4 10 310 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/e38c60b7e9f664b72c5e71c55a9cc2e6.pdf 41be7b4ebe1ad98d11166172b5369c38 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 Letters from Anne Delaney et.al. "ARCUK is star chamber", and from D Robson "More on NAM politics" Subject The topic of the resource Letters from Anne Delaney et.al. "ARCUK is star chamber", and from D Robson "More on NAM politics" Description An account of the resource general elections of 1974, it was laid down that local authorities seeking consent to demolish unlisted buildings in conservation areas should apply to the DOE. It was felt, quite rightly, that councils should not be able to give themselves permission to knock down such buildings. Leicester Hotelfor demolition in Hull. Some attractive buildings in the outstanding conservation area of Hull old town are about to go because the city council has given demolition consent to Barratts (who are to redevelop for housing). Even though the council owns the buildings, it did not need DOE approval because Barratts, not the council, made the application. Among the condemned buildings is the Leicester Hotel of 1793—a landmark in the battered townscape of the old town retaining a good Georgian staircase and a Victorian pub front and furnishings. Conservationists are still hoping that the DOE will list some buildings. The DOE should require local authorities to send in all demolition cases in conservation areas in which they are involved, whether they are applicants or owners. Post-festal problems Gloomily surveying the remains of a young nephew's Christmas presents, I was struck by a common factor: they all came from one country. Britain? Hong Kong? Japan? No, they all originated in West Germany, the proverbial home of quality in production. The sign of a trend or just a fluke? Astragal 112 ARCUK is star chamber From Anne Delaney RIBA, Iain Campbell and Iain Cooper, Cardiff NAM group Sir: Those of you who were readers of The Sunday Times prior to its temporary demise will know something of the controversy surrounding the recent ARCUK Discipline Committee verdict on Summerland architect James Lomas. The purpose of this letter is not to discuss whether justice was done in this particular case, but to question a procedure where it is impossible to see whether justice has been done or not. As things currently stand, journalists are allowed to attend meetings of the Discipline Committee but must undertake to report nothing until the end of the hearing, and NOTHING AT ALL if the respondent is found not guilty. This is not the first time that confidentiality of disciplinary hearings has been called into question. On a previous occasion when this issue surfaced at ARCUK, the editors of the AJ added their exhortations to attempts to get ARCUK to act openly. The AJ (2.12.70 PI 295) said: 'Nothing would concentrate architects' minds more effectively than enforcing the codes openly. 'No one can defend secret justice as a principle; in democracies every citizen has the right to have his case heard in public. . Yet when architects sit in judgment on their fellows . the public is excluded. 'Would the profession be harmed if disciplinary proceedings were reported?. . strong and self-confident profession has more to gain if it is openly seen to cut out its diseased wood than it loses through exposing the disgraceful conduct of a few of its members. 'Would architects accused of misconduct be harmed if their cases were heard in public? It is arguable that those ultimately found not guilty might suffer. . .. The decision here must be not whether to report the case but whether to allow names to be mentioned.' When ARCUK refused to act in accordance with such exhortations, the editors replied, under the heading 'Star chamber not abolished' (AJ 23 & 30.12.70 pi1469); '[ARCUK] Council, by a large majority, has decided not to allow disciplinary proceedings to be held in public. We believe the interests of profession and public would be better served if justice were seen to be done. Members of council were muddled: many seemed as concerned to shield ARCUK proceedings from possible ridicule as to protect from injustice individuals accused of misconduct. . . . It is difficult not to accuse ARCUK of smugness when it accepted George Grieves' motion not to allow publicity because he was "perfectly satisfied as a member of that committee (the discipline committee) that our behaviour is just and proper". And it is difficult not to accuse ARCUK of being more concerned with covering up for itself and errant architects than with being an effective watchdog for the public good. The council should think again.' Eight years later ARCUK still has not seen fit to think again. Yet in its 1976 Annual Report ARCUK proclaimed itself 'one of the first consumer protection organisations' and a reading of the Acts alone might seem to offer some substantiation of this claim. But the real test has to be sought in the way the Acts are operated. If the claim is merely pious sentiment, then ARCUK may continue to operate behind closed doors, since it may then protect the self interest of its own members while pretending to do the opposite. However, as William Shepherd has pointed out (The Sunday Times 19.11.78), the whole concept of professional selfgovernment is open to question. Why should the public believe that its interests are best protected by allowing doctor to discipline doctor, architect to discipline architect, in the latter case, behind closed doors. But while a profession CLAIMS to operate effectively in the public interest, then it must either be SEEN to do so, or face the charge of hypocrisy. Its proceedings must be made accountable to the public by being made visible to them. It seems unlikely, however, that ARCUK as presently constituted will take this step. Indeed, the recent recommendations of its officers would appear to indicate an opposite tendency. As the AJ (3.1.79 p6) has revealed, 'ARCUK committee members may be asked to sign a document guaranteeing that matters discussed in committee will not be disclosed to outside parties. . . . Any member unwilling to sign such a document "should be advised that he cannot take up the appointment".' ARCUK council must affirm that as 'one of the first consumer protection organisations' it has nothing to hide, and must admit unrestricted press reporting of all Council and its committees' deliberations. If ARCUK is not prepared to do this, then its actions can only strengthen NAM's argument that amendments to the constitution of the council are urgently necessary. A. DELANEY, 1. CAMPBELL AND 1. COOPER Cardiff More on NAM politics From David G. Robson Sir: May I reply briefly to the long smokescreen letter which you published from John Allan and other NAM members (AJ 3.1.79 p5). My own letter (AJ 20 & 27.12.78 pl 180) was not, as they wrongly assumed, a statement of my candidacy, but was intended simply to draw attention to the unfortunate fact that a narrow-based, well organised and doubtless well-intentioned group has now secured a virtual monopoly of the 'unattached' representation on ARCUK. Mr Allan attributes NAM successes to a 'broad degree of support among unattached architects' while carefully ignoring the fact that at the last election six out of every seven unattached architects failed to register a vote. The present spectrum of the unattached caucus could be more accurately attributed to electoral apathy perhaps! Mr Allan kindly advertises my own lack of success in the last election, but fails to record the interesting AJ 17 January 1979 minibus service to carry car-besotted tourists through the village. This is surely a sad travesty of what Clough wanted for Portmeirion. He envisaged it as a private demesne to keep crass commercial exploitation at bay. He even restricted the number of visitors by applying a classical supply-and-demand price mechanism at the entrance points—as the number of people entering the village rose during the day, so did the price! Farewell to Holford The appeal for funds for a memorial to Lord Holford—perhaps the best-known British architect planner of 1940-70— raised rather more than {20 000. This is a respectable sum but not one to yield any sizable investment income in days of inflation. The Trust Committee has therefore decided to spend the whole sum within five or seven years. Their major decision is to offer a 11000 travel award for five years to graduates of each of the three university departments where Holford was teacher or professor: Civic Design and Architecture at Liverpool, and the Bartlett School in London. It was regretted that all the planning and architectural students in Britain could not be made eligible to apply for one of the awards; but the difficulty and cost of assessing applications was beyond the trust's resources. Surveying sucæss There are well-founded rumours that the RIBA is looking around among publishers for assistance in publishing the RIBA Journal. There seem to be no such problem in the world of surveying. Last week the RICS launched the first issue of a new journal, and an interesting one at that: Chartered Quantity Surveyor. The RICS now has three magazines, the other two being Chartered Surveyor and Chartered Land and Minerals Surveyor. While the RIBA and ARCUK and other minor architectural groups wrangle and fight, the world of surveying seems to be growing steadily stronger and wealthier. As a hint ofwhere the quantity surveyor's attention is turning, the first issue of CQS has an article on the quantity surveyor's role in a relatively new field, that of civil engineering. Watch it boys. Home sweet (sic) home How one thinks of the '20s and '30s presumably depends very much on ones age group and degree of sophistication. AJ 17 January i 979 The Chermayeff house, the living room as it was in 1939. Chermayeff's house at Halland (see 'Home sweet (sic) home'). 111 fact that the results were so tightly bunched as to suggest a totally random voting pattern. Mr Allan expresses the hope that this election will be the occasion for broad and open discussion while knowing full well that, under the present rules, such discussion is unlikely to take place. He denies that the open letter to 'unattached' architects from the sitting NAM candidates which the ARCUK Registrar distributed with the election papers was an 'election address' . . . a rose by any other name! Surely he must admit that the NAM candidates availed themselves of an opportunity which is not prescribed in paragraph 45 of the Registration Act and which has certainly been denied to all other candidates. Doubtless my own performance in the present election will match that of last year, and I look forward to the opportunity to fight an open election under the new regulations in 1980! DAVID G. ROBSON Newcastle upon Tyne The Cresset From Francis Duffy ARIBA, PhD, AADip1 John Worthington MArch, AADipl Sir: The comment by the Chief Architect of Peterborough Development Corporation on our recent criticism of the Cresset shows a misunderstanding of our argument. While it is worth repeating that the Cresset as an organisation is a brilliant achievement, we still think the Cresset as a building fails to express how short-term, infinitely changeable and diverse uses can co-exist within a long-term building shell. How to achieve a balance between long-term and short-term design is a fundamental problem which is better understood in the commercial field of retailing than in buildings designed for public use. The Cresset's architecture is certainly not weak. In our opinion its strength, unlike that of Centraal Beheer (AJ 29.10.75 p893), is not Cresset: What do you do here? the kind which stimulates imaginative use. Nor is it a Miesian universal space—the Cresset's plan and fabric are far too specific for that. v The shops adjacent to the Cresset with their lively lighting and temporary displays are more Miesian than the Cresset. AJ 17 January 1979 No, the Cresset is somewhere in between—brash when it should be unassertive, bland when it could be bold. The problem goes back to the brief. All 14 users had specific demands which were extremely difficult to reconcile. Next year there will be 15 or 16 users; in 1984 there may be 10. Briefing in such a situation makes it imperative to separate short-term from long-term requirements. The solution may be either to create a universal Miesian shed or a highly articulated space-making structure like Centraal Beheer. Either type of solution could, in theory, recognise the strength, the ingenuity, the sheer visual impact of short term users. But the Cresset, in our opinion, is a half-way house—too respectful to short-term users in its plan and not sensitive enough to them in elevation and detailing. Where short- and long-term design meet is a fascinating boundary, perhaps the most important in complex buildings. To say that the Cresset got it wrong is not to attack the intentions behind the project, nor to denigrate the skill and enthusiasm of the design team, but an attempt to illuminate a fundamental architectural problem of our time. FRANCIS DUFFY, JOHN WORTHINGTON London WI Hot line to Zeus? From Tristan York RIBA, Dip Arch Sir: I feel sure that one of your readers will be able to solve a quandary that has lately pressed upon me with an increasing urgency: to whit, the whereabouts of the well of artistic wisdom from which the development control officer draws his acute critical awareness on matters architectural; this fount of aesthetic knowledge which so incontestably places him on a plane of aesthetic sensibility to which the humble practitioner can only aspire. Obviously mere love of architecture, study, training, experience of the discipline and skill in its undertaking provide inadequate qualifications to this 'higher sight'. This willing pilgrim for one would be extremely grateful for directions to the temple of the development control officer's architectural lodestone. TRISTAN YORK London W13 London—more funds and coordinated planning needed From Peter F. Phillips BA, BArch Sir: Astragal's caustic comments on the proposal to revive London's west cross road (AJ 22.11.78 p969) demonstrates that the days of simplistic and fashionable approaches to planning problems are not yet over. So too the Lea Valley motorway scheme (AJ 13.12.78 pl 131), sadly given credence by the AJ with an emotive picture and misleading diagrams. Certainly, Hackney and East London badly need roads to relieve congestion and provide good access for industry, but so does the rest of London. The diagrams give the misleading impression that most of London's traffic problems result from movement between the MI/AI and M2/M20 via Hackney, which is not so, as is evident from the overwhelming congestion on every major road in the metropolis. The M25 is itself a hybrid result of past disjointed planning schemes, and would admittedly have been of greater economic and environmental value skirting and threading the outer suburbs five or six miles closer in, but to simply axe sections of it now as is proposed does not make sense. Traffic from the north-eastern radial routes, including those from Felixstowe and Tilbury, two vitally important docks, would still have poor access to the majority of London. Another of the scheme's claimed virtues is its benefit to docklands, yet surely limited funds should first go to improving the infrastructure of existing declining inner city areas before embarking on expensive dockland pastures new? Piecemeal easy solutions like the Lea Valley scheme, the type that politicians unfortunately tend to latch onto so easily, will achieve little in isolation. Regardless of the possible influence of the M25, industry and commerce will continue to leave London at an accelerating rate—with disastrous consequences—unless a comprehensive primary road network within the whole of Greater London is built; and built soon. This does not, however, negate the importance of maintaining parking restrictions and improving the presently inadequate public transport network—all form important parts of an essential transport system. With the responsibility for trunk roads transferred to the GLC Planning Department a fresh co-ordinated start could indeed be made. For once, new primary roads could be considered in conjunction with adjoining redevelopment and other transport services, enabling them to be better integrated into their surroundings and be of more economic and social value. Perhaps also if much more care was taken over their design and landscaping than is evident at present, and compensation rules were extended to cover all people adversely affected by schemes, opposition might not be so vehement and hysterical. As other regions of Britain with much smaller populations than London have benefited from considerable Government infrastructure funds in recent years, Government should now undertake a lion's share of the expenditure needed in the capital. The costs will doubtless be considerable, but in common with the history of British industry, without such investment London will sadly continue to decline. PETER F. PHILLIPS Qatar, Arabian Gulf The editor reserves the right to shorten letters. Short letters can be dictated to Lynette York over the telephone on Thursdays, for possible inclusion in the following issue of the A}. -113 REPORT Pooley rethinks GLC restructure Fred Pooley's controversial proposals for restructuring the GLC Architect's Department have been modified in a report which goes before the Professional and General Services Committee on 8 February. In the modified report, which is attached to a report from the Director General and the Controller of Manpower, certain suggestions in the first of Pooley's reports (AJ 1.11.71 p824) are dropped including his suggestions for the creation of multi-disciplinary practice groups. Recommendations in the new report include: a change of committee structure so that all the Architect's Department, instead of working for specific committees (Housing Department working for Housing Committee), will work for one committee—the Professional and General Services Committee. the whole department reorganised into practice groups; the wording of the report suggests that, eventually, these groups may become multifunctional. The report also seeks approval for voluntary redeployment of staff. This was one of the most hotly contested points of the original report. Many of the staff feel that, in reality, such a provision would mean that staff might find themselves faced with having to take uncongenial work or quit. Another of the controversial points raised by the original report was the future of Access, the architects' information service. Now Pooley, instead of asking for its closure as originally, is suggesting that it be combined with Technical Services and the staff be reduced. The staff committee meet on 23 January to discuss their response to this new round of proposals. DOE policies may undermine new listing initiative The difficulties that the GLC has been experiencing in getting the DOE to list buildings suggest that the Joint Committee of the Amenity Society's worthy attempt to speed up the resurvey of the country by recruiting and training volunteer listers is doomed. Even if lists are compiled quickly by the volunteers, there is no evidence that the DOE would accept them or process them speedily. In the past, the DOE has sat for many months on lists compiled by its own investigators. The Joint Committee (consisting of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Ancient Monuments Society, the Georgian Group and the Victorian Society) has organised a seminar to be held at Avoncroft College, Worcestershire, on 18-20 May at which about 30 volunteers will be 114 Foster's latest for IBM at Greenford AJ 17 January 1979 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Architect's Journal Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Undated https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/ed67a37ca4639ea16ab45ce7ebeeb88a.pdf 7f63f148b8b1dcc6c874f5dcae51092a 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 Who's getting a free ride Subject The topic of the resource Letter from R Maltz Description An account of the resource The Architects' Journal 13 December 1978 1123 Letter The editor reserves the right to shorten letters. Short letters can be dictated to Lynette York over the telephone on Thursdays, for possible inclusion in the following issue of the A}. Who's getting a free ride? From R. Maltz, architect Sir: You recently reported that the RIBA treasurer complained that 'unattached' architects are 'enjoying a free ride' (AJ 29.11.78 p1028). This raises some interesting questions. Why does he pick on the so-called 'unattached' : are they the only architects who do not pay RIBA subscriptions? And who, in fact, is really getting a 'free ride'? According to the latest ARCUK figures, as of 31 October 1978, less than 78 per cent of UK architects were RIBA members, down from 85 per cent three years ago. Of the rest, while over 17 per cent are considered 'unattached' another 5 per cent, who also do not pay RIBA subs, are members of other organisations enshrined in Schedule 1 of the Architects' Registration Act 1931. Did the RIBA treasurer also attack the 6000 or so corporate members of the RIBA (more than all non-RIBA UK architects) who appear, from press reports of the RIBA's expected subscription income, no longer to be paying their RIBA subs? Perhaps before attacking other architects the RIBA treasurer could explain why the RIBA continued to carry these 'free riders' on its membership rolls. I think the RIBA treasurer ought also to provide a credible explanation of why he considers that the growing number of UK architects who eschew RIBA membership are 'enjoying a free ride'. (Many of those RIBA members who pay their E50 subs apparently think that the RIBA is getting a free ride from them ! ) Surely the RIBA treasurer isn't forgetting those mysterious benefits reserved to RIBA members only, which one of the RIBA's 'Gang of Forty' on ARCUK recently used to justify Safdie Lanski: producing an Israeli Disneyland? See Waksberg's letter, the amenity societies do all the fighting. All architects should : 1 Join their local amenity society, Civic Society or Conservation Area Advisory Committee (I guess only 1 per cent do at present). 2 Think not twice, but 100 times before being party to the destruction of a listed building. 3 Encourage the RIBA to be more active in conservation. 4 Press for SAVE's 14 recommendations. 5 Urge planning authorities to be much more flexible in granting permission for new uses for listed and ancient buildings. Does anyone know what happened to Grenville Powney's idea, launched in 1970, for a sort of Society of Owners of Listed Buildings? Such a group (300 000 strong) could collectively defend threatened buildings. H. Reginald Hyne Windsor Left to rot From Desmond Hodges RIBA, director of Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee Sir : Here is a recommendation to add to the stirring list which concludes the 'Special save report' (AJ 22.11.78 p1002) : 'To establish a fund to which owners of listed buildings could contribute regularly, and from which they could borrow to pay for repairs. 