Below is a list of the 13 Guiding Principles that the members of AAA voted on in 2014 to inform policy decisions for new legislation. Only principle #9 failed to receive majority support.
AAA members who are actively practicing architecture or interior design in Alberta should be covered by professional liability insurance, and the firm/corporation should be required to carry professional liability insurance rather than the individual.
AAA has subsequently added a requirement for Professional Liability Insurance (PLI) into our bylaws. Under the new Professional Governance Act PLI will be addressed more explicitly. As we already have this requirement in place, AAA registrants should not see any change.
Remove from both the Architects Act and the Alberta Building Code current exclusion from the requirement for an architect’s seal for:
- buildings of assembly, care and detention;
- high-hazard industrial and re-locatable camps; and
- residential occupancies that can be clearly demonstrated to require a seal in the interest of public health and safety.
More information to follow. We continue to work on this principle.
Have the Alberta Building Code adopt the current definition of interior design from the Architects Act and General Regulation.
This was accomplished several years ago. As we review the Schedule under the Professional Governance Act we will watch to see that the definitions are synchronized.
Include language in the Architects Act and General Regulation that allows for the creation of categories of membership within the regulations, and which may include allied professions.
We will continue to seek clarity around this as we work with the Ministry towards the Professional Governance Act. In the draft PGA there is language that appears to support this, however the extent of the AAA to regulate other categories of membership/registrants is not entirely clear at this time. We are aiming for flexibility in both the short term and years to come.
Enact regulations that establish categories of AAA membership for architectural technologists and interior design technologists, and prescribe academic qualifications, training requirements, title protection and other conditions respecting their registration.
The Ministry has made it clear that significant changes such as this will not take place in this first iteration of the PGA and the AAA Schedule. However, as noted above under Guiding Principle 4, we are nevertheless optimistic that language within the Regulation and Schedule will set the stage for inclusion of the technologists in the future.
Redefine practice reviews to shift towards a proactive, objectives-based and supportive program based on documented standards and resources.
This principle is consistent with what is done in modern legislation for self-regulatory professions to support continuing competency. The draft PGA makes extensive reference to Practice Reviews, providing guidance around how to administer a program aimed at maintaining and improving competence of the profession. Although establishing a program of practice review is optional, should the AAA decide to do so, the PGA is quite clear on what is expected.
A related initiative is the development of documented Standards of Practice to provide more explicit guidance to professionals around expectations for professional conduct. Currently the Practice Review Board is working on developing a Standards of Practice guide that will be implemented along with the new PGA. Such standards are mandated under the PGA.
Clarify the roles, responsibilities and authority between the Practice Review Board, Complaints Review Committee and Council to reduce potential legal challenges to AAA decisions.
This will be one of the many benefits of new legislation. Between what is noted within the PGA, General Regulation and Schedules we are confident that role clarity will be achieved. The AAA bylaws will also inform the roles and we will have increased authority over the content of the bylaws and can updated them as required.
Provide for the ability to publish names and outcomes of a complaint hearing once a final order is made by the Complaints Review Committee and/or Council.
The PGA will mandate that outcome of discipline hearings are published. This is a significant increase in transparency from the Architects Act which currently requires discipline hearings to be “private”.
Provide for the ability to publish names and outcomes of a complaint hearing once a final order is made by the Complaints Review Committee and/or Council.
This is in keeping with the modern approach to transparency for the benefit of the public and the PGA will incorporate this.
In the past several years discipline hearings have largely transitioned to an online format and therefore accessibility to the public to view the proceedings has increased. However, several regulatory organizations require individuals to pre-register to observe such hearings so an additional level of control has been introduced.
Appoint a public representative on the Complaint Review Committee.
Under the draft PGA there is a requirement for 25% of a hearing tribunal to consist of public members.
The Ministry appoints public members and are currently looking at establishing a roster of members that can be on standby to serve on a hearing tribunal for any professional regulatory body. We have discussed opportunities for training the members of the roster so they can confidently contribute in a meaningful manner.
Develop a consensual Complaint Review Process that would take place as a first step to resolve issues, prior to any hearing of the Complaint Review Committee.
The draft PGA contains an alternative complaints resolution process. In some instances this could speed up the process for everyone involved and provide outcomes that are satisfactory to all parties.
As we work through the documentation with the Ministry of Advanced Education we will be able to provide more detailed information on this new process.
Clarify the organizational relationship between individuals, practice entities, and the AAA.
In order to offer architectural or interior design services to the public:
- The registered/licensed individual must hold a seal and act through an authorized practice entity; and
- Every practice entity must be registered, and hold a stamp, regardless of business type.
- All practice entities shall be subject to the same regulations.
Clarify and simplify the terminology surrounding certificates, permits and licenses. This was accomplished in the 2015 update to the Alberta Building Code.
The Practice Entities Task Force spent a considerable amount of time on this complex matter. It is important to note that the often talked about “51% rule” was not ultimately voted upon by membership however the underlying desire for control of architectural and interior design firms by Registered Architects and Licensed Interior Designers respectively was taken into consideration..
A consequence of this new approach is that the Joint Board of Practice will need to be repealed. APEGA is in support of repealing this Joint Board.
All registered practice entities meeting the requirements to offer services to the public MAY use the following protected titles below.
- Architect, Architects, Architecture, Architectural
- Licensed Interior Design, Licensed Interior Designer
Practice entity names must comply with criteria set out by the AAA. The AAA can reject names it finds in conflict with these criteria and withhold registration as a result.
Individual practitioner titles of “Registered Architect” and Licensed Interior Designer” would remain restricted as they are in the current Architects Act and General Regulation.
The concept of making the use of these terms within a firm name optional has been endorsed by AAA Council for years, however our legislation has remained out-of-date.
A detail such as this will be included in the customized Schedule that forms part of the Professional Governance Act. We have yet to have an opportunity to address this particular, yet very important, nuance with the Ministry.