Over-zealous big brother vs. responsible ethics

[DwightB]

I'm licensed in several states. All have some form of Code of Ethics. Here in MO, the Code of Professional Conduct states "licensees SHALL NOT [my caps] assist non-licensees in the unlawful practice of architecture". The state regulations stipulate what is the "practice of architecture" and what is not, specifically the design of certain buildings (larger than a duplex, for habitation or employment of more than 9 persons, etc.) is the "practice of architecture". My stand has been that, if I know of a building that fits their definition as one being in need of design by an architect, and has no architect in charge of the project, it is my responsibility to inform the state of the violation and/or inform the project owner of the state law. Otherwise, if I do nothing, I am basically aiding someone who had a sketch on a napkin, or a copy of some cad program to "practice architecture without a license".

There are plenty of communities in the backwoods areas where there is neither county control nor city control. However, the state regulation also says, in the absence of any local controlling authority, a certain section of the IBC 2009 is to be used. I asked a state board representative for a clarification; he said that basically a complete set of plans is required, even if there is no one to review, approve, or permit the plans.

My question, am I right to tell a job owner that he must get an architect to be within the law, or should I sit idly by and assume no one will suggest that I'm assisting an unlicensed person to practice architecture?

 

[RickAstoria]

I'm licensed in several states. All have some form of Code of Ethics. Here in MO, the Code of Professional Conduct states "licensees SHALL NOT [my caps] assist non-licensees in the unlawful practice of architecture". The state regulations stipulate what is the "practice of architecture" and what is not, specifically the design of certain buildings (larger than a duplex, for habitation or employment of more than 9 persons, etc.) is the "practice of architecture". My stand has been that, if I know of a building that fits their definition as one being in need of design by an architect, and has no architect in charge of the project, it is my responsibility to inform the state of the violation and/or inform the project owner of the state law. Otherwise, if I do nothing, I am basically aiding someone who had a sketch on a napkin, or a copy of some cad program to "practice architecture without a license". There are plenty of communities in the backwoods areas where there is neither county control nor city control. However, the state regulation also says, in the absence of any local controlling authority, a certain section of the IBC 2009 is to be used. I asked a state board representative for a clarification; he said that basically a complete set of plans is required, even if there is no one to review, approve, or permit the plans.

My question, am I right to tell a job owner that he must get an architect to be within the law, or should I sit idly by and assume no one will suggest that I'm assisting an unlicensed person to practice architecture?

Interesting point. Here is the DEAL... I am a building designer. If the scope becomes non-exempt, then I tell the potential client that they need an architect and I can not do the job without the architect. I learn about the scope at "programming". So if the scope changes, I am required by law to STOP right then and there at the very second the client changes the scope from exempt to non-exempt. At that moment, I may not write or draw a single thing pertaining to that project until an Architect is brought on board with complete charge. In general, I must simply walk away. I can not legally talk to that client about that project unless I am retained as a consultant under the direction and supervision of the Architect. All of my schematic while exempt means nothing. In general when a project changes scope then everything must start all over and NONE of my drawings maybe used other than as visual communication of what happened BEFORE the architect came on board and for thematic communication of the design feel. Therefore, I am no longer useful for the project.

I could be involved as a draftsman but on non-exempt projects ONLY an architect may lawfully make design decisions.

You are required by law to notify the licensing board if you know of illegal practice. If you know someone is at the crossroad (like the example of an unlicensed person initially brought on board with a scope for a project that is exempt but scope change caused it to become non-exempt, the unlicensed person must stop where he or she is at at the moment. You may offer a way to reasonably take over those projects and possibly include the designer as a consultant. Maybe as a means to ease the relationship between decent unlicensed persons and licensed persons (both aiming to work honestly and lawfully) to throw a bone. In other words, if there is an exempt project that you don't want and you haven't really signed into a contract, you maybe able to "trade" projects. Ok, the client needs to be willing to accept this person. Would have to do it within legal parameters.

 

[Mark K]

There is a difference between assisting in the unlicensed practice of architecture and knowing of somebody who is violating the law.

You have a legal obligation comply with the law. You have a right to report non-compliances with the law but you have no legal obligation to report another’s failure to comply with the law. You may believe that you have a moral obligation to report non-compliances but that is a moral position not a legal one.

My sense is that in the vast majority of the situations your attempts to tell others what they should do will not be appreciated. Why tell individuals that they are wrong when it will not be appreciated. This is similar to a born again Christian telling me that I will go to hell unless I change. Not appreciated and not productive.

If you believe that the advice will be appreciated it would be appropriate to let them know that they have a situation where they need some expert advice.

If you become aware that a building is unsafe you may have an obligation to report this situation. But if nobody knows that you know that it is unsafe then it is a matter for your conscience. If I found myself in such a situation I would report it to the building official or other appropriate government official and leave it at that. If you report a building as being unsafe to a non government official and they ultimately decide that it is not you could be liable for problems that arose as a result of your report.

Just because a building was not designed by a properly licensed design professional does not make it unsafe. Also there is a difference between a building that is not as strong as it should be and one that is unsafe. There is also a distinction between what you suspect and what you know.

Ultimately your question appears to be about morality and not legality. Only you can determine what you should do morally.