'Tax-free interest on such savings to pay for systematic inspection, organised by the fund. 'Savings to be transferred at face value to new owners, but to be spent only on eligible repairs.' Such ready cash might reduce procrastination and the consequent appeals for HBC funds to avert the ultimate catastrophe. In fact the HBC might save money in the long run by making incentive payments to savers (no pun intended ! ). Anyone interested in these ideas is invited to contact me. Desmond Hodges 13a Dundas Street, Edinburgh National Heritage Buildings Agency From R. W. y. Chitham RIBA Sir: It is very heartening to see that one of the conclusions reached in the SAVE report on the dereliction of historic buildings Agency should be set up. You very kindly gave the opportunity to float this idea in your columns some 18 months ago (AJ 30.3.77 p588) on which occasion I made the point that once you embrace the concept of an agency of this kind, you discover a broad range of functions which it would be Not only could it take on powers of intervention to save 1124 The Architects' Journal 13 December 1978 The Cresset: the pursuit of anonymous space? See Maplestone's letter. w eke Belfast support for Hackney Belfast councillors were urged not to demolish large areas of Belfast for redevelopment last week by architect Rod Hackney. Instead he recommended them to initiate self-help rehab schemes based at street and neighbourhood level. Speaking at a special meeting in the Lord Mayor's parlour in Belfast's town hall, Hackney suggested that, ironically, Belfast could be a decade ahead of some English cities. 'You haven't fallen into the abyss of thinking that everything over 60 years old has got to come down', he said. Hackney's man in Belfast, Dave Gregory, with local resident (left) outside the shop where he lives (right). 'You have tighter communities here with already established leaders', he went on. Following a presentation of his Macclesfield scheme, one councillor declared it was the 'most fantastically stimulating thing I've heard for a long time'. While another councillor appeared to be concerned that 'we haven't got the right people here', the Lord Mayor pledged his support for the idea. 'What better way of community development than people doing up their own houses?' he said. But he added, 'we've now got to get it over to the [Government] Housing Executive'. Hackney's intervention in Belfast's housing problems is no accident. He was approached by the Woodvale Shankhill housing association last year and, after persuading the Housing Executive to declare a Housing Action Area, was appointed to rehabilitate 114 houses. Community designer Dave Gregory has been appointed to live above the housing association office in a corner shop within a stone's thrown of the barbed wire defences of the Crumlin Road 'peace line' and run the scheme. Executive's demolition plan revealed The action area is, however, only a small part of the Protestant working-class Shankhill district. An internal document of the Housing Executive, leaked recently to the Save the Shankhill Campaign, reveals that the executive would like to demolish Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Architect's Journal Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/5cd9edfe5d68d8c325d8388276e4dc53.pdf 794e5567f0480b49eebd3b04cccba6ca 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 Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. 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 Subject The topic of the resource Practice Management Incorporation 4pp. Description An account of the resource Al CVS'B PRACTICE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATION Since changes in the Arcuk code in 1981 permitted architects to practice as limited liability companies, many partnerships have opted for the change of status. But there has hardly been the queue of architects at Companies House that some predicted. Ruth Owens talked to Ray Moxley, who has been considering taking the plunge, and to Michael Manser and Andrew Derbyshire who gave him some advice on the basis of their practices' experience. Michael Manser heads a west London practice with 14 staff, which became a limited company within a year of the code changes. 'The only thing that held us up was tax complications. Our commercial clients approved of the change, although one did ask to see our insurance certificate. Some asked why on earth we had not done it before,' said Manser. 'The insurance company assumed responsibility for the historical risks of the partnership on behalf of the new limited company. So, provided the company continues to exist, directors who were partners can retire with an easy mind.' Manser's original reason for making the decision was indemnity, but he has gradually discovered that a limited company is also a good way of doing business. 'Directors can come and go without causing the company to wobble. They don't have to be shareholders.' Other advantages he cites are paying tax by PAYE, the opportunity to leave money in the company after retirement, and the ability to diversify by forming subcompanies and to set up or borrow from pension funds. He has no regrets over winding up the partnership. 'There used to be some cachet in being a partner in a professional firm but not any more. There is a general drift away from partnership. Uncertainty is the main problem. Your partner can quietly run into deep financial problems and the law makes you bale him out. Partnership is a bit like marriage—very demanding of personal relationships.' RMJM (London) Ltd Andrew Derbyshire is chairman of RMJM (London) Ltd, a practice at the opposite end of the scale to Manser's with more than 150 staff. The original partnership was formed in the late 1950s and set up two offices, in London and Edinburgh, with a high degree of autonomy. They were each run by local partners meetings, and their activities co-ordinated by a policy committee controlling borrowing and work search. But around 1980 this set-up began to be questioned. 'In London we became dissatisfied with the structure, which makes each partner jointly and severally responsible for what the others do. In effect it meant partners had a right and duty to be involved in every decision. This was becoming cumbersome,' says Derbyshire. 'We needed to be able to respond more quickly to the changing market conditions brought about by the recession, the abolition of mandatory fees, and the code changes.' Various alternatives, including a co-operative, were considered over a four-year period until February 1984, when the London office began trading as a private limited liability company. As well as the Edinburgh office, some jobs in London for clients of long.standing remain under the partnership. 'The big advantage is that company structure is clearly understood,' explains Derbyshire. 'Eventually, within about five years, we aim to become a common ownership company, with all our senior employees on a council which controls the shares through a trust.' The council, made up of the London partners, elects a board chairman for a three• year term. The chairman selects the chief executive, deputy chairman and board members, and reports back to the council quarterly. The board is not composed entirely of the partners, nor are all partners on the board—some have found niches elsewhere in the organisation. The practice's jobs are assigned to one of five project groups, which report to an 'operations board' on organisational matters and a 'design board' (chaired by Derbyshire) on matters of design and quality. There is, however, no attempt to enforce a house style. 'Our buildings are noted for their diversity,' says Derbyshire. 'But in some areas our procedure can become more autocratic now. I'd like to enforce use of the National Building Specification, for instance, and draw up lists of good and bad products on the basis of experience.' Derbyshire sees the company structure as being well suited to RMJM's traditional characteristics. 'Our aim has always been to provide continuity of employment for good designers. We are not like those firms based on one or two personalities, which tend to disappear when the "big AJ IS January 1986 6t name" retires or dies.' Derbyshire's personal enthusiasm for multidisciplinary practice also led him to support the idea of becoming a company. 'New skills can be brought onto the board much more easily than making new partners: it is not such an irrevocable decision. I was keen on getting young architects and engineers into the management of the business and the company structure made this possible.' Dynamic structure Having learnt from the experiences of Michael Manser and Andrew Derbyshire and spoken to its accountants, Morley, Jenner and Partners decided to become incorporated. 'It seemed the best thing for us to do. It is a much more dynamic structure than a partnership—and the London office needs it,' says Moxley. 'l suppose the main advantages are first that a limited company is a legal entity, which a partnership is not, and second the organisational advantages it gives.' Architects trading as limited liability companies are required by Arcuk to take out adequate professional indemnity insurance in order to protect their clients, so the change does not reduce insurance costs. But if the company is sued, individual employees do not risk losing their personal property. Likewise, retired directors— unlike retired partners—are safe from future claims. 'In partnership, if one of you goes, you all go down together.' The organisational advantage, Morley believes, will be to allow more local autonomy and responsibility. 'It is difficult for eight 64 A' IS January partners to control the efficiency, direction and marketing of a practice based in three separate offices, each with its own way of working. The set-up was too amorphous for there to be strong central policies. 'Instead, we hope eventually to form three separate companies, allied for marketing, career structure and information transfer, but each with its own chief executive and its own local directors. The Cardiff and Bristol offices are to remain as partnerships within the group for the time being.' Taking a share Morley regards a company structure as highly democratic. 'The directors are responsible to the shareholders and elected by them. The directors in turn elect a managing director or chief executive to oversee the direction of the firm. 'It's like a ship—you can't have three or four captains. But if a director becomes ineffective you're not stuck with him for life, as in a partnership. The shareholders will vote him out.' The initial shareholders will be the former partners, but the plan is to broaden the base of the organisation by allocating shares to new associates. 'We've got one starting next week. Once he's proved himself, we'll give him some shares and make him a director,' says Moxley. Besides these major advantages, Moxley reels off a list of minor ones. Directors can contribute more towards pensions than partners, and have a slight tax advantage as well; tax is paid as you go along rather than in arrears, which can be an advantage when profits are falling; outside capital can be brought in if required; shares can be bequeathed to members of the family; and the company can build up more capital than a partnership, since it can set aside income before tax, whereas partnership income is tax paid. Client reaction Before the change was finally decided upon, the practice also consulted its clients. 'Two-thirds of an architect's new work comes from previous clients, so it is very important that they should support the change,' says Moxley. 'Fortunately, none of ours responded negatively. If any current client had objected, we would have had to run the partnership down over a period and there would have been two lots of bookkeeping to do.' Having avoided this pitfall, the only disadvantages he foresees are the need to file annual returns (and the consequent accountancy bills) and the increased National Insurance contributions for directors compared to those paid by partners. In view of the enthusiasm of those who have tried it, and the trend towards companies in other professions, it is surprising to learn that a RIBA survey in January 1984 found only 102 out of 4709 RIBA member practices were limited companies. The RIBA has no more recent figures available. 'It is only in the past two or three years that the climate of opinion among clients has changed and limited companies have become acceptable,' says Ray Moxley. 'Lots of other practices of our size could benefit from it. It simplifies relationships with outsiders because they understand what they are dealing with.' He cites the example of the Surrey Docks competition. 'We entered as a design consortium together with Chamberlin, Powell and Bon. The developers did not know how to relate to us. Now we have just won a competition for Chelsea Basin. We have set up a company with the others involved in the design and everything is much simpler. Everyone knows where they stand.' The future Manser, too, sees companies as the thing of the future: 'It's the way the rest of the world trades. I'm much happier trading as a director than I was as a partner. Companies are more autocratic than partnerships—because the commitment is not so hair• raising you can reach decisions much more easily.' Derbyshire, meanwhile, sets the trend in a broader perspective. 'The strain on the profession due to the recession, code changes, the need for more marketing, and the collapse of the public sector will lead to many new forms of practice. As well as setting up limited companies for design, architects will become involved in more multidisciplinary firms, and design and construction companies.' With the leaders of the profession turning to limited companies so enthusiastically, it seems that the days of the old-style architectural partnership could be numbered. ACA Index November 1190 December 119$1 For application see AJ 26.1.83 pp27 and 53. PRACTICE MANAGEMENT COMPANY OR PARTNERSHIP In AJ 15.1.86 p61 Ruth Owen examined Ray Moxley's very positive decision to practise as a limited liability company, heeding advice from Michael Manser and Andrew Derbyshire. Following representations from several of his architect clients, solicitor Gordon Jones now presents what he feels is a more balanced view, particularly for small practices. What prompted me to proffer some contrary views to those in Ruth Owen's article was the clutch of letters from architect clients that dropped on my desk asking why my recent advice on incorporation was so much at odds with the views of Ray Morley, Michael Manser and Andrew Derbyshire. I do not seek to challenge the wisdom of their own decisions. Many of their reasons are valid as general principles. There are, however, assertions and opinions I would question. Before outlining the pros and cons of incorporation the nature of the architectural profession should be considered. The 1984 RIBA census reveals that in private practice (including sole principals) the average number of principals per firm was approximately two. If sole principals are excluded, the average rises only to three. One therefore has to consider the most convenient business framework for a profession of creative individualists. A number of factors come into play. Limited liability Limited liability is the most often quoted benefit. It is a snare and a delusion. Ignoring directors' guarantees—often required by banks, landlords and hire purchase companies—it is true that the directors and shareholders are not, in normal circumstances, liable for the company's contractual obligations. However, if one of the directors commits the tort of negligence while about the company's business, he will be personally liable. It may be argued that his failure will not ruin the other directors and shareholders, but the directors will have 7. z shared the profits. Should capital is a possibility though they not share the uninsured the 'partners' may prefer to losses? I would certainly raise long-term loan capital advise architects and thus retain the benefit of contemplating incorporation the growth in the firm's to enter into a shareholders' profits. In this case a large agreement providing, inter partnership could just as alia, for contribution towards easily borrow. such claims. Liability under Profit-sharing can be fixed such an agreement survives or flexible under either death or resignation, thus structure, though there are sleep may not necessarily tax efficient profit-sharing be easy. schemes for rewarding employees with shares or Capital, profits and tax options on shares which are available only to companies. Historically, the capital of a These advantages may well be partnership has generally critical factors in favour of been provided by the equity incorporation for large firms. partners and is limited by A traditional method of their resources. In theory a increasing the capital of a company has greater firm is by retention of profits. opportunities than a Here the company has a major partnership to raise capital advantage in that retained from outside sources, but for profits will suffer only the an architectural practice is small companies tax rate of there a real difference? Not 30 per cent, whereas the for small firms. An outside partnership will suffer the investor, professionally partners' highest marginal advised, would be unlikely to rates up to 60 per cent. invest as a minority This 30 per cent may be the shareholder in a private maximum exposure to tax for company dependent on the many years if low salaries and architectural talents of a dividends are paid by the small band of architects. company, though Capital If all the required capital is Gains Tax may be payable on not easily provided by the disposal of shares in the architects themselves, banks company. and insurance companies will There are many tax aspects be the sole source of outside to be considered, but if capital whether the small firm partnership profits bring the is corporate or not. marginal rate of a partner's As for large firms, the tax above 30 per cent acquisition of outside equity incorporation may be advantageous. Timing, however, will be critical. Pensions The maximum rate of contribution for self.employed persons and partners is 17 • 5 per cent of earnings (though higher for persons born in 1933 or earlier). For companies, the maximum employee contribution is 15 per cent of earnings, but there is no limit on the company's contribution provided the Inland Revenue maximum benefit limit for the employee is not exceeded. If partners start early enough and pay maximum permitted contributions they can acquire as high a pension as from a company pension scheme. However, unlike a company, partners cannot adequately compensate in later years for insufficient funding earlier. Funding partnership capital is possible in both methods. For a large firm a self-funded corporate pension scheme may be an attractive option that can also assist with funding capital assets. For partnerships of seven principals or more there is the option of forming a friendly society to provide a pension scheme. Management control A partnership is owned and managed by the partners. A company is owned by the shareholders but managed by the directors, who need not be the same. Traditionally a professional practice had to be owned and managed by members of the profession. However, since the 1931 Act architects have been permitted to practise in corporate form provided the business was controlled and managed by a registered AJ 9 April 19B", 67 person. It is therefore possible to have non• architects as partners, shareholders and directors provided they are not in control. If non-architects are required by a particular practice it may choose either partnership or company form. Similarly, the form of management and administration within both a partnership and a company may be tailored to suit the firm's requirements. By the use of special articles of association and shareholder agreements many of the structural advantages of a partnership can be incorporated into a limited company. It is also possible to write into a partnership agreement many of the advantages claimed for corporate bodies, such as tighter control, more effective decision-making and stricter reward for effort. For each firm there may be one dominant reason for choosing partnership or company; that does not mean that it cannot gather many of the presumed advantages of the other structure. Consider the following: • Job security. It is often alleged against the partnership that it is generally for life and breeds complacency. The answer is to specify a fixed term—say, five years e Career structure. A partnership can offer associateship, salaried partnership, junior equity partnership rising to senior partnership. Profit sharing can be on a 'points system', reflecting the various contributions of partners from time to time • Decision-making. Ray Morley regards companies as at once democratic and autocratic! Like partnerships, they cannot be both at the Al 9 1986 same time—and it depends on your definition of democracy. Conventionally, each partner has one vote on all fundamental matters, but the larger the partnership the more likely that majority voting will prevail on even fundamentals such as admission of new partners, architectural style and profit sharing • Industrial democracy. The corporate form probably has the edge because it is easier to give shares in a company to the employees than shares in a partnership. But participation can be provided in a partnership; the critical factor is the *ill of the parties—both employers and employees e Statutory regulation. It is often alleged that a company is simpler to understand than a partnership but this is another delusion. The Partnership Act 1890, comprising 50 sections and no schedules, is of common law origin and codifies laws governing a group practise. There is very little statutory regulation of partnership. A corporate body is a creature of statute, an 'artificial person'. The Companies Act 1985 comprises 747 sections and 25 schedules. A company must pay a tax of one per cent on all share capital issued. It must maintain registers of shareholders, directors and mortgages; hold shareholders and board meetings; file annual returns and have professionally audited accounts. For a large firm these administrative obligations will be no problem, but for a small firm it can be a tiresome burden. Departure Superficially, the death of a partner may appear to cause more of a problem than that of a director/shareholder. In the latter case the company, being a legal entity, continues under the control of the remaining directors with the deceased's shareholding vesting in his personal representatives. However, the well advised director will wish to ensure that his or her investment in the firm can be realised by the deceased's family, and this can be achieved only by a shareholders' agreement making provisions similar to those in a partnership agreement. While technically death terminates a partnership, most deeds provide for automatic continuation among the surviving partners with payment of the value of the deceased's share to the personal representatives. Much the same applies on resignation or retirement. Conclusions • Corporate and partnership forms are very flexible e Partnership for the professional is a good motivator and is relatively simple. It must be right for most small firms • Capital requirements and pension provision may dictate a corporate structure for a particular firm e Management philosophy may fit one form rather than another e Ownership can be spread more easily through shares in a company e Client and public relations must be considered and the costs of conversion weighed in the balance • Limiting liability should not be a factor. That problem with regard to professional negligence needs legislation. Cordon Jones is the senior partner •f Church, Adams, & Co. Right of reply The AJ contacted Moxley, Manser and Derbyshire for their reactions to Jones' article. Both Moxley and Manser were still satisfied with their decision. Derbyshire did not disagree with Jones but challenged his view of the profession: 'Gordon Jones claims that the advantages of a limited company can be built into a partnership if anybody wants to, and this is true. But the real point is that they don't have to be built into a company. They are there already. This encourages members of a company to take advantage of the flexibility of management structure that is available. 