[Sigia-l] legislation, architects, and defining professions

[Karl Fast]

On the AIfIA list, someone asked how one could own the word
"architect?" 

I wrote an embarassingly lost post explaining this to the best of my
knowledge. I thought it might be helpful to others, so I'm reposting
this here with a few minor edits. Corrections welcome. I probably
have a few details wrong, but the gist of it's right.

  NOTE: What follows is long, but I have tried to explain as much
        as I can (based on what I know), and have even included
        some legislation to show you how serious this could be.


> How does one own the word "architect"? 

By being a profession that is officially recognized through
legislation.

This is not a joke. I would take this seriously. I haven't read the
details, but this could be A Big Problem.

So...how can someone own the word "architect?"

They can "own the word" because Architect is a profession that is
officially recognized through legislation. That is, the state gives
the profession special priveleges and protections.
  
Lawyers, engineers, and doctors (LED) are examples of such
professions. The details vary between jurisdictions and professions,
but basically it means that you can't just call yourself a lawyer.
First you have to become part of the legal profession. And how you
do that is defined by the legislation.

To put it slightly differently, it is illegal to practice
engineering or even call yourself an engineer without being a
"professional engineer," and the ONLY way to become a professional
engineer is defined in the legislation.

That's what the bar exam is all about. The bar exam is something the
legal profession requires, not to keep people like you and me out of
the courtroom, but because that requirement is laid out in the
legislation (I'm not sure about the details here, but basically
that's what's happening).

This is *THE BIG THING* that separates professions like teachers or
travel agents or plumbers from lawyers, engineers, and doctors
(LED). Non-LED professions often have various requirements in order
to become certified, but they don't have special status enshrined in
law. And if they do, it's nowhere near what LED professions have.

Let me give AN EXAMPLE:

    I have a degree in Engineering Physics from the University of
    Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan we have what's called the
    "Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act." Here it is:

    http://www.canlii.org/sk/sta/cssk/20030227/s.s.1996c.e-9.3/whole.html  

    The act creates a legal framework under which engineering can be
    performed within the province. There are similar acts for
    doctors and laywers (at least there should be; I haven't looked
    for them). If I wanted to use my degree to be a practicing
    engineer in Saskatchewan I would have to abide by the act.
    
    But you won't find a similar act for plumbers. 

Now comes the big question:

Is architecture defined by a similar act of legislation?

Yes.

At least, they are in Saskatchewan and I bet they are everywhere
else. In Saskatchewan it's called the "Architects Act." You can read
all the gory details here:

   http://www.canlii.org/sk/sta/cssk/20030227/s.s.1996c.a-25.1/whole.html


I'm not a lawyer, but I figure the important words from legislation
like this is the section that defines architecture or the practice
of architecture. The Saskatchewan act defines it this way:

   "practice of architecture" or "architecture" means:

       (i) preparing or providing, for hire, gain or hope of reward,
           a design to govern the construction of a building that
           has as its principal purpose human habitation or
           occupancy; or

       (ii) examining a building that has as its principal purpose
            human habitation or occupancy to determine whether the
            construction is in general conformity with the design
            governing the construction of the building, and
            reporting on the construction of the building;

That's good news. In Saskatchewan there will be no problem so long
as we don't do anything related to buildings.

What about Ohio?

I don't know the answer. But I can guess. If their definition reads
like the Saskatchewan one quoted above, they wouldn't have a case.
I'm betting their definition is much broader.

Can someone find out? We need to know:

  - What does the Ohio legislation say? (or does it exist?)
  
  - What about other jurisdictions?
  
  - Was the definitions in these acts recently changed? If yes, what
    was the previous definition? Was it broadened? If yes, why?

  - Are other jurisdictions planning changes to their legislation?
  
  (note: people on the AIfIA list have dup some answers to these
         questions, but there are lots of questions here).

         
This issue was discussed on SIGIA a year or two ago. I pointed out
then that it was good that IA was "unrecognized" because one of
these days the "real" architects would notice and if we weren't big
enough we *migh* get crushed by the legal machine (or we might not).


I would take this seriously.

A law may be silly, but it is the law and has to be taken seriously
even when it makes no logical sense. 

  Except, of course, for laws like the one in alabama that make it 
  "illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church,"
  but those laws are in a different category:

     http://www.lawguru.com/weird/part01.html  


--karl