 

[DwightB]

Mark K: Good analysis, but my state's Code of Professional Conduct takes the moral stance and tells me that if I know of someone who is practicing without a license (ie, the owner with an idea for a 60'x80' assembly building and hires a contractor to put it up, then asks me where to put the doors), I believe I'm assisting him in his non-licensed activity if I don't step in and offer architectural services, or tell the state about the violation. They hired me. Similarly, I had another nearly identical situation where the building was already purchased, ready to erect for assembly use, and the owner wanted me to design a safe-room. I told them I needed to generate plans for the entire project, or not know about the project at all. They never called back.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Mark K: Good analysis, but my state's Code of Professional Conduct takes the moral stance and tells me that if I know of someone who is practicing without a license (ie, the owner with an idea for a 60'x80' assembly building and hires a contractor to put it up, then asks me where to put the doors), I believe I'm assisting him in his non-licensed activity if I don't step in and offer architectural services, or tell the state about the violation. They hired me. Similarly, I had another nearly identical situation where the building was already purchased, ready to erect for assembly use, and the owner wanted me to design a safe-room. I told them I needed to generate plans for the entire project, or not know about the project at all. They never called back.

Are you talking about a pre-engineered building that is purchased by an owner, and then they come to you for the practice of architectural services to provide occupancy and life safety design?

 

[globe trekker]

DwightB,

I believe that you already know what your moral stance and direction should be.

If you lose some clients, then so be it! You, ultimately, have to live with your

own conscience. Do what you believe is the "right thing" and NOT sit "idly by"!

.

 

[brudgers]

My opinion: if you actually know it's one thing. If you strongly suspect, it's another.

 

[Mark K]

There is also a distinction between what you know and what they can prove that you know. If they cannot prove that you know of a violation of the law then you in effect have no liability.

While the licensing board has stated that you have to report any violation is that reflected in the statute or adopted regulations. They cannot hold you liable for compliance with their policy.

 

[Mark K]

It would be interesting to find out how many instances of architecture being practiced without a license was reported and prosecuted in the state. If the number reported is not at least three digits long then I would suggest that reporting is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[globe trekker]

DwightB,

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing!" - - Edmund Burke

By your posting on here is evidence that you have strong convictions about

"doing the right thing" and reporting said offenders. I encourage you to

move forward with reporting the violators! Besides, if you don't do it,

who will? If not now, ..when?

.

 

[DwightB]

Papio: Actually, it was a client that I had nursed along for years, worked over the concept several times, moving the addition from front to back, from larger to smaller, with all paperwork marked

"DESIGN CONCEPT - DO NOT COPY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

THIS CONCEPT IS THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF [me] AND NOT TO BE USED FOR THIS OR

ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECT"

After several months of silence from them, I ran into to owner and he said they were under construction and that he would like me to give a dimension from a corner to a door location. I pointed out the state requirement and eventually was hired to draft a set of plans for them. They had already poured the floor without bothering to tell the contractor that there was a second floor that needed a thickened slab for support, so they are having that cut in now. If I hadn't seen them and was asked about the door location, I doubt they would have called about anything. My prelim was complete enough for any builder to work from, even with the bold lettering "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION".

 

[brudgers]

It would be interesting to find out how many instances of architecture being practiced without a license was reported and prosecuted in the state. If the number reported is not at least three digits long then I would suggest that reporting is the exception rather than the rule.

I would suggest that prosecution is probably a bigger exception than reporting...

 

[Amish Electrici]

Ethics?

As Milton Friedman pointed out, every trade regulation is presented as being in the public interest - but many times are nothing more than attempts to limit the competition.

With such an unethical foundation, what can a 'code of ethics' be worth?

I think it's best, as a general rule, to stick to your own knitting. It's pretty rare where you can honestly say you're aware of all the relevant factors. Instead, worry about your compliance.

 

[codeworks]

to the amish electrician, my hat is off to you sir, very well said

 

[lunatick]

I'm licensed in several states. All have some form of Code of Ethics. Here in MO, the Code of Professional Conduct states "licensees SHALL NOT [my caps] assist non-licensees in the unlawful practice of architecture". The state regulations stipulate what is the "practice of architecture" and what is not, specifically the design of certain buildings (larger than a duplex, for habitation or employment of more than 9 persons, etc.) is the "practice of architecture". My stand has been that, if I know of a building that fits their definition as one being in need of design by an architect, and has no architect in charge of the project, it is my responsibility to inform the state of the violation and/or inform the project owner of the state law. Otherwise, if I do nothing, I am basically aiding someone who had a sketch on a napkin, or a copy of some cad program to "practice architecture without a license". There are plenty of communities in the backwoods areas where there is neither county control nor city control. However, the state regulation also says, in the absence of any local controlling authority, a certain section of the IBC 2009 is to be used. I asked a state board representative for a clarification; he said that basically a complete set of plans is required, even if there is no one to review, approve, or permit the plans.

My question, am I right to tell a job owner that he must get an architect to be within the law, or should I sit idly by and assume no one will suggest that I'm assisting an unlicensed person to practice architecture?

Have the state provide something along the following.

"After this date, any building that is constructed without licensed design profession that is/was required will be allow underwriter to either not insure, not payout fully and/or charge increased premium rates as a penalty for failure to comply with state laws."