'It is not easy to implant an executive management team into an existing partnership. A company provides freedom to select the appropriate leadership. 'All in all I need no persuasion that there are both advantages and disadvantages in changing to a limited company for the "average UK two.man practice". However, small practices that want to be ready for growth, able to respond quickly to changing needs and provide a better service to the building industry may decide that they will be better equipped for the future if they choose limited liability and multi.skilled diversification.' RIBA Services Ltd is holding a seminar on converting to a company on 8 May at the RIBA. Details on 01-637 8991. ACA Index February 120-39 March 12089 For application see AJ 26.1.83 pp27 and 53. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Architects Journal Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 15 January 1986 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/d816eaf3157a3b7fcbeba0611a178416.pdf 12f330ce3c1de42c44fb8c6af1d4aa05 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 Later NAM Congresses, 2-5 Subject The topic of the resource A further 5 NAM Congresses after the initial Harrogate Congress in 1975, plus other documents Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-1980 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 NAM Letters to the Press Subject The topic of the resource AJ Report on Cheltenham Congress 15/11/78; NAM letter to AJ 04/05/77 querying RIBA Earnings survey; NAM letter to AJ re Assoc of Consulting Architects' report Description An account of the resource NAM LETTERS TO THE PRESS 6 @ Students wanted explained the proposers. PIG would be a kind of ‘mop up’ group enabling NAM councillors to play a More positive role by taking initiatives. Congress formally endorsed the work of the eight NAM councillors, and aslate of candidates has been drawn up to x = : "awth PIG isborn To back up the work of NAM members acting as unattached representatives on ARCUK council and those working on the mandatory fee scale issue,Congress Set up a Professional Issues Group (PIG). The councillors have their work cut out responding to day to day issues contend the forthcoming unattached elections as it is anticipated there will be a further increase in the number of unattached representatives. Fee scale abolition endorsed Although there was a handful of dissenters Congress endorsed the work of the Monopolies Group which produced the report ‘Way ahead’ recommending The fourth annual national Congress of the New Architecture Movement was held at the School of Architecture in Cheltenham last weekend, In between wholesome meals and arejuvenating bop toa punk rock group, over 90 people thrashed out the neat year’s policy of a movement which in only four years has signiticantly altered the face of architectural politics in Britain. Tension over alternative practice the abolition of the mandatory fee scale and the introduction of a fee system ‘based on standardised clements of Service and ranges of cost to safeguard the public against unreasonableprice increases and check the profession from unhealthy price cutting’. An end to secrecy Symbolising an end to the cloak and dagger secrecy that has been a feature of the movement until now, it was agreed that telephone numbers of spokespersons for the different issue groups should be circulated to the press. Speakers however reiterated that the movement should avoid creating ‘leaders’, because issues and ideas then* casily became obscured by personalities. € out by the ARCAID group in Leeds and *Support in London, both of which After virtually the only contentious debates in the whole weekend, Congress agreed to set up an Alternative Practice issue group “to develop the theory and practice of NAM members involved in worker controlled private sector organisations with the aim of providing socially responsible alternatives’. New constitution A constitution for the Movement was adopted which firmly establishes it as a federation of issue, local and working groups accountable to the annual Congress and working for the general aim of promoting ‘effective democratic control of al people over their environment and by design and construction workers over theirworking lives’. A Liaison Group iselected each year to conduct administrative and financial affairs and to ‘act for the Movement’ between Congresses. Membership of NAM has increased over the last year from 92 to 120. Participants were shown work carried Operate in the private sector but work co-operatively for poor clients such as tenants and community groups. Members of these groups believe that in the short term this kind of work provides the best way of making architects’ skills available to working class users. But several people believed there was a danger of the group clashing with the already established PublicDesign Group which recently submitted its Own report on community architecture to Minister of Housing Reg Freeson.* This report argues forcibly that a community architectural service ‘should be based on the public sector and not on the private sector’. Despite initial tension between these Two views, itwas generally accepted by both groups that they could work in parallel. It was likely to take years to achieve reforms in the public sector and unul that time the private sector experiments could provide valuable experience, a vehicle for propaganda, and a means of providing working class people with services they would otherwise be denied. *Community Architecture: apublic designservice, available from NAM, 9 Poland Street, London W1. ii. StudentNAM groupsshouldbesetup in schools of architecture, butthey should be autonomous groups and not controlled by any central body or the already established Education Group. This was the outcome of a debate in which some speakers advocated a recruitment drive among students. Few students are members of NAM although more attended the Congress than in previous years. Monday and the millenium “The Movement isgrowing inmaturity as its critique of the profession grows more refined’, said John Allan, a founder member at the opening of Congress. A substantial body of literature has been developed and the Movement’s magazine Slate isimproving with each issue.What isnow needed istotranslate quality into quantity. The profession ison the defensive, he said. While the trades and ‘para Professions’ are becoming more Professional with the introduction of codes and guidelines, the traditional Profession is being forced to become | more secular. NAM could take i advantage of the consequent instability. Referring to the inherent tension between long term aims and short | term tactics, he said that while the | former could not be achieved quickly, | some of the obstacles barring the way | could be removed immediately. } “Our predicament isnot aquestion of i the millenium or Monday’, he said, ‘but | an affirmation of the millenium and Monday.” a eseses—te The Architects’ Juurnal 15 Novernber 1978 The editor reserves the right to shorten letters unless writers specify otherwise. Short letters can be dictated to Jane Pike over the telephone on Thursdays, for possible inclusion in the following issue of the Af. as fees are exempt from the ‘social contract’, inflation has created something of a bonanza for the partners. For example it appears that it is not unusual for partners’ incomes (clear of overheads but not taxed) ina medium/large firm to range from £45 000 to £65 000. Other returns show even higher incomes, next visit to one of our sites in case he should run into one of the World’s End team. Peter A. Kreamer London SW1 Henry Herzberg replies: Iam sorry that Mr Kreamer feels that we failed to give sufficient credit to Bovis. No ‘side swipe’ was intended: the words complained of are a plain statement of fact. Bathing for warmth From G. Wigglesworth RIBA Sir: I very much agree with Christian Hamp’s letter (AJ 13.4.77 p674) about the oriental or Japanese bath. I too enjoyed using it in Japan. It is not only very economical because the hot water is not drained away, but topped up and re-used, but it is akin to the sauna in that it is relaxing. Washing before entering the bath is, of course, essential. In the past, the Japanese used energy sparingly in their houses; there Was no attempt to warm the house, but only the person. Before getting into your padded bed, a hot bath was essential; once warm in bed, you could remain warm all night even when the room temperature might be just above freezing. G. Wigglesworth London SE1 Earning survey wrong? From M. F. McCarthy RIBA Sir: The 1976 RIBA earnings survey (AJ 6.4.77 p635) shows that the increase in architects’ earnings between June 1975 and June 1976 was significantly greater in the public sector than in the pri- vate sector. The explanation for While we are not surprised that the RIBA’s interpretation attempts to show that there is a trend towards the reduction of differentials between partners and salaried staff, we would point out that our 1976 submission to the Monopolies Commission showed the exact opposite. Itappearsthatitisthemethod of presentation of the RIBA’s results which isparticularly misleading. All your readers know that the income ofa medium to large sized practice, doing medium to large sized jobs is considerably greater than that of atwo person firm cking out a living on kitchen conversions. Consequently the RIBA), these firms received 81 per cent of al fee income. In 1972 the same group of offices employed 82 per cent of salaried architects in private practice. 3 At the same time as partners in medium/large firms were averaging £22 327 per annum, the average income of all salaried architects in private practicewas£4743. The differential between partners and salaried architects thus increases in relation to the size of practice. Weare in the process of updating our data, and we would welcome further information from salaried architects regarding their partners’ profits. At this preliminary stage itappears that World’s End (AJ 20.4.77) claims not to attempt to discuss the architectural, but to concentrate on other things. One would have thought that such a disclaimer would have prefaced at least some passing reference to the form of contract used to build the majority of the project. One would have thought that since that form of contract is a fee based one, and that the builder concerned is fee remunerated for all his work, that his name would be deemed worthy of a mention among the other professionals involved on p734. But no. Henry Herzberg, itseems, is 50 concerned with slanging what he regards as the evil main contractors of the ’sixties (p743) that he doesn’t have Space to describe how the ultimate contractor on this job managed a disaster into a success story. While taking a side swipe at the client for accepting the higher of two so-called ‘tenders’ to Table I Average annual income per Architectural Partner by size of Architectural Team Size of practice arch team 15 6-10 3778 5591 8992 11-25 6108 9040 14537 26 or more 9381 13 6&4 22327 Sources: National Board for Prices and Incomes report om architects’ 1968; Updating Factor—RICS building cost information March 1976. Size of practice een 1958 1960 1962 1064 1900 1068 1972 31-50 51 and over 95 13:0 145 15-5 15-6 i596 2-0h16:3 programmepromisedwhen employees areoneofthelast Average income per architectural partner 1966 1970 1974 £L £ £ 2575 3811 6129 partners’ profits are greater as well. Profits vary with the size of practice. The RIBA’s method of averaging out apparently random samples, or of relating partners’ income to age is therefore of dubious value as a source of knowledge about the state of the profession. Presumably for this reason, the National Board for Prices and Incomes, in its 1968 Survey of architects’ fees and costs, used size of practice as the only relevant yardstick for comparing) incomes. This was also the method used in our submission to the Monopolies Commission, and we enclose copies of the relevant tables showing figures references and sources. We would draw your attention to the main findings: 1 There is a considerable difference between the average income of partners in small and large firms. In 1974 these incomes were £6129 and £22 327 respectively. 2 There is an increasing trend ‘The Architects’ Journal 4 May 1977 817 TERME 5 NAMquestionsfindingsof towardslargeroffices,the DanBullen RIBA earnings survey From Dan Bullen of the London Group, NAM Sir: percentage of medium and large practices almost doubled between 1958 and 1972. The Prices and Incomes Board London W1 What about the builder? From Peter A. Kreamer of Bovis Construction Lid Sir: We would take issue with the findings of the RIBA’s 1976 carningssurvey(AJ6.4.77p635). (32-1percentaccordtiontghe HenryHerzberg’sarticleon found that while comprising only 30 per cent ofall practices costs and fees TableIfAveragesalaofryallemployedarchitectisnallprivatepractices tomentionthattheworkwas ‘theexistenceofincremental 1966 £1993 1970 1974 £2950 £4743 _ pleted by the ch contractor well within his estimate of prime cost. He also fails to mention that the management team involved achievedeveryphasedhandover by the original date promised. Finally, in his last sentence he scales for public employees which were allowed to operate during the Incomes Policy’. I believe this to be a fundamentally wrong interpretation. Local authority pay review periods run from July to July cach year whereas the Incomes Source: Ibid. Note: All technical salaries in 1967 formed 34°5 per centof costs; RIBA handbook suggests approx similar figures. Table[ilDistributionofprivatepracticesbysize1968-1072 743 69:0 634 61-7 618 67-9 ; . : . 7 . grudging acknowledgm: August. The effect of these 0-8 1:3, Hav PRR MehPydseraperg to wear a disguise before his aeuuRAEDPS: gear. | Between June 1975 and June 7 ‘ toavoidevena PolicyrunsfromAugustto Mninehacinitmicdenientivrar 15 Aa DO ere anaes eae oars ih thecompletiondatealsometthe periodsisthatlocalauthority plete the project, he fails this disparity was attributed to “Source: RIBA Submision to Monopolies COmmisstorr Nay P97t6————————— NAM's tables: see Bullen’s letter. 4 TheArchiJoturnealc4tMasy1’977 “976 local authority employees were not “entitled to their annual increments on top of the £312 per annum which was the maximum increase allowed in the first year of the Social Contract’ because their pay award for that period was made in July 1975, before the Social Contract came into force. It follows that for the year in question normal negotiating procedures applied. The £312 per annum cost of living award under the first year of the Social Contract will be reflected in the next RIBA earnings survey, and itcan be expected that a closer correlation between the sectors will be shown, The 4 per cent or £4 & week second stage of the Social Contract will not be awarded to local authority employees until July of this year. When the results of the 1978 RIBA earn- ings survey are published the relative positions of the two sectors over the whole period should have balanced out. p691), but wish you to note that approximately one-third of the illustrating photographs related to ‘the only non-standard house’, and also accounted for half of the interior shots. These photographs demon- Strated, in most cases, major design features which are not attributable to Royston Summers, set within an adaptation which paid respect to the overall design idiom and constraints imposed by his system. The only departure from this discipline is also the only feature that your article attributes to “different architects’, namely the placing of three windows in what would other- wise have been a blank wall (photo 22), due to a good, practical requirement for change by the client when the building was well under way. Unfortunately, the Royston Summers approach did not permit a less inharmonious solution at that juncture. Jeffrey Mansfield continued the Vauxhall Bridge Road through another lens. is currently much 1@.. onapossiblestage3 workbegunbyRoyston was not to ‘chop a road through Petworth’s incomparable park’ but to tunnel under the park— this following an evaluation of over 20 alternative schemes, public meetings and even a referendum of the locals. Thecountysurveyor,Mr Harrison (not Hutchinson), actually commented that the one virtue of the postponement was that it would enable the dialogue on Petworth’s traffic problem to continue. The problem of Petworth is extremely difficult. Not only is it a town of great architectural and ~ historical interest but itisalso set in an outstanding landscape. Iconsider the council and its officers have acted and are acting in awery responsible Iwould hope the Architectural Press would act in an equally responsible manner. B. J. Seaman Chichester, Sussex Sorry about the Hutchinson error. The council did propose to chop a road through the park—though a short tunnel was to run in front of the house. Astragal = Credit for code From Bob Giles RIBA, chairman SAG Sir: item in your issue of 13 April (p675) with a picture of the nearly completed first phase. The photograph, which I guess to be taken with a wide-angle lens, gave the effect of an isolated building surrounded by largeareasoftarmac. This misses the whole concept of a building designed as a link between two differing urban scales, The high mass of the building fronts Vauxhall Bridge Road, safeguarded as an urban clearway for the GLC and with high buildings on its north side, and the rest of the building tapers down to match the domestic scale of the Victorian terraces to the south of Tachbrook Street. Similarly, the text could be misleading. As you know, many local authority architect’s departments have some kind of hierarchical structure and design teams containing several architects. In this context I feel it is difficult and possibly invidious to single out one individual to whom the design can be attributed. However, your news item contrasts with a similarly brief item on the next page of the same issue by not naming the job architect; instead itattributes the design to the person who was the group leader. As job architect, I of the Social Contract. Whatever happens, local authority employees will be forced to fund stage 3 inflation from a stage 2 increase in income. It is well known by trade unions that pay awards are held down prior to the entering of a formal period of Pay restraint, and that there is considerable advantage in having an annual pay review date at the beginning rather than the end of statutory periods. I believe that at the end of the period of Incomes Policy the public sector will be seen to have lost ground. Incremental scales of pay are inflexible and can be criticised on a number of grounds but they should not be blamed for discrepancies in earnings of cts in different sectors. FMcCarthy London WS Lakeside Drive designs From Michael Wilson RIBA Sir: I do not wish to deny credit to Royston Summers for his overall design scheme and commendable standard detailing system for Lakeside Drive (AJ 13.4.77 Summers for two years following his resignation from the commission, and handed it over to myself early in 1972 in close liaison—particularly with reference to the above-mentioned house which he had already designed in outline. The design work to this house, and to others requiring variation, was continued by myself and my former partner, Gerald Harvey. Michael Wilson London SES Petworth county line From B. F. Seaman RIBA, West Sussex county architect Sir: Astragal’s Petworth reprieve (AJ 13.4.77 p672) must get my nomination of the year for the most inaccurate and sensational piece of journalism. Anyone who knows Petworth will certainly support a plan by West Sussex County Council to divert heavy traffic from the narrow streets of the town and anyone in the area will certainly know that the dialogue between the county council, the National Trust and the local people has been going on for many years. The council’s plan Your otherwise excellent report | designed the overall layout of of the work of the RIBA the redevelopment for which Salaried Architects Group (AJ | planning permission was 30.3.77 p579) was marred by a misleading description of the group as ‘the leading force’ in the work of revising the Code of Professional Conduct. Although SAG was involved in the production of the final draft the present code is the culmination of nearly 10 years’ work by successive working groups under the direction of David Waterhouse, to whom just credit should be given. Bob Giles London W1 Vauxhall Bridge Road From H. A. P. Quince, architect Sir: Inoted with interest the news obtained, originated the design of the building illustrated and supervised itsdevelopment up to tender stage. H. A. P. Quince London SW17 Tax alternatives for practices incurring losses From K.