Committee on Design

You have to wonder why the AIA, in its laudable effort to promote green design, is so consistent, as Mary Holley rightly laments, in supporting tacitly the adoption locally of rating systems which are administered by Raters certified only by the private system they use - be it Energy Star or LEED or some other - but upon whose authority building officials, normally certified by the state, are made to grant or deny building permits initially or certificates of occupancy subsequently. While Raters ethically should be third parties, the AIA seems to condone members acquiring these skills and certifications, because that means that state-registered architects rather than the privately certified Raters are making these (conflict-of-interest) decisions. But the real question is why the AIA is not only encouraging states to require some minimum form of registration of these Raters but is apparently supporting the adoption by localities of these systems, though they directly undermine the state registration that is required of architects in order to be members of the AIA. One is led to wonder if this isn't all just another attempt by some architects to narrow their advantage and to require all architects to acquire this second new form of registration, despite what should be touted by the AIA as the years of study, apprenticeship, testing and practice that have gone into these registrations.

I too am unfamiliar with the rater program to which you're referring. If anything, the Institute (or, at least, the advocacy folks with whom I work) have been trying to emphasize the need NOT to adopt such regimes. If you could point me in the direction of the program you're talking about, I'd be most appreciative. Thanks.