At its January 2010 meeting, AIBC Council completed its review and approved its responses to a series of four motions-from-the-floor (MFTF) that were supported at the 2009 Annual Meeting (the motions can be found in the draft June 27 Minutes of the Annual Meeting, under item 6.0). While noting that that any such motions are advisory and non-binding to Council, and that the specific motions had some specific wording challenges, Council reiterated its commitment to giving them due consideration with particular attention to the intents behind them. Council's responses are as follows:
Response to MFTF 6.1
Council policy now supports outcomes-based competency evaluation as one method of determining an individual’s capacity to meet registration criteria, and is actively doing that for candidates seeking to become architects.
Council is sensitive to concerns of some architects about possible/perceived effects of an expanded regulatory sphere under a revised Architects Act. Council respects these concerns. Council is of the opinion that the public interest will be best served if/when buildings of size/typology that currently can be designed and constructed under direction of people without proven competency and methods of accountability require competent and accountable professionals to design and review their construction. Future membership categories, if any, will be defined and limited by stringent competency standards commensurate with the complexity of work required under any scope of practice granted to that membership category.
Council is committed to an ongoing strategy of principled engagement/consultation with the membership; is not contemplating legislation-specific drafting in 2010; but remains open to the prospect of the Architects Act applying to a broader scope of building sizes/types/complexities than is now the case.
Response to MFTF 6.2
Prior drafts of a new statute are set aside. The provincial government is interested in receiving only essential components/directions/needs developed by the AIBC and Council arising from a demonstrated consultation process.
That process will elicit input, dialogue and support before any related submission to government, which will be shared with the membership.
Response to MFTF 6.3
The AIBC has a broad statutory mandate. Primarily a regulatory body, it also has the duty and capacity (under legislation and bylaws) to deliver programs and services to support the public interest by strengthening the profession (e.g.) in matters of practice, professional development and public/industry outreach and collaboration.
The AIBC is, however, limited (in mandate, resources and priority attention) in the nature and extent to which it should/can address matters of advocacy purely on behalf of architects.
In order to address any advocacy gap, there already exist these two avenues:
- Architectural Foundation of BC (AFBC)
- Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC)
Members are encouraged to join one or more of the abovementioned groups. They both are necessarily at arms-length from, but are on amicable terms with, the AIBC. The AFBC is already an “independent society” within our profession. The RAIC recently established a BC chapter.
Council believes it is beyond the scope of the Architects Act to establish a committee to explore this avenue.
Response to MFTF 6.4
Council recognizes and acknowledges members’ interests in a process that is open, inclusive and engages the full range of stakeholder input and involvement.
To that end, Council has begun an engagement process, key components of which include:
- Face-to-face consultation
- Open forums with principled discussion
- Sharing clear information
- Canvassing informed thought and opinion
- Surveying/polling feedback (note: referendum is not available under the Act)
Council will listen carefully and utilize stakeholder feedback to inform its future directions and decisions consistent with its governance of the institute in the public interest. Council will continue forward on this basis.
About the AIBC