$. Slade ATIT Sir: One reads ofa recession in the building and construction industry which indicates that some of your readers in private practice ontheirownaccountare suffering from a diminution of income which, in the more serious cases, means that the practicies incurring aloss. The Editor The Architect's Journal 9 Queen Anne's Gate London SWI 9BY Sir: enough patrons. The New Architecture Movement Central London Group 10 Percy Street London W | Tel: Of 580 2621 4 March 1976 [veus We welcome Hellman's letter arguing for more equitable forms of architectural practice. This contrasts with the findings of a report sponsored by the Association of Consultant Architects which con@ludes that the ilsof architecture are eaused by there being too manyarchitects. Amoresearchinganalysismighthaverevealedthattherearenot The fact that the present patrons of architecture are rich and powerful Individuals or organisationsIsreflectedInourarchitecture. Thepeoplewhoarenotpatronsof architecturecompriseover80%ofthepopulation. Theremedyforthiswillnotbe architectural. 1twillonlybeachievedwhensociety'svalueschange. A paper was given on this subject at the Harrogate Conference of the New Architecture Movement. One of Its conclusions was the need for a National Design Service. Since then the North London Group of NAM has been studying the practical implications of such a service, In conjunction with methods of achieving cooperative office structures. Any changes in existing practice must be set in the context of the need to expand resourcesInvestedinhousing,educationandhealth. Therecentexpenditurecutsseem torepresentanattempttoreducepermanentlysuchprovision. ForpeopleInclearance areas the question of redevelopment v. rehabilitation Is being replaced by the fear that they will never secure a decent home. The current direction of resources into non-resident controlled housing associations Is no substitute. Itmaybringworkandprofitstoprivatearchitectsandotherprofessional groups, but it is at the expense of working people. We believe that any new form of architectural service must include a formal mechanism of local control through which architects are accountable, not only to thelr clients, but tothosewhooreaffectedbythelrdesigns. Onlyinthiswaycancompetenceandquality of service be measured. Although we would encourage co-ownership In architects offices, it is clear that without local accountabllity such a development would merely extend professional elitism and allow a wider distribution of profits within the profession. The Editor The Architect's Journal 4 March 1976 In our opinion, the basis of a National Design Service already exists, albeit in a very Inadequate way, In the service provided by local government offices. At present access to local authority architects ts restricted to the spending committees whoselinktothepeopletheypurporttoserveIstenuous. ThearchitectsInvolvedare solelyresponsibletothesecommitteesandthenonlythroughthelrchiefofficer. This Is unsatisfactory, The New Architecture Movement will press for the principle of a national design service In the form of small scale collectively organised offices, coupled to local accountabllity and control. Our initial work will be sufficiently advanced for this to be the main subject of our next conference in London at the beginning of May. Yours faithfully David Roebuck and John Murray Central London Group New Architecture Movement 10 Percy Street London W |! i NAM CONGRESS TRADES UNION CENTRE 12,14, PICARDY PLACE, EDINBURGH: NEW ARCHITECTURE MOVEMENT SIXTH ANNUAL CONGRESS 7th,8th&9th november1980 TRADES UNION CENTRE ,EDINBURGH . This years congress takes place in a period of gathering gloom,unprecedented since the 1930's,for the economy as a whole as the country plunges further into recession, for the building industry in particular,as the government expenditure cuts begin to bite,and for those in, housing need as the government dismantles the mechanisms of public housing provision. This governments refusal to intervene in the economy or to modify its policies has pushed unemployment to over 24 million,and this figure is expected to grow.This year has seen a continuation of unprecedented attacks on the living standards of the mass of people in this country by denying access to decent housing ,decent health care, public services and jobs.The effects of this policy on the building industry is to make it unable to respond in an upturn of the economy. It is in this context that the New Architecture Movement Stages its sixth annual congress.The Majority the the weekend will be devoted to an examination of this deeping crisis,with a view to exploring constructive avenues of opposition.This is a major opportunity for those concerned and frustrated by the destructive impact of government policy to debate and initiate courses of action for an environment that is democratic and that does respond to the needs of the majority,not the few. Swuneren saunter e LOCATION: CHECK ACCOMPANYING MAP THE TRADE UNION CENTRE BUS STATION TRAIN STATION CALTON STUDIOS THE CAIRN HOTEL 8 THE OSBOURNE HOTEL THE ABERCRAIG HOTEL THE CARLTON HOTEL THE ALBANY HOTEL IN ADDITION TO THE LIST OF HOTELS THE ONES LISTED ABOVE HAVE BEEN GIVEN PRIORITY DUE TO THEIR NEARNESS TO THE CONGRESS VENUE.CRASH PAD FLOORS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR A SMALL FEE TO COVER BREAKFAST, NAM oe CONGRESS 1980 TRANSPORT CHECK THE TRAIN TIMETABLES IN THE PACK. FOR LOCAL TRANSPORT TO THE CONGRESS SEE. e INDICATED TO MICK BROAD BY He FYENING OF 5TH NOV, TELEPHONE FORD (MID-LOTHIAN) 320564, NEW ARCHITECTURE MOVEMENT SIXTH CONGRESS 7TH, 8TH, 9THNOV TRADEUNTONCENTRE12-14,PLAPCE,IECDINABURGHD.EHY13JT TELEPHONE 031-556-3006, CRECHE A CRECHE WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IF THEIR IS A PRIOR DEMAND FROM CONGRESS GO'ERS,SUCH A DEMAND MUST BE FOOD YOUR CONGRESS FEE INCLUDES MEALS AND WILL BE OBTAINED BY THE USE OF YOUR CONGRESS FooD VOUCHERS, ISSUED ON REGISTRATION PROBLEMS sEE MICK BROAD, KEN PEARCE OR BARRY SHAW, A That 5 ts \Meadowban natestshih een oe = oees s ?O> eaetee “ 5 y TM SAR R iJ ae = ieee {7 fi& Eh jos BS ae Uy Seu 5i it Se< he es — Ly i OSes sQy- =F ost Cors ER 1 \\\ q‘3 - er \ ees = Xs \ > Ch Baw SAW oEwef PSV Fi ae aN i ars ech. (or aaClear NAY ENie)(RN SUNDAY 9th WORKSHOPS DESCRIPTION Coffee'’Another day begins" NAM Annual General Meeting Coffee ARCHITECTURE, COMMUNITY & POLITICS. PROGRAMME FRIDAY 7th'nov 18.30-19.30 19.30-20.00 20.00-22.00 SATURDAY 8th 9.30-10.00 10.00-10.15 10.15-12.30 12.30-13.80 13.30-15.30 15.30-16.00 16.00-19.00 19.00-20.00 Registration Buffet supper/Bar opens Discussion and meeting ‘Political Economy of Tory Policy 'Decay ,Deskilling, Deindustrialisation,Destitution and Disaster.Guest speaker George Robertson M.P. Coffee'The day begins' Introduction to the Workshops WORKSHOPS : Lunch WORKSHOPS Tea Plenary session Supper Group meetings 20 .00- 9.30-10.00 10.00-11.30 11.30-12.00 12.00-13.30 The way forward 13.30-14.30 Lunch and farewells. WORKSHOP 3.COMMUNITY ACTION; democratic control of the environment;tenants federations; housing co-op's; community enterprise and alternative community; developments;design for the WORKSHOP 1,.WELFARE STATE; housing and social services; privitizaticn of housing;designing for the state;Public Design Service; accountability in the public sector; planning; transportation; power and energy WORKSHOP 2.BUILDING INDUSTRY; unemployment; craft skills; design and build;direct labour; unionisation; co-operatives; aJternative types of practice;building defects;training and education,ARCUKand professional issues;women in building. saving; (LH) - Licensed “otel Edinburgh Accommodation Register ' prepared July 1980 AREA 1. = Edinburrh Bast End AREA 2, = Edinburgh West Ena AREA %, - Edinburrh South Side (ULH)-~ Unlicenced Hotel sts WO vA2 (GF) - Guest House é 385 (Pri)- Private House B&B g 5838 : B ni ABERCRATG (LH) paon Ved (GU 2 Picardy Place 01,69 EHL ZT or6257 Uhee Som. OF Ss eos OG CSHDMTX z 3/5 Forth Strect 1616 EH10 4JS |ge (GE) 55671h—ye 0397 a eiiGeniasGoniGeno 18.00 25.80 CSHIMTCc | 9 Albany Street | EHl 30Y or0298 (LH) §556, 111 36 2 49 CAIRN 10/18 Windsor Street 2807 EH? SIR CLIFTON (UL) DOG) 13 Hopetoun Crescent 1180 EH7 hAY COLROY 7? Hopetoun EA? LAY EOPETOUN 8 Hopetoun Crescent EH? LAY HALCYON (ULH) 8 Royal Terrace FE? 5AB GREENSIDE (ULF) 5. 8.00 8.00 14.50 17.50 CIMTCcxX Royal Terrace PH? SAB DD Leah Ie) 0022 1s]ab ane 90) 8.51 13.80 17.02 CHT 21 Royal Terrace EH7 SAH BELMONT 1O/11 Calton Terrace ER7 SDD (ULH) Crescent P20 ea) 6469) (ULE) hls eal ec ei Sh 5001 SeecoebeeelOs00n2400CIMTCex me rete este so Beg = 23533 -= seats Chg Clee) OSROURNE (LH)DOOtLieLUGyee7ORSOliDa24.00o/a 52/59 York Place 5746 EH14JD oresh5 VICTORTA (ULE) 556i eb EL Seely GCHEDMTCc el GON aye 50 9-20 14.95 GCSIMCcX te e ieee cules Siete 75 9.50 pe oldest 4e50 4.50 9.00 9.00 9.50 CDMTCcx DO) eG Gen eal Gila GeOO 6.50 127500) 22.00 CSHTCcX 1033 ARDEN (LH)56)aseOGIESPCHOeLeleOSTaelGelo21.85CHWEDMTCc 18/20 Royal Terrace 8688 EB? 5AQ LOCHEWE (LH) DDG)plasG 6749 maou Ace aG) 9-26 18.40 18.40 CSEMCc : (LE). 56) DG lei 6116 Ge al 6.50 8.62 13.00 16.10 CDTCc cHTcc REGENT TERRACE (ULH) OSG Set Si § Regent Terrace 2578 EH7 SBN ALEXANDER (ULE) 261) even 2l Spring Gardens LES? ate layne 5-00 8.00 10.00 16.00 EH8 85U NORTHESK PRIVATE(ULH) Bou a WOR 23&48 Pilrig¢g Street 4205 EH6 SAN BALFOUR HOUSE (LH) SSR Nee IG) Gal ee zalo 5-00 7.00 10.00 14.00 GCSHMTCcxX 92 Pilrig Street EH§ SAY 2106 . came 5-50 ofa 10.00 ofa ; Sie, Ww fs) AS 6.90 10.40 CGSDx 11.50 GCSHMTCcxX GCSIMCcX New Architecture Movement ARKLE “CL5) ki Coates Gardens 11 EH12 SLY ARGUS 14 Coates Gardens Eml2 SLB BERESFORD 22 Coates Gardens (LH) 10 6.50io50 6275 1 BOTSDALE 9 Coates Gardens BH1? SLG (LH) 5m to 6121 (LH) 337.2 1134 (ULH) 237 1045 15.00CSHWDMTCcx ofa 0.00 o/a CSDTCcX BUCHAN 2 Coates EH12 SLG Gardens 8.00 8.00 12.00 PIRIES ke& Coates Gardens (LF) 337 2 1108 17.00 CSWDMTCc EGLINTON (LH) 15.00 GCSH _ _ 4.50 o/a pala 4 hy50 1116 55, 4.50 5-50 3327 =O) 9-70 5) 6.00 10.00 ofa EF 10.00 11.00 GCTVCcx 6 -00 Mre§SPEPREN (GF) 55h 1 4.50 "Craigard" 82 Pilrig 7528 Snes Bue SAS 10.00 9.00 2.50 "C1;siren 68 Pilrig 5M Meeee N (PrH.) 554 1 P500 Street EXE SAS (Pra) 5! a L.50 5-008.009.00 11Site5250)€00 11,0012,00€SPTCc 5.00 13.00 12,00 CSDMCc 15.00 CD&c w all THAM & CCH) >> aemen EEDDEN. »"Glenburn"'9318 >> Pil rig Street EH6 5Ad Mrs M.DAVIDSON, "Rigville" Street EH6 5AH Mrs N FERGUSON (GH) "Balquhidder" o4 Pilrig Street (GH) 1 Pilri¢ SAY 6 A NESS"Alness'""(GH) 554 1 27Pinte Street BHE 5 1187 (C0) SG7b al "Barrosa" 2] Pilrig 3700 Mrs %fe eeamet Street EHE 5AN MrsMROSSpepo Ge2)55ie ; h€ Pilrig Street EH6 SAL Mr W SKIVINGTON 6605 (GE) 554 1 “iaranathal 90 Pilrig 2106 ~ . nN nD AS] 1 sn H mt se OY 8 8Oe 26/20 Eplinton Cres. D. CHEFTHAM & (GH) 554 SEEDDEN ,"Glenburn'9818 Pilrig Street > 5AT 5 M »DAVIDSON, (GH) 554 lettiSee 1116 NESS"AIIness"(GH) 554 1 - 4.50 - 4.50 a 4.50 ofa Oat: 9.00 10,00 9.00 11.00 GCTVCcx Pilrig Street , aes M PRETTY sal Oe eirsey a0! Street BHE SAN VINGTON (GE) 554 a! 90pilrig 2106 so 1, (GE) Ssh ipard" Ro Pilrig 7528 i 4 4 a k . 50 10.00 GCSDX DEW OmmeGGSDX 12.00 , rn (Pru.)55h1 Cla ymo re! &8 Pilrig 2500 )10.00 11.00 GCSHDMTCc 900 9.00) CD) 12.00 CSPTCc 15.00 CD€c 12,00 CSIMCc 15. O0CSHW DMTCcx ofa CSD?'CcX 17.00 CSWDMTCc 15.00 GCSHDM> <2. Street EH 54S an EH) eb oly 5.00 €.00 UO Pil Lri¢ St. ARKLE ue Coate: s Gardens LLy coarer e Gardens Efl2 5LB BERESFORD ites Gardens BOTS DALE 9 Cones Gardens BHI? SLG BUCHAN 7,Coates Gardens EH12 5LG PIRIES he& Coates Gardens - 6.62 az Mal | Syvolo EH6 SAY Bec H) (GH) 55L (LH) 337 6159 (LH) 337 6121 (LE) 337 1134 (ULH) 237 1045 (GE)F 337 1108 10 1187 1 9.70 ) 10,00 = 5.50 ofa 8.00 8.00 Va Uae G0) ele. OO) 10 5 5-00 Ce ew20 8) theSO) 11 8 5.50 NM ma a) - 0 nN JT EGLINTON (LH) 337 20 Belinton Cres. P61 POPA o-eber, y Cres. 2602 ith Rd i4/16 archhol1 Cres.27h% (ULE) 6F7 22 Gl enorchy Ter, 5708 9 2] Mr“I FlEMING Mayville 5Minto St 1 7 1RG KEYPLAN FI TLETS (GH) 467 = 21 Causewayside 7500 | ofa denotes vrice on annl SERVICES G Pri Cc Cchadren S Reduced EH Central Heatine +t} W Suit le for the D by erranrement M (Cther Meals hooked ThroueUlrn tss (aeH) 229 el one FE? Soog 2ZIC® (LH) 667 9 zo: > GCSHDee GCSHDCc GCIMTCc -00 CHMX 00 GCHIMTCe 12.00 GCHTVNCc i for oré67- (LE)|667— (GH), 667 6107 for younr child ~ Ww yw ~) TM us VU N WN 1 vate senees, or Privete Parking D Dogs acc-nted Wire-=- 1? Edinb ae TRAVEL INFORMATTON e } Friday; Sundays 16.15 17.15 17.15 18.25 18225 change at York 19.56 change at Doncaster 21.16 Cardiff 09.42 Bristol Edinburgh eS 15. 33 20.40 Change at Birminrcham 18.45 18.45 22k? 22 2 05.31 (with sleeper) 05.31 Edinburgh Wo AS Bristol no food eae! Cardiff etl 23.40 235.40 changes Rristol TMeads (with sleener) 08.11 ch. Newcastle 20.56 21.59 change at York CARDIFF/PRISTOL -— EDINBURGH : 22.47 Cneé e ¢€ e 2nna Hane sal Cheltenham 705% a ae Zz .arrive 17.10 by ch. Bir 11.46 " " uw Change at Brisiol Parkway 16.08 P1.30 (with sleeper) 02.22" (with sleeper) ch. Bristol Park.9.05 NOTE, Minibus € Edinburgh Bitrapiesy 15.15 16.15 Kings Cross 19635 ms NAMé Fricays Kings Cross - Ecinburreh 23-55 Sat. 01.00 Sundays Friday Sundays 13.00 14.00 15.00 1£.00 17.00 18.00 18.0% 24.15 (with sleeper) (wit sleeper) (with slecper) 06.40 06.51 09.2% Sat. Sat, Sat BN 1G) LONDON < EDIN®U RGH ; : SFEFFIFILD/LEEDS - EDINBURGE Sheffield Leeds Edinburgh 13.18 17.53 change at York 13.20 DS 17.47 Edi nburgt 21.58 17.59 21.58 Change at Newcastle change at Newcastle 18.44 19.58 20.46 = “East Coast 21.58 22,58 Friday Trave Recommended book seats 20.25 21.22 2P.12 Not recommended Leeds Sheffield 4Cockburn Square phone: Ford -320564 Pathhead Midlothian 031-557-2403 two weeks in advance * + € to 9 pence per mile + seater £13 to £15.20 per day 17 seater £16 +9Dpper mile +VaT New Architecture Movement J TRAVEL INFORMATION RAIL Friday € Sunday sleeper) ) Liverpool cchance at Preston nofood nofood BI RM INGHAM/MANCHFSTER/LIVERPOOL 12.05 DAW UNG Edinburgh free 17.15 12.08 18,08 witch after: Carstairs 22.31 22,01 chanre Preston 12.50 ch. Wigan 17.10 12. L° witch after Preston 20.14 16.16 P0.1k chanme Preston 18.42 dj ch, Wigan 1: 17 seater £16 per day seater £14 ton a Dia New Architecture "4 RL arenamponBR. eee Sy ied OG phone: Ford -320564 031-557-2403 re Pathhead Mildioth!: + NAM CONGRESS 1980 2 ‘For the sixth time radicals and activists involved in the built environment will meet to discuss and exchange {deas, Provoking plans of action for the coming year,using NAM as the springboard for activity. These last 18months of monetrist Policies have decimated the building industry,we must build aNew Architecture Movement with a loud voice, that can unite users,producers and designers to challange the assumptions and ambitions of the dominant class, CONGRESS FEES(including meals) &8 .00p We/] woUld like to attend the1980 NAM Congress and enclose PO/cheque made payable to New Architecture Movement,sent to 9,Poland Street,London,W1. “The sixth NAM Congress is to be held in Edinburgh over the weekend 7th,8th and 9th november:iat the Edinburgh Trades Union Centre, conveniently located in the middle of the city, In the last 5 years since the founding Congress at-Harrogate NAM has done much to challange the status quo in the design professions;campaigning for structural changes through ARCUK launching TASS/BDS the union for Private sector design staff Gnd encouragingthe NAM Feminists,Public Design Services, AlternativeMethodsofPraSclate,iEcduecat,ionandDesign Theory, No of places unwaged sat only unwaged &5,.00p_ &5,.00p7 &@3,00p No of people requiring transportation Depending on the response and accessability to NAM centres of activity various types Of. powered transport will be arranged, Name Address Acconmodation required HOTEL yes/no CRASH PAD | yes/no ; Street © LEdrly_bookiwnilgl save the congress committee alot of energy] tS ATOM MOI At TM CTPCCT tanmeat us | 47zji VLU W OPMECI LUAU AL Dear “i 6th NAM Annual Congress EdinburghoS / 6,’7,8, November 1980 Congress time is fast approaching again... We are concerned that a rigid group orientated workshop structure, common to all previous congresses may not best suit NAM at this time. Given that NAM remains in some respects at a crossroads, less than two If it is te prove constructive it that all interested parties be consulted in the formulation of a suitable programme. To this Ken's house, 127 Fairbridge hkoad, at 2.30pm, and we would call me (home- 249 0020, work- (272 0580) if you have any queries, = a) oe Sayy_ aH (for NAM Liaison Group) days is remarkably little time. would seem advantageous end we propose a meeting at N19, on Saturday 11 October be glad if you could come. 405 3411 ext135) or Ken Pleas protests, problems, etc. Vt ADCLITECTHOO NOVCPCNT Now npriTreenior “th 1 Puy hI TECTURE VEL ENT NeW ARCHI PEC TUNE PUVEDE Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Architects Journal 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 1978, 1977, 1976 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/6b8c60e20e39ef8b9d5bf1318fb3ade1.pdf f2a3a445dbc6f43be1521bbf965a958d 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 NAM 4th Congress Report AJ 14 November 1978 Description An account of the resource The fourth annual national Congress of the New Architecture Movement was held at the School of Architecture in Cheltenham last weekend. In between wholesome meals and a rejuvenating to a punk rock group, over 90 people thrashed out the neat year’s policy of a movement which in only four years has significantly altered the face of architectural politics in Britain. Tension over alternative practice After virtually the only contentious debates in the whole weekend, Congress agreed to set up an Alternative Practice issue group ‘to develop the theory and practice of NAM members involved in worker controlled private sector organisations with the aim of providing socially responsible alternatives’. Participants were shown work carried out by the ARCAID group in Leeds and Support in London, both of which operate in the private sector but work co-operatively for poor clients such as tenants and community groups. Members of these groups believe that in the short term this kind of work provides the best way of making architects’ skills available to working class users. But several people believed there was a danger of the group clashing with the already established Public Design Group which recently submitted its OWN report on community architecture to Minister of Housing Reg Freeson.* This report argues forcibly that a community architectural service ‘should be based on the public sector and not on the private sector’. Despite initial tension between these two Views, itwas generally accepted by both groups that they could work in parallel. It was likely to take years to achieve reforms in the public sector and until that time the private sector experiments could provide valuable experience, a vehicle for propaganda, and a means of providing working class people with services they would otherwise be denied. *Community Architecture: a public design service, available from NAM, 9 Poland Street, London W1. £1. the abolition of the mandatory fee scale and the introduction of a fee system ‘based on standardised elements of service and ranges of cost to safeguard the public against unreasonable price increases and check the profession from unhealthy price cutting’. An end to secrecy Symbolising an end to the cloak and dagger secrecy that has been a feature of the movement until now, it was agreed that telephone numbers of spokespersons for the different issue groups should be circulated to the press. Speakers however reiterated that the movement should avoid creating ‘leaders’, because issues and ideas then* easily became obscured by personalities. New constitution A constitution for the Movement was adopted which firmly establishes itasa federation of issue, local and working groups accountable to the annual Congress and working for the general aim of promoting ‘effective democratic control of al people over their environment and by design and construction workers over their working lives’, A Liaison Group iselected each year to conduct administrative and financial affairs and to ‘act for the Movement’ between Congresses. Membership of NAM has increased over the last year from 92 to 120. Monday and the millenium “The Movement isgrowing inmaturity as its critique of the profession grows more refined’, said John Allan, a founder member at the opening of Congress. A substantial body of literature has been developed and the Movement’s magazine Slate isimproving with each issue. What is now needed is to translate quality into quantity. The profession ison the defensive, he said. While the trades and ‘para professions’ are becoming more professional with the introduction of codes and guidelines, the traditional profession is being forced to become more secular. NAM could take advantage of the consequent instability. Referring to the inherent tension between long term aims and short term tactics, he said that while the former could not be achieved quickly, some of the obstacles barring the way could be removed immediately. ‘Our predicament is not a question of bop <x » “ PIG is born To back up the work of NAM members acting as unattached representatives on ARCUK council and those working on the mandatory fee scale issue, Congress sct up a Professional Issues Group (PIG). The councillors have their work cut out responding to day to day issues explained the proposers. PIG would be a kind of ‘mop up’ group enabling NAM councillors to play a more positive role by taking initiatives. Congress formally endorsed the work of the eight NAM councillors, and aslate of candidates has been drawn up to contend the forthcoming unattached elections as itis anticipated there will be a further increase in the number of unattached representatives. Students wanted Student NAM groups should be set up in schools of architecture, but they should be autonomous groups and not controlled by any central body or the already established Education Group. This was the outcome of a debate in which some speakers advocated a recruitment drive among students. Few studentsaremembersofNAMalthoughdissentersCongressendorsedtheworkofthemilleniumorMonday’,hesaid,‘but more attended the Congress than in the Monopolies Group which produced an affirmation of the millenium and Previous years. the report “Way ahead’ recommending Monday.” Fee scale abolition endorsed Although there was a handful of The Architects’ Journal 15 Novernber 1978 925 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Architects Journal 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 15-Nov-78 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/60d49f079ca96a6f6cb463cfd5a2c087.pdf d4ff985b169803e1dd171698ced4c8c4 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 Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. 