, Marion koberts | || |}lan tod, Lddie walker, Tom woolley and the authors——-- i jare theretore gratetul tor the opportunity Building |Design is now ofiering to thank jreplied to last yeay’s questionnaire, to report back on | the results and on their activities } of the past year, ,.and their successors in the coning year. | | Last year, without the benefit of a r¢pily-paid -2.3|° 4-who 1eceived the questionnaire replied to three questions those architects who BUIDINGD ESIGN AS nN & TM ©© 5 and to present a new questionnaire to help buide them j{envelope, 265 ot the nearly 4500 unattached! architects ; age issue date 11 jan writemaltz & nurragatchinattached & |’ | concerning linited liability companies, AhCUK's support z| tor the kiBA fee scale and AkKCUK action (or lack thereof)) to aiscourage discrimination in enployment lagainst the || + growing number of architects---now acknowlédged by even| |i the kibA-controlled AKCUK to be over 22% of those on | the Kegister---who choose not to be members of the KkIBA. ! | The previous year's more open-ended survey had, as reported in BD (16 June 1978), concentrated on tinding 'i out who were the unattached (literally, those people on the Kkegister of Architects who are not members of one or more of the six organisations, including the RIBA, | ; 24- enshrinea in Schedule I of the Architects Hegistration 26-1 act 1951) 4nd -whoLare Mrs onlit Tea to pled represen | 284 xabix-ts Use » Why they were unattached, | >whether and how they would like AhCUK's Code of Protes- | San=~. ‘. e| sional Conduct retormed, and what further action they é 344 would like their representatives on AKCUK to take. It | 36+ also showea a six to one majority in Favout of amending | }' 35> the Kkgistration Acts to take account of the present | me composition of the protessionnx (by now 8% jemployees) i and an even split on the issue of increased lay repre- | 4 sentation on AnCUK. The RIBA Council, which is permitted | by the 1931 Act to appoint lay people to ARCUK neverthe- less appoints exclusively architect menbers o1 the hiBA. Last year, while the unattached electea Bury employees, the KitA Council was appointing management larchitects to fill 90% of its forty seats on ACUK. | HUROE OESIEL wal Nh ' ‘t rn rennarendriesennen cc c cw oO) hohm=k 4 is00oBbN Nm2 —D> c2@UO}aeN peereesmeaiearanaeanan jeleechaasmans o rece ed nce eOEEE OD | NM 2 BUIOINGIDESIGN page issue date 11 jan writemaltz & murrayatch unattached 4 | : This past year, unattached architects |responding 44 to the questionnaire came out solidly in favour, by 6 | a nearly three to one margin, of changing AKCUK'S Code g4 to permit architects to practice as limited| liability }| }°..=| 404 companies. As Johu Parris recently noteu 10 bv (7 vccenber (2-1 1979), Section 17 of the Kegistration Act would appear i} ne : : | 144 to allow linited companies and since AhCUKSs Code has no| 46-1 iorce in law architects are in tact alreauy free to ; |1 18+ practice as limited companies, though the presence ot | 29-4 the Code ban obviously serves to coiutuse and intimidate ’! | | 22 people. kven the Code, oi course, has never prohibited :| 244 architects irom practicing with linited lidbility in | 254 the form of a co-op under the Industrial and Provident .| Societies Act rather than the Companics Act. The elected Couucillors also took note ot the 30-4 324 364 ing to force architects to use the k1iBA Conditions ot | 384 ungagement, which incluaes the KiBbA Fee Scale. 64% were :;| 40-4 in iavour of changing the Code, SU were opposed and Aor 121 144 were undecided. | | | |' clear majority in iavour of AKCUK tollowing the reconmen-— dations ot the Nonopolies Comiission sressh no longer try—|} On the third guestion, whether AkCUK ,ought to take | 65 stronger measures to help end discrimination in employ—- j 8 rent against architects who choose not to be members of :C}. ! 04{ the KIBA, the elected Councillors received /a‘ near-unani- af nous response, with 96% in itavour ot stronger action, 44 2% opposed and 2) undecttiea. Although the Architects | :u} i) o Sieealateneresans UU Deol oage issue date 11 jan writermaltz&murray Catchunattached 5 | | registration ‘ses: ; lee the ofticially recognised quuliiication tor an archi- Sjtect, although KIbA membership represents nd bighber 8 /qualitication Gnkect, many corporate marvels of the RIBA i0Jare not even architects) and although Portland Place — 319 4 propaganda claims that the RIBA is a voluntary hody, 12 46 promotion to be menbers of the RIDA. kule 2's of the jAKCUK Code, enjoining each architect not to|"act in 20>disregard of the professional qualitications of those to <2\whon he gives authority, responsibility or employment" <47seems to be one of those parts of the Code Which the 26 7ik1BA-dominatea ALCUK preiters not to enLorce, ‘the unattached Councillors have becond increasingly concerned during the past year by AKCUK'S very selective 2 japproseh to enforcement of its Code and inté¢rpretation lot "Gissraceful conduct" for which it may strike an ji| sO4architect off the Kegister. The present rulérs of ARCUK || 384seen to concentrate on enforcing those manele ot the jwwode which establish a commercial cartel anOe private |khegistration Acts 19351 and 1958 established sone employers still require applicants tor!posts or 2architectural firms while ignoring those saydees nxwhich protect the public. For exaiiple, while AKcud has thus fe | i > | o>>Df ar taken no action against architects SO acd in joiticial enquiries into buiiuing disasters Led have j cee thelivesofwanypeople,ithasindiqatedits 2intention to strike off for "disgraceiul conauct" an sad : , | Syav ~ architect who intringed Rule 2.1 of the Code, forbidding Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bob Maltz Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource December 1979 Subject The topic of the resource Article for Building Design on ARCUK issues, Dec 1979 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c3f66a709f90d01d3f8dff8833667991.pdf 4e0c96e6fe35d20318880b37d664538d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Report on questionnaire to Unattached Architects, Nov 1977 Description An account of the resource —_~— ———— Report on questionnaire to unattached architects (November, 1977) (3. 