Ethics, Responsibilities and Code of Conduct
Ethics are more complicated than merely saying and trying to enforce what an architect should or should not do. Most architectural ethics, responsibilities and codes of conduct issues are not set or even enforced by the AIA, NCARB or any other professional organization. These issues are unfortunately left up to the individual state licensing boards. And, these state definitions of ethics, responsibilities and codes of conduct vary greatly from state to state. The AIA is basically a professional club, with its membership having a very wide range of interests and beliefs as to what might make up ethical, professional, codes of conduct. Design is important to almost all architects as well as the need to serve and protect the public in the build environment, but that is where the commonality for most architects stops. For example, we have architects in the profession who both teach and practice architecture on one side (or vice versa) of the equation. On the other side we have those architects who may participate either as a firm or as an employee for a contractor in the design-build environment. These two groups see the practice of architecture far differently than the other.
Unfortunately, state ethic regulations or codes of conducts for architecture vary greatly from state to state. Most states say very little about the ethics, responsibilities or code of conduct for a licensed architect. Many state boards appear to be more concerned with the educational qualifications and continuing educational units that an architect must obtain in order to become and remain registered, rather than addressing the duties of an architect in protecting the public in the build environment. NCARB has attempted to create uniform guidelines for state registration boards to adopt, but few states in which I am licensed appear to have adopted such guidelines or codes of conduct.
Of particular concern to me, and many other architects, in the practice of architecture has been the constant erosion of the duties of the architect. One state described the licensed architect for that state as an "Officer of the State", much as a lawyer or police officer is viewed to be an Officer of the Courts. That seems to me to be the best description of what the ethics, responsibilities and codes of conduct should be for any state licensed architect. However, few states have any set codes of conduct and those that have something do not appear to enforce their own rules.
One area of particular concern to many of us has been the abdication, or in some cases the overruling, of the duties of the CA Phase work by the Architect of Record. Even though many states require the Architect of Record to perform on site observations plus report any questionable building issues not only to the contractor and owner, but also to local or state building/fire officials, few states actually enforce these requirements. Some local building departments go as far as to tell owners that the architect is not necessarily required to do any CA Phase work since the local building department has in-house or third-party inspectors that an owner may be required to use by the local building department anyway. Thus the duplication of CA Phase services is not required in these local jurisdictions even though these local interpretations may be in violation of that state's licensing board and state law. The problem with this scenario is that no one knows, at the end of the day, what has actually been built. One may argue that this is why the profession needs LEED certification so as to insure quality construction quality plus environmental and sustainability standards. However, here again, by following this scenario the architect has abdicated the architect's responsibility to a non-registered third party entity.
The erosion of the architect's duties as the leader (or Officer of the State) for the build environment, protecting the Health, Safety and Welfare of the public for which the architect is licensed to do, will continue until the profession, as a united entity, decides to do something about this problem. Presently, the word architect is only mentioned twice in the IBC. The first note of the work architect is in the front definition section and the second note is in the index. No other duties of an architect are mentioned in the IBC. The failure of the profession to do anything to halt this continued erosion of what an architect is supposed to do could eventually make the architect an irrelevant relic of the modern build environment.-------------------------------------------
David Hauseman AIA
The Hauseman Group, Inc.
Atlanta GA
-------------------------------------------