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 Chelyabinsk Housing Project Subject The topic of the resource JM involved Architype in provision of Ecolite low energy housing for housing project in Chelyabinsk, Urals, Russia. Project did not complete due to 1998 Russian Financial crash Description An account of the resource ARCHITYPE Architype was established as a co-operative in 1984 by architects Jon Broome and Bob Hayes, specialising in environmentally friendly buildings and self-build projects, later becoming a commercial practice. Both Broome and Hayes previously collaborated with Walter Segal, with Broome acting as project architect on his self-build housing in Lewisham. This influence has carried through in the work of Architype who have used the Segal system in their self-build projects in Brighton. Broome has always been a fervent advocate of architects acting as agents on behalf of others and he has promoted self-build as a participatory technique that can empower users. Since his departure, Architype has switched emphasis away from self-build, whilst Broome still enables self-build projects through his own practice Jon Broome Architects and has also published a book on the subject, The Green Self-build Book. JM involved Architype in provision of its Ecolite low energy housing for housing project in Chelyabinsk, Urals, Russia. Visited Chelyabinsk twice with Jon Broome Architype. Project did not complete due to 1998 Russian Financial crash. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCHITYPE Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 13-21 September 1997 and 14 March 1998 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/ceb02e114085df8e669b00792fa86c47.pdf 54b9d73b34773c6b341071b01ba3b99d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Visiting Boards Subject The topic of the resource Note regarding ARCUK's role in Visiting Boards (2 sides) Description An account of the resource 161/86 VISITING BOARDS Recent events, particularly the advent of the European Directive, have prompted a review of the present Visiting Board arrangements and the degree of responsibility exercised by ARCUK in the validation of examinations and courses. As the competent authority responsible to the Department of the Environment for implementing the terms of the Directive, ARCUK has to supply information concerning standards and confirm that these have been met by the Schools nominated under Article 7. It is considered that the present arrangements in which one member of the Visiting Board represents but is not directly nominated by ARCUK do not meet these requirements and that a system should be devised which gives ARCUK more direct responsibility for validation and enables it to withstand possible challenges to its authority and methodology. One possible alternative would be for ARCUK to mount a wholly independent Visiting Board system — a proposal which has been considered in the past and rejected for the following reasons. 1 . The duplication of RIBA and ARCUK visits (together, in some cases, with those of CNAA) would place an unacceptable burden on the Schools. 2. The heavy additional cost in terms of ARCUK resources would not be justified. 3. The impression which would be created of a divided profession with disparate aims and standards in Architectural Education should be avoided. These objections still apply and, as a way of avoiding them but still retaining direct responsibility for validation, it is proposed that a partnership be established with RIBA to operate joint Visiting Boards on which at least two representatives will be nominated directly on to each 161/86/2 Visit by ARCUK and both the costs and administrative work shared with the RIBA. It will be necessary for a scheme to be worked out in detail in collaboration with the RIBA with the aim of coming into effect for the autumn of 1987. The GPC recommends that the Board endorse this proposal in principle so that discussions with this object in view can be commenced . Prof D Hinton Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/683c67bc6c53834966dde4ea4a5bf8cf.pdf 5dea6107f1cc72b55178aec8b7ac521e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource ARCUK Council papers Subject The topic of the resource Note Several items on Architectural Education Description An account of the resource 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 184/86 PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL TWO HUNDRED AND NINETEEN ORDINARY MEETING 17 DECEMBER 1986 AT 2 PH AT 66 PORTLAND PLACE LONDON WI A G E N D A 1 . Apologies for Absence 2. Minutes of 218 Ordinary Meeting (Attached as Document 160/86) 3. Constitution of Council To accept the resignation of I G Urquhart and to nominate in his place Mrs Jenny Williams. 4. Constitution of Discipline Committee To accept the resignation of I G Urquhart and to nominate in his place Mrs Jenny Williams 5. Constitution of the Board of Architectural Education (a) The Privy Council formally gave its approval to the amendment to ARCtJK"s Regulations (text given in Minute 23 of document 160/86) on November 7th 1986. (b) To accept the nominat ion of Alan Chapman nominated by Brighton Polytechnic; 184/86/2 (c) To accept the nomination of Dr A Forvard nominated by Huddergfield Polytechnic. 6 . Section 7 of the Principal Act Conduct Cages attached ag ANNEX A 7. Reports (i) Admi68ion Committee to be tabled ANNEX Board of Architectural Education ANNEX C Board of Architectural Education Awards Panel ANNEX D Finance and General Purposes Committee ANNEX (v) Professional Purposeg Committee ANNEX (vi) Registrar's Report to be tabled ANNEX G Affidavit of complaint againgt Steven Lawrence Hole 8. Direct i ve of the Council of the European Community Chairman to 8peak to report attached. 9. Other Business 10. Date of Next Meeting 18 March 1987 Registrar. Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 181/86 BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION REPORT TO COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1986 1. Education Policy Policy paper "Architectural Education: Statement of Principles" ig attached to Report. ARCUK has increasingly been placed in a position of making reactive reponses to various educational issues. The volume of material now being handled by ARCUK, augmented by its responsibilities to the Department of the Environment in termg of the E.C. Directive, is such that the GPC had concluded it vas necessary for ARCUK to formulate its own policy on education. The paper "Architectural Education: Statement of Principles" drawn up by the Chairman and agreed by the GPC vag welcomed by members of the Board ag providing a framework for ARCUK policy. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 1938 The regolution that the BAE adopt the paper and that it be put before — Council for endorsement vag pagged vith 42 voteg in favour and 5 against and the Board agkg the Council to ratify this document as a statement of policy. 2. ARCUK/RIBA Visiting Boards (a) ARCUK Participation in the Visiting Board Programme Because of responsibilities placed on it under the terms of the E.C. Directive ARCUK is nov obligated to be more directly involved in the recognition of qualifications. As a means of attaining this the GPC had recoamended to the Board that a partnership be established with the RIBA to operate joint Visiting Boards on which at least two representatives would be nominated directly on to each visit by ARCUK, the costs and administration to be Shared with the RIBA, the whole coming into effect for the autumn programme 1987. A paper (copy attached) vas endorsed in principle by the BAE and vas passed by 35 votes in favour to 2 against and vith 8 abstentions. Discussions vill begin with the RIBA vith this object in view. (b) Visiting Board Reports ( i) Mackintosh School The Board recotnmend8 continued recognition in the following formal terms ; that — (i) the three years full time course and four years part—time course leading to the University of Glasgov"• ordinary degree of Bachelor of Architecture, and the first three yeare of the four years full time course leading to the University' g degree of Bachelor of Architecture with Honourg, and their related examinations; and ( i i) the course leading to the University of Glasgov'g Diploma in Architecture (comprising either the tvo years full time or three years part time course or the fourth year of the Honourg degree courge followed by the second Diploma year full time), and its related examinations; or the course leading to the University of Glasgow's degree of Magter of Architecture (comprising the fourth year of the Honourg degree courge followed by the taught MArch course in Architectural Studies taken in one calendar year full time, one academic year full time and one academic year part time, or tvo calendar yeare part time), and its related examinations; and (iii) the School '8 lecture course and examination taken in the last year of the Degree course (RIBA Gl), the course and examinations taken in Diploma years one and tvo (RIBA G2), and the Professional Practice Examination (RIBA G3) taken on completion of a minimum of tvo years practical training undertaken in accordance with the RIBA Practical Training Scheme, continue to be recogniged by ARCUK as Parts I, Il and Ill respectively for the purpose of admission to the Register of Architects. ( i i) Dublin University College (visit on 6/7 February 1986) The Board recommends continued recognition in the following formal terms ; that ( i) the five years full—time course and related examinations leading to the National University of Ireland Bachelor of Architecture Degree; and ( i i) the Fifth Year course and examination in Professional Practice and Management (RIBA Gl and G2), and the postgraduate block course and the examination leading to the National University of Ireland Certificate in Professional Practice and Practical Experience (RIBA G3), taken on completion of a minimum of tvo years' practical training undertaken in accordance vith the Rules of the RIBA Practical Training Scheme, continue to be recognised by ARCUK as Parts I, Il and Ill for the purpose of admission to the Register of Architects. ( i i i) Humberside College of Higher Education (visit on 20/21 February 1986) The Board recommends continued recognition in the following formal terms ; that — (i) the three years full—tine courge and related examinationg leading to the CNAA Degree of BA in Architecture; and (i i) the tvo years full—time course and related examinations leading to the Humberside College of Higher Education Diploma in Architecture; and (iii) the Technical courge lectures and related aggeggmentg in the Degree course on contract Lav, the architect' g role, relationship to the building process and current legislation (RIBA Gl), the Lav and Construction lectures and related assessments in the Diploma course (RIBA G2), and the lecture course, seminars and related examinationg leading to the School' 8 Post Qualification Certificate in Architectural Practice (RIBA G3), taken on the completion of two years' practical training undertaken in accordance vith the Rules of the RIBA Practical Training Scheme , continue to be recogniged by ARCUK as Parts I, Il and Ill respectively for the purpose of admission to the Register of Architects. (iv) Polytechnic of the South Bank (revi8it, 6/7 March 1986) The Board reconnnend8 continued recognition in the following formal terms ; that — (i) the 4—year day—release course and related examinations leading to South Bank Polytechnic Graduate Diploma in Architecture; and (ii) the 3—year day—release courge and related examinations leading to South Bank Polytechnic Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture; continue to be recogniged by ARCUK as Parts I and Il respectively for the purpose of admission to the Register of Architects. 3. "The Content and Context of Architectural Education" ARCUK has been invited to respond to the RIBA discussion paper on architectural education. In view of the importance of the document it vas agreed to hold a special meeting of the BAE on January 13th 1987 to discuss and consider a response for report to the March meeting of Council. 4. Cont inuing Professional Development The Chairman and Registrar vill put forward a discussion paper to the May meeting of BAE containing proposal 8 for ARCUK'8 C. P. D. policy. 5. Appointment of Secretary to the BAE The increaging volume of educational material nov being handled by ARCUK hag been referred to in paras I and 2 (a) above. Since the Board met, the Finance and General Purposes Committee (report attached) hag endorsed the reconendation that a permanent Secretary nov be appointed to the Board of Architectural Education in terms of ARCUK Regulation 23. At the time the Board net a Job Specif ication for the nev post vas not available and it hag reserved to itself the request to examine this at its Special Meeting in January. 6. RIBA Examinat ion in Architecture The RIBA hag formally applied for ARCUK recognition of its revised Examination in Architecture. The examination vill be aggegged by an independent ARCUK Visiting Board. Profeggor D Hinton Chairman 125/86 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 1 . Introduct ion ARCUK's responsibilities in the field of Education derive directly from the 1931 Act and the 1969 amendments. The terms of these are statutory and prescriptive but ARCUK is not limited in its activities solely to those mentioned in the Acts and may legitimately engage in courses of action which it considers relevant and/or necessary to achieve the objectives which the Acts embody. The objeCt of this paper is to provide a framework of principles within which these objectives can be realised, based on (a) Decisions taken and statements already made by ARCUK. (b) Examination of issues confronting ARCUK in both the short and long term future. 2. Representat ion ARCUK"s own constitution and that of the Board of Architectural Education provide a broad basis for discussion not limited to members of the architectural profession. By this means it is possible to receive a vide range of opinions representing public and consumer interests, other professions, Universities, Polytechnics and Government Departments as vell as those of architects whether they belong to professional institutions or not. While taking full advantage of the breadth of its representation, ARCUK should try to ensure, on educational issues as on others, that the architectural profession speaks with one voice. It should therefore (a) give high priority to consultation with all its constituent bodies and with representatives of the unattached. (b) use the unique constitution of the Board to ensure a balanced presentation of opinions on educational issues. (c) establish a continuing dialogue with Government Departments and other agencies concerned with the formulation of education policies. 3. Powers under the Registration Acts A. The 1931 Registration Act the BAE to recommend to Council (a) the recognition of any examinations in architecture the passing of which ought, in the opinion of the Board, to qualify persons for registration under this Act; and (b) the holding of any examinations in architecture which ought, i n the opinion of the Board, to be passed by appl icants for registration under the Act; It follows that Board and Council must be concerned with and responsible for the setting and standards. 125/86/3 The wording places stress on improvement. ARCUK awards are by themselves insufficient to support major research programmeg but are intended to give encouragement to the expansion of research activities. The provision for research awards has been extended to cover Cont inuing Professional Development. ARCUK has made a major investment in this area and must continue to influence further developments preferably through collaboration with recognised Schools of Architecture and the profession. 5. Admission from Overseas 0 The existing regulations make provision for registration b possessing equivalent qualif icat ions to those recognised at art I level. This process will continue except for applications b the EC who will be admitted under the terms of the Directive. The Act vill be amended in 1987 by a Statutory Instrument to accommodate these prov is ions . Recent changes in procedure whereby all non E. C. applicants from overseas will be processed via Regulation 27 and the continuance of the JCAR Agreement vill provide a uniform body of information and further experience in the field of international recognition. A major task and an unprecedented opportunity confront ARCUK and its resent-ae-i-v-e.s—ia the Advisory Conunittee set up to advise the Commissron in BrusseTG--the implementation of the Directive throughout the EEC. Even at a minimum level of activity in this Committee, the task of coordination and verif icat ion vill be cons iderable. The opportunity — to create an agency active in the promotion of high standards and the exchange of ideas — is one which ARCUK must pursue energetically. It must be one of ARCUK's major priorities to 9-nsure unity of purpose i-A---e-he pursug 04 these aims and to put its experience in overseas relations at the disposal of the European Community. Prof D Hinton Chairman BAE 161/86 YISITING BOARDS Recent events, particularly the advent of the European Directive, have prompted a review of the present Visiting Board arrangements and the degree of responsibility exercised by ARCUK in the validation of examinations and courses. AS the competent authority responsible to the Department of the Environment for implementing the terms of the Directive, ARCUK has to supply information concerning standards and confirm that these have been met by the Schools nominated under Article 7. It ig cons idered that the present arrangements in which one member of the Visiting Board represents but is not directly nominated by ARCUK do not meet these requirements and that a system should be devised which gives ARCUK more direct responsibility for validation and enables it to vithstand possible challenges to its authority and methodology. One possible alternative would be for ARCUK to mount a wholly independent Visiting Board system — a proposal which has been considered in the past and rejected for the following reasons. 1 . The duplication of RIBA and ARCUK visits (together, in some cases, with those of CNAA) would place an unacceptable burden on the Schools. 2. The heavy additional cost in terms of ARCUK resources would not be justified. 3. The impression which vould be created of a divided profession v ith disparate aims and standards in Architectural Education should be avoided. These objections still apply and, as a vay of avoiding them but still retaining direct responsibility for val idation, it i s proposed that a partnership be established vith RIBA to operate jornt Visiting Boards on which at least vo representatives VI I l be nominated directly on to each so O 161/86/2 Visit by ARCUK and both the cogt6 and administrative work shared with the RIBA. It vill be necesgary for a scheme to be worked out in detail in collaboration with the RIBA with the aim of coming into effect for the autumn of 1987. The GPC recommends that the Board endorse this proposal in principle 60 that discussions vith this object in viev can be commenced . Prof D Hinton Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 1938 73 Hallam Street London WI N åEE Tel: 01-580 5861 182/86 BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AWARDS PANEL REPORT TO COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1986 1. There hag been one meeting of the Panel since the October meeting of the Council. 2. Student Grants The following applications vere received: Renewals Other applications 9 Total 9 The applicat ions vere dealt vith as follows: Under review 2 Refused 5 Withdrawn 1 Avards approved 1 Total 9 3. The following grant is recommended: EGP 580 S T S Bates Poly of the South Bank E1582 Also one award recommended by the Chairman subsequent to the Panel meet ing. EGP 600 S Nadarajah Poly of North London E 846 4. At the meeting of the BAE the Vice Chairman of the Panel acknowledged the assistance given by the Heads of School in responding to the Panel's reports on individual cases. 5. 1986 Research Awards An increased number of applications vas received and the following tvo awards vere made: Dr. T Woolley — "User Participation in Design — Exploratory Project" E2500 Mr. P J Robinson — "Aspects of a Scottish Flat Tradition". E1600 6. The evaluation reports of the completed research projects of Malcolm Reading and Amy Sargeant are attached for information. David Gregory Chairman A HISTORY 0K} THE MARS GROUP 1933-44: A THEMATIC ANALYSIS: MALCOLM READING Historical writing should communicate; have selected evidence and have three central elements - narrative, analysis and description - and have a bibliography and footnotes. It should also be set in historical context and use both primary and secondary sources. This work reads well and therefore communicates. It makes extremely good use of primary sources. It strikes a good balance between narrative and analysis although it peters out somewhat at the end and really needs a good 'rounding up' conclusion. It could have set the historical context more fully. If the •work is aimed exclusively at architects, it probably serves in this respect but the general reader would not understand the background. More could have been made of the very strong anti-modern movement in Britain. There is no bibliography - a serious omission in such a work, particularly with such obvious books and publications which are directly relevant. It would have been greatly improved by some illustrations - eg, on page 79 there is reference to a six-page special, well illustrated feature by Fry in the AJ - it would have been nice to have seen it incorporated. It would have been useful too if more had been made of the architecture actually produced by members of the MARS Group which is so well documented elsewhere. As a piece of work simply indicating the history of the actual setting up of the Group it serves well. I enjoyed reading it; he is obviously extremely knowledgeable about the subject, has had the privilege of direct interviews with MARS Group members and his record of those meetings alone Will make this study interesting to other scholars. "Jacques Gondoin and the Ecole de Chirurqie" have read Amy Sargeant•s research report on "Gondoin & and the Ecole de Chirurgie". It is a brief, but well researched and well written piece of work. The illustrations in the larce folder, however, are far from well presented; poor quality photostats, haphazard sizes and even haphazardly rounted, scruffily titled (or, in some cases, untitled), no list of sources for the illustrations (although by inference and a lot of digging one can work this out for most, but not all of them) etc. Surnrisingly, apart fron the 50—year old paper bv Jean Adhemar, there i.s no recent work on this well—knol..rn building. Her reading, visits to Paris and Nice (where e remote descendant with material about Gondoin lives) have been fruitful. However, there is, T sunpose because of the Can.bridge "architectural— history—as—art—history" approach, en undue enphasis nn for-ral and metaphoric issues, with a consequent loss of discussion of the plan and section of the anatomy theatre, the roots for this kind of share, the way it relates to new scientific, medical end teaching attitudes in Prance in the last guarter of 18th Century, its relationship to earlier, circular, anatomy theatres such as Bologna, (is this the first semi—circular one? '"hat shape was its nredecessor in Paris? etc. Considering the huge delays on this award, it is surprisina that the proaress has not been more. Her (excellent) application made in 1982 already covered much of the material in the renort. Her interim report in 1 9 83 developed it a lot further — and the additional material in the past 3 years has been quite small. I feel she lost interest about 1983/ pa. a:evertheless, n. considerinc it only cost us El 000 (althouah at 1982 nrices) it was a worthwhile investment. '.5 th some tidvina up of a few confurions about references and a bit Af annlification of t:he issues mentioned above, it could (and Ghould) mako F. