Legislation like that is done on a state-by-state basis, not in the House of Representatives. We have such a law in NJ, with the only exemption being for single-family, owner occupied buildings where the drawings are personally prepared by the homeowner and the home owner acts as the GC (which leads to a lack of protection against any subs they hire that are normally afforded by the Consumer Fraud Act). And the exemption is flaunted by GC's who prepare drawings and then ask their clients to sign an affidavit under penalty of $10K fine and charges of perjury. As someone who provides expert witness services to architects and the insurance carriers who insure them, I've seen some very intelligent people lie on that affidavit.
The Institute has a Public Policy that says:
The AIA supports a uniform definition of architectural practice that delineates the scope of activities over which each jurisdiction has regulatory control. The definition should follow the recommendations developed by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.
And another that says:
The AIA maintains that it is in the public interest for architects to design all structures primarily intended for human habitation or use. The architect's comprehensive education and training equips them to address the impact of design and technology on the health, safety, and well-being of the public and the built and natural environments. Each jurisdiction has a responsibility to its citizens to ensure that structures used or occupied by the public are designed by architects.
I'd like to see them remove the reference to NCARB in the second sentence of the first policy since NCARB's public policy says something to the effect that they recognize that "certain jurisdictions have exemptions for buildings of a certain size and use".
I believe that there should be NO exemptions; that we should not have a policy the refers to another organization over which we have no control (they can change their policy at any time); that with that sentence, this policy is not aspirational, but rather merely reflects the current laws in each state; and that the first policy conflicts with our second policy (see last sentence of 2nd policy above).
But, if you think that parking a domain name and having a good idea is all that is required to see any substantial change in the way the public perceives the profession of architecture; and that by further fracturing our membership base into self-interested silos, you will have a stronger legislative voice than if you spent your energy and time on assisting the AIA in their current on-going endeavors; or that you should not be developing your own marketing plan that reflects your
unique selling proposition while targeting your own niche (the overarching commonality we share "residential architecture" is in fact too general), then I would suggest you could be spending your time on more important initiatives, like asking the AIA to support their own policies by supporting legislative change in each of the 54 separate jurisdictions in the U.S. Just understand that our PAC is minuscule in comparison to NAHB, AGC and other contracting groups.
By the way, Rand, I visited your website and really admire your residential work. It is clear that you have a much more focused target audience than I do. That is a strength, not a weakness. It's much easier to sell to a specific market. They say that if you are selling to everyone, you are selling to nobody.
Residential design and construction is so far beyond the state-of-the-art that existed when most states promulgated their licensing laws, in terms of technology integrated into homes, new materials, concerns about sustainability and life safety, and the simple fact that previously un-built, but buildable land is almost non-existent in states like NJ and should not be squandered so cavalierly.
So, I suggest that the "revolution" should be internal, and the "call to arms" should be to mobilize every residential architect to advocate for sensible legislation that protects the health, safety and welfare of every building occupant, regardless of building size or use, including residential and small commercial buildings.
I believe the mechanism is in place to make change happen, but it requires commitment to a common goal, or at least as common a goal that 75,000 architects can share, not the formation of another group.
BTW, you should know that there is another organization, SARA, that has been around for decades, formed, I believe, by disgruntled AIA members. They cannot compare in legislative voice and advocacy to the AIA. If you think I'm incorrect, then ask yourself why you haven't heard of them despite their being around for over 50 years.
http://www.sara-national.org/ If you check out their list of standing committees, they don't even have a legislative or advocacy committee on the national level.
Finally, AIA has been doing an incredible job in light of having to reduce their operating budget an incredible amount over the last five years or so. Dues was not even our largest source of revenue; that was AIA Docs. Both have suffered by the recent recession. We can choose to wring our hands over that fact, or move forward despite the difficulties.
If you're looking for support of yet another competing organization, the I say, "no thank you". I'll stick with the AIA and proudly use those initials after my name. That brand does in fact carry weight, according to the prospects and clients I speak with.
-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-31-2012 18:17
From: Rand Soellner
Subject: ARA challenges
Hello Perry,
Good talking with you earlier. Yes, I feel that anyone designing homes should be a licensed architect. Not just have a license: but rather be an architect, period, registered to practice. There are more homes than any other building type on the planet. Surely we can try to assert ourselves to improve that aspect of society, which will likely improve the environment. Another architect in the HKC or CRAN had a pretty simple method to accomplish this (and I forget who said it, so whomever you are, stand back up and be appreciated): if you need a building permit, you should need an architect's signature and seal. Period.
One thing the AIA is good at is legislation coordination. Here is where the AIA can shine. By proposing through our AIA members in the House of Representatives and Senate, a new bill:
Licensed Architect's signature and seal required for residential designs, where building permits for homes are required. And according to the guidelines for our licenses, we can't just sign and seal anything. It should be for work that we created. That should be in the subtext of such a bill.
And since just about anywhere in America requires a building permit to construct a house, that would do it. This would also greatly assist those of us practicing residential architecture, overnight. And because we as architects design greener homes that consume less energy and use more sustainable materials, systems and principles, this can greatly improve environmental conditions as well.
If there is one day, an ARA, we would stand strong with the AIA in supporting such legislation. And if required, we would propose it ourselves, if no one else would, assuming that we would have sufficient membership income to finance such efforts. Perhaps the AIA can address this and help promote it. Anyone in the AIA hierarchy care to comment on this?
-------------------------------------------
Rand Soellner AIA
Architect/Owner/Principal
Rand Soellner Architect
Cashiers NC
-------------------------------------------