1.00 The questionnaire was included in the annual circular to unattached architects, which contains nomination forms for unattached represen- tatives. This year approximately 4100’ were sent. 2.00 211 replies were received. A copy of the questionnaire and an analysis of each part are attached. ‘ 3,00 3.01 Summary 3.02 Size, type and position in office. 85% were employed, 15% partners in private practice of chief officers. Nearly 60% were employed in the public sector.. ; 3.03 Question 1. Nearly every respondent took this to mean = ‘why are you not a member of the R.I.BeA. ?" Most respondents gave more than one reason; the numbers and variety are summarised in the graph as % of the reasons given. 3.04 3,05 Question 2. Over ons half are members of a union; the vast ma jority of these belong to N.A.L.G.0. 4 3.06 Question 4. As with Question 14, most respondents gave more than 4 ome suggestions; numbers and variety are summarised in the graph.~ More than 4 gave no reply, some stating that they were not sufficiently© acquainted with the Code. 3.07 4,00 Question 5S. Remarks as Question 4, Two out of 3 gave no reply. 5.00 In view of the low returns, both in 1975 and this year, it is consid- ered that statistical advice should be sought before framing any future questionnaires. KT/ 7.6.78 foe and sex distribution. The oldest respondent was 74; over x were under 40; one in 4 were under 30; one in 40 were women; and 1417 stated that they were 'retired', Question 3. This question is in two parts. Two out of 3 replied "yes" to amending the Acts to require a cross section of the profession on the Council (3.(a)).- Respondents were equally divided on the question of increasing lay representation on the Council. One in 4 made no reply to either part of the question. The replies were very interesting dus to the range of subjects introduced and the extent to which some ware treated. A few respondents gave only their name and ege. Many wrote at length about their concerns viewpoints, and proposals. | @ Dear Unattached, The Architects Registration Acts lay down that each 500 unattached architects are to have one representative on ARCUK. The numbers of unattached have been steadily increasing over the last five years. We are writing to you as your elected unattached representatives on ARCUK for the year 1976-77. In attending ARCUK meetings over the past year we have attempted to stress the need for openness and accountability in the conduct of ARCUK's affairs with respect to both the public and the profession. Further, we have been concerned by the imbalance of representation on ARCUK. The vast majority of ARCUK are members of the RIBAs; and a large proportion of these are also principals in private practice. This state of affairs neither adequately reflects the structure of the profession itself, over 80% of whom is salaried, nor allows effective representation of the lay public who, after all, use the buildings which architects design. Although we are elected by you, we have practically no means of knowing which of the issues currently facing the profession are of concern to you. Once a year we have this opportunity of contacting you. As in 1975 we are attempting to gather some information about unattached architects. It would help us if we knew your opinions on subjects being discussed in ARCUK; for example, on advertising, on maintaining the minimum,fee scale, on citizens advice bureaux, on ‘architectural' consultancies, and on lay representation in the affairs of the profession. In addition we welcome suggestions on the issues which you feel should be raised for discussion in ARCUK during the coming year.~ Please let us have your answers to the questions below and any additional views and comments; all of which will be kept in confidence. Finally, please contact any of your ARCUK representatives matter of concern. Yours faithfully, 1 Why are you unattached ? 2 Are you a member of a trades union ? throughout the coming year on any Anne Delaney, Alan Lipman, Bob Maltz, Robin Phillips, Dave Roebuck, Ken Thorpe and Ian Tod If yes, which? Acts should be amended (a) to take 3 Do you consider that the Registration account of the actual constitution of the profession, and (b) to increase lay representation on ARCUK 7? 4 What reforms, if any, would you suggest should be made to ARCUK's Code ? 5 Can you suggest ways in which we can look after your interests on ARCUK? NAME AGE TYPE OF OFFICE (central government, local authority, private practice, industry, education, self employed, unemployed, other) SIZE OF OFFICE YOUR POSITION IN OFFICE Please reply to : Unattached Architects, c/o 109, CADOGAN TERRACE, LONDON E 9 Rs OTS ae CG ny Sesshap LISStas Why are you unattached 7? i 2 Are you a member of a trades union ? If yes, which? Neto WES {KS ALENT RCT«=NN-UNpN OTHER =H + Lipots Stfadgtppt dadefd $44-f4fit :ain Ehit 1 pth dae pat 4-4 sf e-f tt 4 AH | St: 3 0o you consider that the Registration Acts should be amended (a) to take account of the actual constitution of the profession, and (b) to increase lay representation on ARCUK ? 1i Ly Tt SEE Pti tNEHt Do you consider that the Registration Acts should be amended (a) to take account of the actual constitution of the profession, and (b) to increase lay representation on ARCUK ? 4 i uo a je “dj o e s) o e oO oH a oO - <= = ~ o vv oO o =x = oO c <= o ° wv oO me] Oo Ee oO oO = fe) aie 0 »~ co) oO oa a 2 2] =) o > uv os > o 3 a > c 0 - 4 What reforms, if any, would you suggest should be made to ARCUK's Code 7 ~ 2= » c od <= c o o » o oO is ® a J, °o ~ i} o » Cae 0 x ° o et Cc Q Can you suggest ways in which we c Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource KT Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 1978 Subject The topic of the resource Report on questionnaire to Unattached Architects, Nov 1977