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 1938 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6€E Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 185/86 FINANCE AND GENERAL PURPOSES cmNITTEE REPORT TO COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1986 Retention Fees (a) It vag reported that 419 architects had not paid any part of their fees by November 1986 compared with 426 at the game time the previous year. There vere however 643 who had only part paid (this is characteristic of any year following any increase in retention fee). (b) The Committee had reingtated to the Regi8ter the names of 5 architects. (c) The Coumittee hag approved the vaiver of 3 retention fees by persons retiring. (d) The Council is agked to author ise the removal from the Register on the 318t December 1986 the names of all those who still ove retention fees, wholly or in part, on that date. A list vill be tabled. 2. Admi88 ion Fees The recommends the Council approve the folloving changes in Admi88ion Fees in Regulation 37 — to come into effect on January 1 1987 185/86/3 3. Representation of the Constituent Bodies (a) On the 31st October 1986 the total number of architects on the Register vag 30,029 (29,593). The number of architect memberg of the constituent bodies vhoge addreggeg are normally in the United Kingdom and the number of repreeentativeg they are appoint to Council for the year 1987/88 are 8hovn belov. The figures in bracket8 indicate the position in 1986/87. Const ituent Home Number of Council Members To Body Member 8 h ip Nominate for 1987 (88 Session 800 (811) 2 (2) FAS 317 (319) (1) IAAS 98 (106) 1 (1) PROV 260 (290) 1 (1) RIBA 20788 (20462) 42 STMP 143 (149) 1 (1) 4. Election of Representatives of Unattached Architects AB at 318t October 1986 the total number of architects recorded as unattached vas 6390 compared with 6197 in 1985. The number of unattached representatives on the Council for 1987/88 vill be 13, as in the previous year. 5. Composition of Board and Committees Under the Gentlemen' 8 Agreement The Committee that the Gentlemen-g Agreement providing for the representation of the constituent bodies on the Board of Architectural Education and Committees of the Council as accepted by the Council at its meeting on the Il December 1985 be adopted and unaltered for the year 1987/88. 6. Admission Certif icates The Coumittee has considered a suggestion that persons newly admitted to the Register should receive Certificates of Registration but has rejected the idea. 7. Appointment of Secretary to the Board of Architectural Education (Ref. Report of the BAE above). The Committee hag carried out its annual reviev of staff conditions of service. The Committee unanimously recommends to Council the appointment of a Secretary to the BAE in terms of the attached Job Specification. 185/86/4 8. First Schedule to Che 1931 Act — Survey The Electoral Reform Society hag conducted a 15Z stratefied random sample of congtituent bodies by means of a questionnaire. The replies are nov being checked and evaluated by the Society and a report vill be submitted to the Comittee as goon a8 possible. F Goodall Chairman Atchitoct6 Rooibtration Council ot the United Kinodogn GENTLEMEN'S AGREEHENT 1 . at present constituted. the Gent Ignen' s Agreemcat provideg ao fol lovs : Board of Architectural Education 2. Of the 24 regiocered pergons co be appointed by the Council:— 2 shall be nominated by the Royal Ing tituce of Briti8h Acchicect6 2 Incorporated Aggociacion of Architects and Surveyorg 2 . Faculty of Architect6 aed Surveyors 2 Representatives on the Cotmcit of the 'Unattached' Architeccg Leaving 16 co be freely chosen by the Council. Admission 3. 8 registered persons shall be appointed by the Council of vhoa.•— 2 shall be nominated by che Acchiceccucal Association 1 STAMP section o? UCATT 2 Repregentaciveg on che Council of Che 'Unattached' Archiceccg leaving 3 co be freely chosen by che Council. Finance and General Purposes Coazniccee Profesgtonal Purpoges Cantntctee 4 . Each of che above Coamiccces shall cons isc of 13 raemberg . exclugive of che ex officio member 8, appointed ag follovs : — I by che Royal Ing t i tute of Brit i Ah Archi ceccs 1 ' e n v t ns• Incorporated Assoc i ac ron of Archi ceccg and Surveyor e Faculty of Arch 1 C CCC s and Surveyor 8 Archi t ectura l STAN!' MCA', r Repr e sent t o be t re e Candida c es foc t rec e lec t ion 5. Thac vich regard co che candidates for free election by che Counci l . che following infomacion shal l be provided, by chose nominating, in not more than, say, 25 vords: age, name of archi— cectutal constituenc bodies of vhich candidate is a member (i f any) . presenc post and cype of practice , and reason for nomination; and chac che nanes shall bc submit ced to the Council in alphabetical order. Dates for nominations 6 . That nominations for vacancies to be filled by free election together with the required information about the candidates, must be sent to the • Registrar, 21 days before the Annual Meeting of the Council, in order that the lists may be circulated to Council members prior to the meeting. 178/86 JOB SPECIFICATION TITLE Secretary ARCUK Board of Architectural Education (ARCUK Regulation 23) DUTIES Service Board of Architectural Education Avardg Panel Visiting Boards Administration Advice on formation of Boards Advice on timetables Attend gome visit8 EEC Service ARCUK'g Advisory Monitor EEC Schoolg CPD Develop policy Advise constituent bodies Monitor developments and procegg official reports Constituent Liaison on educational matters and Bodies otherwise administer implementation of Statement of Principles — ARCUK document 125/86 REQUIREMENTS Graduate or other suitable qualif ication. Age over 30 High Level Experrence Educat ion and/or Adtnrni8tration and/or Architecture Languages. French or German desirable Grade 11 SALARY 12-15000 Condit ions Standard ARCUK Staff Pengion Scheme 6 months probation DATE Start March/April 1987 SUPPORT STAFF Por the moment the lines of the duties of existing 8taff can be rescheduled to cope vith the secretarial load involved. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) Acts '931 TO '938 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar. Kenneth J. Forder M.A. 183/86 PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES cmff1TTEE REPORT TO COUNCIL - DECEMBER 1986 ARCUK Disciplinary Proceedings Following the joint meeting with the Discipline Committee in September, the Committee is examining the implications of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1975 and its effect on criminal cases appearing before ARCUK Council. The Home Office hag been asked for guidance. When confirmation is to hand, the Professional Purposes Committee vill continue its review of disciplinary proceedings. 2. Standard of Conduct The Committee has examined a suggestion that professional indemnity insurance should be made a condition of registration and concluded that no ruling would be feasible. 3. Criminal Cases (a) The Committee has asked for research to be carried out among ARCUK's past legal opinions on how a situation is to be handled where a person no longer on the Register has been convicted of a criminal offence. (b) ARCUK v. Bishop On October 23rd 1986 Malcolm Bishop was convicted in Cambridge Magistrates Court of an offence under Section I of the Architects Registration Act of 1938 as read with Section 17 of the Architects Registration Act of 1931 . A brief summary is attached. 183/86/2 (c) Warnings Letterg of warning have been gent to:— P R G Wean Chelmsford J A Smith Barking C W Lang Ed inburgh M C Nickolls Cha irman 188/86 REPORT OF MEETING op CLAEU 20/21 NOVEMBER 1986 FOR COUNCIL 17 DECEMBER 1986 The meeting vas held in Brussels on 20th and 218t November 1986 vith David Waterhouse (leader) and Alan Groves representing RIBA and Bob Adamg and Professor Denyg Hinton representing ARCUK. 2. The main item vas a prolonged discussion on alternative policies for CLAEU A wider role, increased expenditure, legal gtatus within the EEC and right to speak for all architects in the EEC, prepared by the French President of CLAEU and the French delegation. A modest role ag a forum for discussion and exchange of information, vith revised regulations prepared by David Waterhouse (UK). The UK view vas eventually agreed by 7 votes to 4. 3. It vas learnt that no EEC funds are available in 1986 or 1987 to get up the advisory committee under the directive and a motion deploring this situation and urging that this committee meet vag passed. 4. It became clear that not all countries had taken the necessary steps required by the EC Architects directive due to come into operation in August 1987. Further detailed information is being sought from all countries. 5. The budget for 1987 vas agreed at 1,506,700 BF (E25,500) compared vith a 1986 budget of 998,045 BP (E16916). The 1987 budget allowed Covering a deficit in 1985/86. ( i i) The entry of Greece, Spain and Portugal. ( i i i) Contingency for additional published information. 6. The UK share of the budget, equally shared with the R IBA. 1986 1987 Share 19.32% 16.4% Value 0268 ARCUK E1634 E2091 David Waterhouse vill become delegate general on 1st January 1987 having led the UK delegation for many years. 8. The next meeting vill be held in Spain on 30 April and I May 1987. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 17 December 1986 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/93cfb0665988a5b2ca3917bc49a25124.pdf 08c7b12ca7e23c051181541d40b53e9b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter Subject The topic of the resource Letter to presidents of constituent bodies & Registrar cover letter Description An account of the resource Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 1931 TO 1938 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar. Kenneth J. Forder M.A. WF/CK 4 September 1985 J S Allan Esq Avanti Architects 39-41 North Road London N7 9DP Dear Allan I have been asked by the Chairman of Council to send you a copy of the letter that has recently been sent to the Presidents of the Constituent bodies of ARCUK. A copy Is enclosed for information which is self explanatory. Yours sincerely il agreed to set advise Council up has begun a cil on October Registrar n established h Central ctive. Its 1 be binding as ce on constituent brmed about ns to be made nts you would ative on ARCUK Fer for the directly to the Registrar. Yours sincerely Professor D Hinton Chainnan Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) ACTS 193' TO 1030 73 Hallam Street London WI N 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. DH/CK/101/85 Dear E.c. DIRECTIVE You will know that, at its meeting on June 19th Council agreed to set up a Steering Group to analyse the Directive docment and advise Council on its implications and implementation. The Steering Group has begun a series of meetings and will make its first report to Council on October 16th. In the meantime, it has become clear that ARCUK, as an established statutory body, will be the principal agency through which Central Goverment will operate in the implementation of the Directive. Its terms, when we have sorted out exactly what they are, will be binding as far as ARCUK is concerned, but will have no statutory force on professional institutions or societies whether these are constituent bodies of ARCUK or not. Nevertheless, I am sure you will want to be kept informed about developments and these may well have a bearing on decisions to be made within your organisation. If you have any particular points you would like to raise may I suggest you do so through a representative on ARCUK who can speak at the October meeting — or if it is a matter for the Steering Group to consider before that date, by writing directly to the Registrar. Yours sincerely Professor D Hinton Chairman Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 4 September 1985 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/7ab2f4be23c09d92b66782ede8174e32.pdf 2a30fe88696f42df0e342b1944bd83c6 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Appendix to Chairman's Report Subject The topic of the resource Benefits to UK Architects (2 sides) Description An account of the resource 4 . Constitution of the Council The CHAIRMAN: I wish to make a statement which is likely to be quite long on this item. I feel it is my duty to keep you fully informed of the events which have happened in the last few weeks . In June 1985 the Archi tects Directive was issued. HM Government decided to implement that Directive through the DOE and ARCUK. This has to be done by an Order in Council, to come into operation in August 1987 . The DoE expressed reservations on the present system of recognition and that it would be difficult to defend if challenged by the Commission in Brussels or by other member states. A change was suggested in paper 161/86: (a) there should be a joint RIBA/ARCUK board and (b) ARCUK should nominate two members . In 1986, throughout 1986, RIBA was kept fully informed of all these proposals during that time, either by RIBA members on ARCUK Council or through letters and meetings which I conducted with the President and others, or Mr Peter Gibbs— Kennett who was the educational adviser throughout that time. There was nothing which was hidden or concealed from the RIBA on any of these matters . Paper 161/86 received approval at the Board of Architectural Education on 13 November by 35 votes to 2, with 8 abstentions. A similar motion and paper were approved by a large majority at the ARCUK Council on 17 December 1986. No one spoke against those proposals . Included in that large majority were RIBA members, some of whom said they welcomed this proposal . At the RIBA Council meeting on 21 January 1987 1 understand that the list of nominations by the RIBA to ARCUK Council was not ready, that the position of the Chairman of Council and Chairman of the BAE required careful consideration and that the preparation of lists was delegated, at the President's request, to himself and two vice presidents . Mr BRILL: On a point of information, Chairman also the Senior Vice President. The CHAIRMAN: I will correct that and I will repeat, the preparation of the list was delegated to the President himself, the Senior Vice President and two vice presidents . Thank you, Mr Brill. On 28 January 1987 myself and Deny s Hinton and the Registrar were empowered to open discussions with the RIBA on paper 161/86 . A meeting was held at 5 pm on that date and we were told we had forty—five minutes. Mr Melvin, Mr Gosling, Mr Harrison and Peter Gibbs—Kennet were present, myself, Denys Hinton and the Registrar. Mr Melvin, on behalf of the RIBA, asked for further information on two matters : (a) why was change necessary and (b) how were the proposals to work? He also agreed that there should be a further meeting in March. On 29 January 1987 Denys Hinton wrote to Mr Peter Melvin, giving him the information on the two points which he had raised, all of which had been discussed at the BAE or at ARCUK Council and were already known to the RIBA . On 3 February 1987 1 was asked to see the President of the R IBA, Larry Rolland, and Mr Melvin was present. They expressed concern at educational developments at ARCUK. I said that, as Chairman of ARCUK, I must represent all the opinions in ARCUK and not the RIBA only, and that the proposals had received widespread support from RIBA nominees on ARCUK Council. Larry Rolland asked me if I was willin to try to overturn these policies and I said "no" that I was acting for ARCUK and thought that the present proposals for co—operation between the RIBA, ARCUK and the schools were in the best interests of the whole profession and ARCUK 's EEC responsibilities . I thought that there were several RIBA nominees who would not be willing to reverse their opinions within weeks because they had been ordered to do so the RIBA. On 6 February I received a phone call from Mr Rolland, and I will read out the note: "Notes of telephone conversation, 2.30 Friday 6 February from Larry Rolland, President, R IBA, to Bob Adams, Chairman, ARCUK : 5 . " Larr Rolland said that, arising from our meeting on Fe ruary 1987 with Peter Melvin, their concern was not allayed on the developments of architectural education in ARCUK. Having consulted other vice— p resi dents Melvin Jeffels and Hackney they had ecided to reverse all the educa tional deci e ast year, so that the RIBA retained full responsx y or archi tectural education. They wished to have a change at the top of ARCUK and to this end they would not be nominating Denys Hinton or Bob Adams to ARCUK for the next session. This would mean they would not be Chairman of the BAE and of ARCUK Council respectively. They would also be removing others who they felt would not support the RIBA line. "GRA asked about the vice—chairman. Larry Rolland said they would be nominating John Tarn but not Ben Farmer———— c Mr JEFFELS: Mr Chairman, could I get this straight? The CHAIRMAN: Would you like to keep your comments to the end, Mr Jeffels? Mr JEFFELS : You are quoting from a third party . does not seem to me right, whether the substance is right or not, for you to be quoting what someone else has said over the telephone . The CHAIRMAN : This is an extremely important matter, Mr Jeffels, and I have the right, as Chairman, to say what I wish. " Larry Rolland said he thought he should phone me about this before GRA and DH received letters confirming this action. Denys Hinton was on holiday and could not be contacted. He regretted this action but felt that GRA and Denys Hinton would understand." I did not make any reply or comment. The conversation lasted about five minutes . These made immediately after that phone conversation. I signed those notes and sent a copy to the Registrar. On 7 February I received this letter from Larry Rolland: "I am writing to confirm my telephone call today about RIBA nominations for ARCUK Council. You will C, have realised from the meeting which you and Deny s Hinton held here on 28 January with Peter Melvin and David Gosling that the RIBA has serious misgivings about the direction in policy is tending, particularly in the field of a-ucatx-on. "I saw a copy of Denys t letter to Peter Melvin about the meeting and Peter and I had further discussions with you on 3 February. I have since discussed the matter with the Senior Vice President and again with Peter Melvin and Mike Jeffels, the vice president for ARCUK affairs . Our concern does not diminish and this, together with the Senior Vice President's strong view that we have to make a new approach to ARCUK affairs, had led us reluctantly to the conclusion that there should be a change in the chairmanship of both the BAE and ARCUK Council . Your name and that of Denys Hinton is therefore omitted from the list of nominations that has today been sent to ARCUK . "I appreciate that you will be disappointed. At the same time I am sure you and Denys Hinton will have realised the depth of our concern. I tried to telephone Denys to tell him of this decision but heard from his home that he is in Sicily and out of contact. I am sending him a copy of this letter . " A similar letter was sent to Denys Hinton . I phoned all the honorary officers of ARCUK and the BAE and informed them of these deve lopments . I asked the honorary officers, the Registrar and all his staff to make no comment to the press in order not to exacerbate the situation. On 9 February the RIBA issued a news release, which I æwishes to strengthen its negotiating hand with Government and to this end has thoroughly reviewed its representation on ARCUK in the light of Council 's recent decision to resist any further closures of schools of architecture . "The President, Larry Rolland, and the Senior Vice President, Rod Hackney, have been concerned during the past twelve months that the policies being pursued by ARCUK, in particular the increasing involvement in educational matters, are not in the best interests of architecture, the pub lic or future student intake . They agree that in general RIBA representatives on ARCUK should be younqer and in active practice. They believe that the team put forward on behalf of RIBA Council, which includes Gordon Graham, the RIBA Past President serving on Council next session, will provide the profession with a much more effective influence in the difficult times ahead. "The RIBA has been discharging its responsibilities for architectural education since long before the formation of ARCUK and continues to fulfil its obligations in this field. It makes an annual investment in education of over E % million and has a committee structure of respected practitioners and academics supported by an experienced staff. sees A CUK as rimaril a registration bodv and believes that any can only cause confusion and diffusion of effort. "The full list of nominations submitted to the Registrar, ARCUK, on 6 February is attached. "The Senior Vice President added that the position of the Huddersfield School and the North East London Polytechnic School should be reviewed to see if, with the demands for archi tects in the inner cities being on the increase, they can orient themselves to an enabling course in line with Government policy to upgrade the inner city envi ronment. Larry Rolland has suggested that Peter Melvin, Vice President, Education, should meet with the Director of Inner City Aid to see if some joint working relationship could be established along these lines . " On 13 February the IAAS issued a news release, which I will read . "In the current confrontation between the RIBA and ARCUK over the education of architects, the inter— c disciplinary Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors (IAAS) has come down firmly on the side of ARCUK. "It was recently reported in the press that ARCUK now plans to exercise its statutory responsibility for archi tects education by appointing an education officer and seeking equal representation on school visiting boards, whereas at present it supplies only one representative to RIBA visiting boards . "This development has not found favour with the R IBA, which announced recently that it sees ARCUK primarily as a registration body and believes that any expansion into other roles will cause confusion and diffusion of effort. "The IAAS, founded sixty—one years ago by the celebrated archi tect, Sir Edwin Lutyens, and commi teed to an inter— disciplinary principle has released the following statement on the education issue: 'The IAAS welcomes the recent public announcement by ARCUK that it intends to exercise its statutory responsibility for the education of architects . 'ARCUK, by statute, was from the outset never intended to act solely as a registration body . Otherwise the Architects Registration Act would have been drafted differently • C, 'As a constituent member of ARCUK, the IAAS has always voiced its regret that ARCUK over the years failed to resist the block partisan lobby which resulted in the true role of ARCUK being almost stymied from birth . 'As an inter—disciplinary body, the IAÄS is uniquely placed to appreciate the value of the composi tion of the ARCUK Council and Boards in that their membership like the IAAS is drawn from a wide breadth of representation. The IAAS believes that this was a deliberate measure with a view to the self interests of single—minded professional bodies being put aside and thus the needs of architecture being considered independently and as a whole . This is surely recognised by the fact that in order to practise as an architect in the UK a person needs only to be registered by ARCUK to which requirement member— ship of a professional body, whilst to be encouraged, is secondary . 'The IAAS applauds ARCUK for its self assertion and in full support the IAAS has changed its nominees and seeks to increase its representation on the ARCUK Council and Boards. 'The IAAS hopes that ARCUK will receive universal encouragement and support in this fresh and independent approach which the IAAS believes can only be for the good of students, educational establishments, archi tects, industry and the public at large and not least the pro fess ional bodies themselves. " Having seen that release, I again reaffirmed my instruction that we will make no comment whatever to the press . 1 informed the various committees of ÄRCUK that is, the Finance and General Purposes Commi ttee, the Board of Archi tectural Education, the Professional Purposes Committee, and all of the honorary officers. They discussed the situation and unanimously expressed their deep concern at the RIBA action and the damage to its reputation. On 18 February, because of constitutional matters raised, myself, Denys Hinton and Kenneth Forder explained to the Clerk to the Privy Council, who agreed with us to see us immediately and that day. The Privy Council is the body advising the Queen on all consti tutional matters and the powers of charter and statutory bodies . The Secretary made three points to us: (1) all members of a statutory body have a duty to implement functions of that body and this duty overrides the interests of their nominating bodies; (2) that a private body should interfere in the functions of a statutory body; (3) nominations made by RIBA were invalid if they had not been made by the RIBA Council. He offered to express these views to the DOE and the RIBA. We unders tand that was done and Patrick Harrison was informed on 24 February 1987 . We were so concerned about this development, that the matter of the nominations was not raised by us but raised by the Clerk to the Privy Council, we therefore decided to consult our solicitors, Ratcliffe's, who agreed that the Privy Council view was correct. I asked Ratcliffe's advice on (a) a draft note which I should send to the honorary officers and (b) future action. The soli— ci tors recommended us to consult counsel. On 2 March at 2.30 pm myself, Denys Hinton and Mr David Andrew of Ratcliffe 's, who is present today, saw Mr Stockdale of counsel, special ising in constitutional matters. Mr Stockdale said that the present RIBA nominations are invalid c and agreed with the Privy Council and our solicitors' view . He gave this advice on future action: (a) knowing that the RIBA nominations are invalid and that there was an intention by the RIBA to interfere in the statutory functions of a ARCUK had no option but to formally notify D the RIBA of ARCUK 's objection; (b) GRA and Denys Hinton cannot accept an invalid nomination from the R IBA, even if this were made; (c) ARCUK must ensure their Council is properly consti tuted, for two reasons: (1) ARCUK, as a statutory body, cannot act or be seen to act illegally; (2) if ARCUK Council is consti tutionally invalid all subsequent decisions of this Council are also invalid. On 9 March we received counsel 's opinion from Mr Stockdale, who agreed with everything which had been said. On 12 March 1987 at 10 .30 am the honorary officers had asked for a meeting with the President of the RIBA to express their view. At the meeting, of which we made a C, record, as far as the RIBA was concerned there was Larry Rolland, Mr Hackney, Alan Groves, Mr Melvin, Mr Jeffels, Mr Patrick Harrison, Chris Lakin and Peter Gibbs—Kennet. For ARCUK there was myself, Denys Hinton, Professor Tarn, Professor Farmer, Mr Nickolls, Mr Penning, Mr Taylor and Mr Gregory. The meeting s tated that it was the unanimous view of the honorary officers to urge that the RIBA should re—nominate GRA and Denys Hinton to ARCUK Council, to avoid further damage to the reputation of the RIBA and the profession. GRA explained the legal advice which he had received. Larry Rolland said the RIBA had received different legal advice. The honorary officers expressed their concern that the RIBA felt able to try to remove from ARCUK anyone who disagreed with RIBA policies. Larry Rolland said that he had agreed to the meeting to hear honorary officers' views but not to respond. Larry Rolland asked GRA to postpone the ARCUK AGM. After that meeting the honorary officers went back to ARCUK and discussed the situation, and they came to the conclusion, having received their solicitors' advice , that they had no option but to formally inform the RIBA c of the non—validity matters. We therefore wrote to the Secretary of the R IBA: "As you will know the RIBA representatives nominated to serve on the ARCUK Council for the year ending March 1988 were appointed not by the RIBA Council but by your President and two Vice Presidents to whom responsibility had been delegated. A formal objection has been loged with me and I am thereby put on notice . "I duly passed this matter to ARCUK solicitors who have said that I have no alternative but to say that my Council cannot accept the forty—two nominations which accompanied Mr Lakin's letter to me dated 6 February 1987 because they are not the nominations of the RIBA Council . "On behalf of ARCUK Council T ran, as Rea..i only accept these nominations when you can certify to me that they were appointed by the Council of the R IBA. It would be helpful if you would let me know, as a matter of urgency, what steps you suggest should be taken in relation to this matter. " On 13 March we received this reply from Patrick Harrison: "I acknow ledge receipt of your letter of 12 March 1987 in which you state that you can only accept the Royal C, Insti tute's nominations to ARCUK Council when I can certify that they were appointed by the Council of the RIBA. "The Royal Insti tute is advised that the exercise of RIBA Council's function to appoint representatives to ARCUK Council was properly carried out under the provisions of the Charter. If you contest this view I must ask for you to arrange for your advisers to meet ours today to satisfy us why the nominations are invalid. " I therefore gave instructions to our solicitors that they should meet the RIBA solicitors, which they did on that day . They met but did not reach any agreement. The solicitors therefore recommended that the two counsel concerned should meet, and those two counsel met yesterday. They again did not agree, but I have a note of their meeting. This is a note of the meeting between Mr B K Levy, counsel for the RIBA, and Mr T M Stockdale, counsel for ARCUK. It was noted " (a) that ARCUK had adj ourned the meeting of its Council until Monday 30 March and (b) that RIBA would be holding a meeting of its Council on Wednesday 25 March . "Mr Levy would recommend to RIBA that the appointment of members of the ARCUK Council under Schedule 1 to c the 1931 Act should be on the agenda and should be dealt with at the RIBA Council meeting . "Mr Stockdale would recommend to ARCUK that if the Council of RIBA made new appointments at its meeting those appointments should be accepted and there would be no question of ARCUK arguing that the appointments made in February were valid after all. "Subject to paragraph 5 below, new appointments made at the RIBA Council meeting would therefore resolve the immediate problem. t' Because of this I therefore wrote to the President of the R IBA: "The 220th Ordinary Meeting of ARCUK Council will be held at 2 pm, Wednesday 18 March 1987, at which I will give a full account of recent events to my Council . "At your request made at our meeting on 12 March 1987 I have postponed the AGM until 2 pm on Monday 30 March 1987, which is the latest day on which it can be held. "This is after the date of the next RIBA Council meeting on 25 March 1987, at which your Council may wish to review the present situation. " I also received a letter from Michael Darke to Larry Rolland, from the Heads of Schools of Architecture, and I will read it. "There was a SCHOSA meeting of Heads of Schools last Friday 6 March , when they discussed at length the recent C, RIBA press notice concerning nominations to the ARCUK Council. The letter which I wrote to you last week on behalf of our Steering Commi ttee was fully supported. Heads do not of course see ARCUK as primarily a registration body, and are well aware of its educational responsibilities under the Registration Acts as well as its statutory role under the EEC Architects Directive . "Heads of Schools are dismayed at your action in omi tting Bob Adams and Denys Hinton from the list of nominations to the ARCUK Council. The following resolution was passed: t SCHOSA urges the RIBA Council to review the list of nominations forwarded to ARCUK and requests that the current chairman of the ARCUK Council, Bob Adams , and the current chairman of the Board of Architectural Education, Denys Hinton, should both be reinstated as nominees of the RIBA on the ARCUK Council for 1987/88. ' " This resolution was agreed unanimously by the twenty— five Heads of Schools, plus three deputies, present, including Heads serving on the RIBA Council and EPDC . " As Chairman, I therefore had to decide what I should do on the matter of the AGM. I did not consider it appropriate that the AGM should be held with a background of legal di sagreement . I must, as Chairman, ensure that proper arrangements are made for the continuity of ARCUK and to protect the position of the Registrar. If the meeting was c held: (a) if forty—two RIBA members were declared invalid, the thirty—two could continue and would be quorate, but this would not be a fair reflection of the profession; (b) if the forty; two RIBA members were accepted, knowing them to be invalid on the advice of our solicitors, then all subsequent actions of ARCUK Council would be invalid. I therefore gave instructions that the AGM would be postponed and you all received a copy of my letter . As Chairman of ARCUK I must (a) act impartially for all interests; (b) carry out policies agreed by Council; (c) keep ARCUK fully informed of all developments . Until today, all honorary officers and all ARCUK staff and I have made no comments to the press in the interests of trying to reach a settlement. That is my statement, and the matter is now open for discussion. Mr JENKS: Chairman, in the light of that important statement, I wonder if the full transcript of that could be made available rather than the minutes? There are so many important events and the timing of those events is so important, I think minutes would not do justice to this . I think it is important to have the full record available to members . The REGISTRAR: The shorthandwriter tells me it will be ready by the end of the week or the beginning of next week . You want a copy put in the hands of all members? (Yes) Mr ALLAN : There is a vast amount of material there and I do not think anybody can be expected to digest all that, straight off the bat. It seems in all of this we have to distinguish between two aspects: conduct and consti tution. The conduct that has been described in the material you have read out to us, in particular of those representing the RIBA, would seem to me to be prima facie evidence of disgraceful conduct in accordance with the Standard of Conduct, and I would like to suggest that this matter is remi tted to the first meeting of the next Council 's PPC, to review whether there is a prima facie case of dis— graceful conduct to answer. Secondly, with regard to the constitution, I would be very grateful if we could spend some time considering these actions against the ARCUK regulations, because I fear that decisions that apparently have been made outside this Council may not be in accordance with the Council's own regulation . In particular I would refer to regulation 18, the relevant portions of which I shall read out. The regulation is titled "General" so I think we can deduce that it has application to all relevant parts of ARCUK business . It reads as follows : "The validity of the proceedings at any meeting of the Council" I will pause where I am omitting irrelevant portions of the regulation — "shall not be affected by.. . the fact (if existing) that by reason of any failure to elect or appoint the members thereof.. . the Council. . . may at the time at which the meeting is held be incomplete. t' I would be glad to have a legal interpretation of that. Mr ANDREWS: I do not think one can quarrel with that because the gentleman has been reading from the regulations . If the suggestion is that there should not have been a postponement of the Annual General Meeting, then I can certainly deal with that. Is that the gravamen of what you are saying? Mr ALLAN: We could start with that, yes . Mr ANDREWS : The starting point is regulation 2 on page 1, and I will read it: "The Annual Meeting of the Council shall be held in the month of March in every year and shall follow the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held in the same month • t' The present proposal is that it should be held on 30 March . c That will not be a breach of the regulations . I think that it is self—evident from what the Chairman has said in his statement that there was a possible constitutional crisis in the offing, and that it therefore made sense to avert that crisis to make a postponement of the Annual Meeting . There is nothing unusual or impractical about pos tponing a meeting, certainly against that sort of background. A valid notice of adjournment was given and the meeting is now due to take place, as you have heard, on 30 March . That, I would have thought, made very good sense for all conce rned . Mr ALLAN : I think I should preface anything that I and any of my colleagues on the unattached side might wish to say by saying that our contribution in this whole episode will be, and I hope continue to be, directed towards the best interests of ARCUK. I would like to stress that very strongly . It seems to me the best interests of ARCUK in this case are likely to be served by our being extremely careful if, at the request of one person who is not even a member of this Council, Council meetings are going to be pos tponed C, without prior consultation with the rest of the Council and in disregard of the regulation which I previously read out, which provides 8kact1y the circumstances which we now find ourselves in, which is that this Council can proceed and in fact the validity of the proceedings of the Council will not be affected if failure to elect or appoint members thereof is the case at the time the meeting is held. The Annual General Meeting is convened for this afternoon. I have not heard a reason why that regulation can be dispensed with. At the Annual General Meeting this Council has to achieve five things . Those things are specified in regulation 8 and they are as follows: (1) it shall elect a chairman; (2) it shall elect a vice—chairman; (3) it shall appoint the Board of Archi tectural Education; (4) it shall appoint the Admissions Commi ttee and (5) it shall appoint the Discipline Commi ttee . I would like to know why it is not possible for the Annual General Meeting convened for this afternoon to do those five things . c The CHAIRMAN: I have taken advice on this matter, but it is my decision alone. I have to protect the position of the Registrar and the honorary officers and it is my decision that it is prudent, and it would not be proper to proceed with the Annual General Meeting this afternoon when there is such an obvious imbalance in the representation of the profession. Mr GORDON : In that case, Chai rman, perhaps you could tell us on what you base your authority to make that decision? The CHAIRMAN: It says in the regulation: "The Chairman or the Vice—Chairman of the Council or not less than ten members of the Council jointly may by written request to the Clerk require him to convene a Special meeting.. . " I am also empowered to act on behalf of Council in between meetings of the Council and to act as I should think fit. Mr GORDON: And have you convened a special meeting? The CHAIRMAN: No. Mr GORDON: I am at a loss to know from where you derive the power to postpone a meeting which had already been properly arranged and intimated to members . The CHAIRMAN: I have consulted our solicitor on this point and I am told I am legally in order in so doing. That is a legal matter. Whether it is proper is a matter for my judgment. Mr GORDON: You have liberally given us the benefit of Council's advice earlier on this afternoon, which I think was a very proper thing for you to do. Perhaps you could quote to us the advice you received on this matter. Mr ANDREWS : I think it is a short point; it is not unusual for meetings to be adjourned and the Chairman has it in his right to adjourn this meeting, which is what he has done . Mr GORDON: I have never been to a meeting which was adjourned before it began. Mr ANDREWS: I do not think it has begun; it is on 30 March . The CHAIRMAN: I postponed the meeting; I did not adjourn it. Mr GORDON: In that case the solicitor is answering a different question. He answered that it was perfectly in order to adjourn the meeting . I am asking for the Council to be given the benefit of the legal advice which spells c out your authority, without consulting Council, to change the date of a meeting which you had already intimated to all the members . Mr ANDREWS: The Chairman is not duty—bound to consult the Council before he fixed the meeting in the first place . D Mr GORDON: That is not my point. Having fixed it, where is his authority for postponing it? Mr ANDREWS: Where is the authority that says he cannot postpone it? Mr GORDON: I am putting to you, that since there is no specific authority, to make a decision without that authority is ultra vires. Mr ANDREWS: The timing of the meeting in my view is within the Chairman's discretion and he has exercised that discretion. Mr GEAL: I think there are limits to that discretion. If I could quote the regulations, regulation 2, which has already been referred to: "The Annual Meeting of the Council shall be held in the month of March in every year and shall follow the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held in the same month . " I think special attention should be paid to the lack of punctuation in that, relating to the " shall follow" , wi th no reference to "shall follow within the month" but held in the same month . It is not a minor point when you refer to the Principal Act, Schedule 1, clause 6: " .. . every member of Council shall hold office until the expiration of one year from the date of his appointment or election. Shortly, at the end of today, I will have no office. 1 then see myself having an interregnum until the next Annual General Meeting, and everyone else having an interregnum until the convening of that meeting. The CHAIRMAN: I am advised that that is not a correct interpretation of the statute or the regulations . Mr ANDREWS: No, I think that the absence of punctuation is not peculiar to that particular regulation. If you look at the regulations as a whole punctuation is not found generally throughout them . It is again a matter of interpretation. I do not necessarily say my view is bound to be the correct one. It would have been a proper course had there been time for the Chairman to instruct me to make application to the c court for a declaration on guidance, but there simply was not time to do that. The Chairman does not have to consult on the timing of the meeting. Therefore it must follow that he can postpone it. "Shall follow. .. " , the words you are probably relying on, it does not say "shall immediately follow" and I would say " shall follow" means precisely what it says, ie, shall not precede . Mr GEAL: It would be a constitutional absurdity to proceed with members that were not constituted. My real point is on clause 6 . What is the Council and who are the members of Council as of today, before the next Annual General Meeting? There are none, because they all cease according to clause 6, until the expiration. The CHAIRBIAN: I have received advice on this and I am told that there is no difficulty whatever on this point. Mr BROAD: My point concerns the twelve months. It says "one year . " Had the original date for the AGM been two weeks ago and been cancelled, which was within two weeks of the twelve months from which we had all been appointed, then you might be able to postpone it for two weeks, but seeing that the year expires today — because it always follows straight afterwards and there has never been a problem —— from this afternoon onwards it is not twelve months and two weeks, it is twelve months . This is the saddest day for ARCUK that I have ever seen and for the continuation of ARCUK we must carry on and what concerns me is these two weeks. How does ARCUK survive over the next two weeks, if we all cease tonight? The REGISTRAR: This is not a terribly difficult point. We always choose a Wednesday in March. It is not always twelve months from the last Wednesday. On some notorious occasions we have taken deliberate steps to avoid a particular Wednesday, because something else was on. Normally it is accepted from a Wednesday in March to a Wednesday in March . Mr ANDREWS: There is a precedent for this. c Professor MARKUS: I would suggest a proposition which, at first sight, may seem somewhat ludicrous, but I think it will get us round a number of the problems we have been discussing. That is, that we should hold the meeting as arranged today, following this meeting. Those who are valid members of the Council should proceed to the five duties we have heard to be carried out, but all the people nominated under those five should resign immediately upon the calling of the first proper meeting of this Council, so that Council can take the matters into its own hands and appoint whoever it wishes, in the normal way. Whether that meeting is 30 March or any other date Council chooses to have does not matter. It means cons titutionally we have a properly surviving Council which has been properly constituted in the interim. The CHAIRMAN: 1 looked into this point. I have already given my reasons as to why I do not think it proper or seemly that that should happen. We would for that period have a grossly dis torted ARCUK Council. It says in the regulations that the election of Chairman C, and the other five members mentioned can only be elected at the Annual General Meeting, and it is therefore outside the powers of a subsequent meeting of ARCUK, the Ordinary Meeting, to re—elect those officers, except by a casual vacancy . There is no guarantee that those officers would resign . It would seem an unreasonable and unseemly procedure for me to get ARCUK into, if I agreed to this request. Dr WOOLLEY : I think that there are considerable diffi— culties if we t ry to interpret the regulations. I would like to speak directly to some of the points . I am really shocked at some of what you have just told us about. It is very important that the concern of people like myself, and possibly others in Council, is noted, because clearly a constituent body of ARCUK has acted in a way which is reprehensible, or has attempted to do so, and that really raises a number of very serious issues about ARCUK. I would like to congratulate you on the exemplary way in which you have responded to that threat and that crisis . (cries of "hear", "hear" ) I find myself in some difficulty, therefore, at having to c take issue on one question, which is whether it is proper for you to have pos tponed the meeting, because it seems to me that is what it comes down to. As you have said, it is a decision you have taken. There are a number of arguments which you have advanced for that to avoid a constitutional crisis, to ensure a proper balance of representation on the Council of the profession, to avoid it being grossly distorted. I can quite see those arguments, but it seems to me that there are other issues you perhaps ought to have taken into account. That is, that a particular constituent body has forced this crisis by its actions on ARCUK, and that you are to some extent, I would suggest, falling over backwards to accommodate those mistakes which that particular body seems to have made . I think you should also have considered the considerable inconvenience that this is putting other members of Council to. This is a gut feeling really — why should I be incon— venienced because of the misbehaviour of one of the constituent bodies? I feel very s trongly about that. I think it is quite improper. It seems to me that if it was necessary for that particular constituent body to have a meeting of its Council C, before putting forward the correct nominations then that body should have been inconvenienced to do that, not this Council. Why should I have to come back here in two weeks t time, on a day when I already have extremely important commitments that are extremely di fficult to change? Why should I do that to accommodate a particular constituent organisation, which has quite clearly abused its role? It seems to me on that basis there is a very strong argument for going ahead with the Annual General Meeting today because, under the terms of the regulations, such a meeting would be properly constituted and I do not give a hoot for whether or not it is fully representative of the profession. I believe that that consti tuent body has disqualified itself from representing this profession by the way in which it has behaved over this matter. I would have thought that you would feel just as strongly about it. I feel there is a very strong argument on moral grounds alone, never mind all the ins and outs of the regulations, that the Annual General Meeting should continue today and we should not be inconvenienced and put out to accommodate this c other body by holding the meeting on some future date, to suit its purposes . I appreciate the time scale was very tight, but I think there are very strong arguments to be said for that, and I think I and my unattached colleagues feel very strongly that the AGM should go ahead as planned today . The CHAIRMAN: You appreciate that I have not used any adjectives in my statement. Although you may use adjectives I should like to dissociate myself from those adjectives . Mr JEFFELS: That is a point I would like to make . The CHAIRBIAN: You appreciate that I have had a weekend of very considerable concern as to what to do . I had to take a number of considerations in, some of which certainly were YOurs . I appreciate that a number of people are being inconvenienced, but the most important thing is that ARCUK must continue and be seen to be properly constituted body which maintains the respect of all those who are concerned with it all the consti tuent bodies, Government and the public at large. I had a very difficult decision and I C, appreciate the comments which you have made, but I felt I had to weigh those comments against the other considerations which I have already made this afternoon . Mr EASTHAM: I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said, but I do not think we will benefit by repeating similar things. It is an unsatisfactory position and I am sure the RIBA will say maybe it is none of their making; others will say it is. But I would like to move on to other business . I have travel led a long way and it seems will have, like many, to travel a long way again. I would like to propose that we note your decision, with regret. Mr ASTINS: 1 second that. Mr GORDON: I feel that is adding insult to injury. This is an extraordinarily important matter, which it is proposed to brush under the carpet without adequate discussion. I hope there is support for continuing discussion until a conclusion has become clear . c Mr GEAL: Who will bear the cost of the additional Council meeting? The CHAIRMAN: ARCUK . Mr ALLAN: What is that cost? The CHAIRMAN: I do not know. Probably in the order of E2000 . Mr ALLAN: Is that more or less than the average amount given as a student grant by ARCUK? Mr JEFFELS: Chairman, on a point of order———— The CHAIRMAN: Can you answer that question, Mr Gregory? Mr GREGORY: That is about the maximum we would give. Mr ALLAN: About the maximum of a student grant? Mr GREGORY: For a typical provincial student. Mr JEFFELS: On a point of order a motion has been put and seconded that we move on to the next business. Surely that should now be put to the Council. The CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, Mr Jeffels . It is an important matter and I want everyone to have the opportunity of saying what they wish on the matter. Mr JENKS: I would like to reverse the thing in a way and seek an assurance from the Chair. If a precedent is being set to pos tpone meetings in this way, in accordance with the wishes of any constitutional body, I notice that there are four constitutional bodies that have not put forward recommendations to this Council could any of these, for instance the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the R ICS or the Society of Engineers, expect the same treatment, or the unattached, if we were irregular in our nominations to this Council? Could c we expect similar treatment to that being allowed to the R IBA? For example, if the Secretary of State for Scotland now comes alone and says "we are sorry about our nomination. We made a bit of a mistake. It was irregular, illegal. We would like to postpone this meeting for another time so that we can ensure that we are properly represented"? At the moment the Council will not be properly represented because there are four consti tutional bodies missing from that Council. Can we have that assurance? The CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can give you that assurance. This is a hypothetical question and it must be left to the judgment of whoever is there at the time as to c what he should do about that circumstances . I do not think I should say anything which could constitute a precedent in this matter . Professor Denys HINTON: The parallel which Dr Jenks D has raised is not a valid one. It is true that the RIBA made a request about this, but the real reason the Chairman has had to make this decision is that it would not have been possible to have cons tituted this Council at a General Meeting because it was not resolved what was the legality of the nominations . In that situation I would have to say to you, would you all have preferred to meet in this room and to have argued about the legality of whether the meeting could proceed? It would have had to have been closed if it had been called in the first place . Regulations, moral principles and other things apart, the practical aspect is that that meeting could never effectively have taken place . Mr ALLAN: We have been told by the legal adviser that those nominations were not legal . Does this Council take its own legal advice or the legal advice given to it second—hand by another body? Mr ANDREWS: The advice we gave, that was confirmed by the Registrar, the Privy Council and by the barrister that we instructed, was challenged by the R IBA. That being so, it was thought that a compromise was the best way forward and that is the compromise which has been spelled out in the note from which you quoted. The CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments before I put the motion? Mr CRITCHLOW; I tend to sympathise with Dr Woolley in that it is regrettable that the meeting has had to be put off at great expense, but, likewise, a second notice has been send out so that anybody who wished to attend the AGM today might not have done so as a result of that second notice . So we have little alternative but to agree with the regrettable decision which has had to be made in postponing the Annual General Meeting. Mr BROAD: If this meeting does not go ahead today and we are relying on a postponed meeting in two weeks' time, c before which we are hoping that one of the constituent bodies of this Council will hold a proper meeting and re—consider their previous nominations and come forward to another meeting, we are therefore hoping to have the same open debates next year that we have had in the past. It has taken a long time, inch by inch, to have this forum in this chamber used for open debate, where points can be put forward and debated and people take votes at the end. Decisions taken last year were more or less unanimous . It is hard to see how we are going to have forty—two new nominees who are to come in here, according to the press statements that I have read, and carry out policy as told to them by somebody not in this Council Chamber. If the point of pos tponing is purely to enact this, it seems to me we are doing this body a disservice. Added to that, there are still technical, legal complications in doing so and I believe one of those is that this body has decided and it is in our minutes — that the nominations have to be in in advance of an Annual General Meeting by at least three weeks. We are hoping to change the nominations , we believe, and we are having a meeting in two weeks . C, The unattached have had it rammed down their throats that from the time they have their elections there is a very tight schedule to meet to come forward with nominations . If they ask for a day longer it is refused by this body . Are we sticking to three weeks for nominations? Is there a chance to change nominations or are we seeing forty—two people coming here in two weeks' time who will have this as a registration body . If that is what we are postponing it for, I think we do ourselves a great disservice . The CHAIRMAN: There are two kinds of nominations. One is any constituent body, and others nominated under the schedule of the Act, have a right to nominate; that is not subject to any time. They can nominate whom they wish, when they wish. The one you are talking about is nominations to boards and commi ttees . The REGISTRAR: For free election. It is only the free election which has a time limit. Mr BROAD: So those names will not change . The CHAIRMAN: we do not know. c The REGISTRAR: Mr Broad is quite right in saying that technically, I suppose, if the Council follows its previous rulings . The CHAIRMAN: I defer to your advice on this. Time is getting on. We have a motion before us. Mr GROVES: Chairman, you have had a motion some time. You have given people plenty of time. Would you please put the motion? Mr GORDON: On a point of order, Chairman the response which was just given was not clear to me and, I do not think, to a number of other people in the room. I am particularly aware in my own case, I am asked by my constituent body to confirm that I am prepared to act on ARCUK from early in January . I am slightly surprised, with over twenty—five———— Mr GROVES: Chairman, this is not a point of order . Mr GORDON: that another constituent body, presumably subject to the same law, is only able to give five days' notice. The CHAIRMAN: Your point is noted. Are there any more comments ? Mr ALLAN: I do not think we have had a satisfactory answer to Mr Broad's point and I would like to know from the Registrar what the period is laid down in ARCUK's procedures whereby nominations for free election have to be submitted to the Registrar, by whatever time before the meeting concerned, and whether those procedures can be upheld in terms of the timetable of this meeting which is being suggested for the 30th or not. The REGISTRAR: The answer is---- Mr BRILL: There is another comment———— Mr ALLAN: Could I have the answer to my question? Mr BRILL: It is an added one which may help clarify matters. We are talking about nominations for free elections . I have no information that those nominations by individuals and not by consti tuent bodies, are actually being challenged by the Chairman or any legal entity within this Council. The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. This was considered but the nominations for the free elections can only be made by members of the Council. If those members of the Council are invalid then their nominations are invalid too. c The REGISTRAR: What we have normally stated is that we should have fourteen days notice of free election candidatures , solely in order that we can get out an aide memoire on each one. The simplest answer would be to suspend that require— ment for the Annual Meeting to be held on the 30th, so that people can nominate up to the moment of the meeting. Mr ALLAN: So that in addition to all the other incon— veniences we are being asked to tolerate we are also being asked to suspend a chapter of ARCUK 's normal procedures in order to accommodate this incredible faux pas — that is the most charitable description of it —- by the RIBA. 1 think it is absolutely astounding and utterly disgraceful. The CHAIRMAN: 1 now put the motion. Mr ALLAN: Could you repeat the wording please? The REGISTRAR: What I have is "note the decision with regret. Mr EASTHAM: "That we note the decision to postpone the Annual Meeting with regret . " Mr ALLAN: I would like to make an amendment to that, to substitute the word " accept" for the word "note . " It is whether we accept the decision. C, Mr EASTHAM: I accept that amendment. Mr ASTINS: Agreed. Mr CONNOLLY: I thought the motion was " to proceed to other business . " The CHAIRMAN: 1 thought 1 was right. I now have this motion by Mr Eastham "that we accept this decision with regret." Mr METCALFE: "And proceed to other business . " The CHAIRMAN: "We accept this decision with regret and proceed to other business" if you so wish. Is that all right, Mr Eastham? Mr EASTHAM: 1 agree. Mr ASTINS: 1 agree. Mr WATERHOUSE; May I move an amendment to delete the words "with regret"? Mr METCALFE: 1 second that. The CHAIRMAN: We now have an amendment to this motion, to delete "with regret" . The amendment was put and on a show of hands was carried with 28 voting for and 9 against. The motion as amended was put and on a show of hands was carried with 30 voting for and 13 against. 5 . Section 7 of the Principal Act (in the absence of the press) The CHAIRMAN: This is a discipline matter in respect of Steven Lawrence Hole . The REGISTRAR: Are there only members of the existing Council here? The CHAIRMAN: There are two who are new. Is there any objection to their remaining at this Council for this purpose, although they must not vote? (no objection was raised) Mr NICKOLLS: The report of the Discipline Commi ttee in the matter of Mr S L Hole is Annex A on the papers before you and you will note the recommendation of the Discipline Committee on page 4 of that annex. It is my proposal to move the re levant motion in respect of this, after which any matters can be raised from the floor if members of Council so desire. I shall therefore read the resolution as follows: "That the Discipline Committee having reported to the Council that Steven Lawrence Hole has been found guilty of conduct disgraceful to him in his capaci ty as an architect, this Council directs the Registrar (1) to send him a copy of the Discipline Committee report; (2) to inform him that after grave consideration the Council has decided not to remove his name from the Register but that nevertheless the Council considers that his conduct in the matter merits the severest censure and reproof; (3) to arrange for the publication of the Discipline Committee's findings and the Council 's decision in respect thereof in the architectural press 27 . I would hope, by virtue of the Annual General Meeting being postponed, that those in the Institute might take this opportunity of reconsidering their decision and of hope ful Iy nominating you again and Professor Hinton as their represent— atives,so that we can look forward to perhaps you, sir, carrying on for what is normally two years 1 do not think I can remember an occasion when a chairman has only served one . You, sir, have been in my view, and I am sure in the opinion of everyone who is here, a very able, faithful, competent chairman, and I am only sorry that this may be the last occasion you are sitting there . If it is, I would c like to thank you, and of course Professor Hinton, most deeply for all you have done for the Council and I hope others here will join me in making this "thank you" statement. The vote of thanks was carried with acclaim. The CHAIRMAN: Thank you everyone for that. This is somewhat ernbarrassing, as you will gather. Is there any other business? Mr ALLAN: I would also like to indulge the Council 's time with a brief, in my case, valedictory statement as this will be my last Council meeting for at least the foreseeable future to say I would like to add my endorsement to everything John Smith has said and that, in the ten years I have been an ARCUK councillor, it seems to me some extremely important and valuable progress has been made . I think it must be clear to a number of people that the more progress that is made in ARCUK in terms of its emancipation and reform the more it may be subject to the sort of, I would say, improper interference that may have happened in the recent weeks . I feel I can speak for all C, my colleagues on the unattached side in saying that in the last two chairmen we have found stout allies of the cause of fairness and impartiality in the chair; that is both yourself, Bob, and Denys Hinton. We would very much hope that that tradi tion even if not in the person of yourself but certainly that tradition would be consolidated and deve loped. In my own case it will take a little while to reflect on today's events . I do not think I can really 60 . come to and I daresay a number of other people will not be able to come to — proper conclusions until they have seen the verbatim report of your statement, which I think was a very brave one. In the meantime, however, I think people will inevitably draw conclus ions from what has happened and I would say it would be very sad indeed if anybody in certain quarters drew the conclusion from what has happened that, under pressure, ARCUK is capable of being intimidated, because I do not think it can and I do not think it should be. I can say that and I can leave after ten years of being on ARCUK, but it seems to me that that fact has to be demonstrated by the incoming Council next year and by all c subsequent Councils, that ARCUK is its own master and must act accordingly in accordance with its consti tution and its procedures . All I can say is I wish my successors well in that and if it appears to me that there may be any backsliding from that pattern of behaviour, I may be back ! (Applause) The CHAIRMAN: First of all I would very much like to thank ARCUK staff for all the work they have done this year . It has been a very heavy year indeed. It has imposed upon them the extra work of the Order in Council. I would thank the Registrar and his staff for all the work they have done . I would also like to thank the honorary officers, who again have had a difficult time this year. They have not only been extremely loyal and carried out the wishes of this Council but they have also been chairmen of their various committees and have done a great deal of work . I would also like to thank all the members of committees who have served both here, and those who are not here; I think they have added much to the quality of the work of this Council. I would thank all the existing Council members for what they C, have done and the manner in which they have conducted these debates some of which could have got a bit more heated than they have . I appreciate the discretion and moderation that has been used. I would finally thank the retiring members for all they have done . I would thank Mr Astins, Mr Barnes, Miss Bedington, who has been here since 1969, Professor Hinton, Mr Lewis, Professor Macleod, Mr Weardon, Mr Wilkinson and 61. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCUK Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Undated