by Zigmund Rubel, AIA
On Saturday, May 2, 2009, the AIA wrapped up its business meeting. Like many of the business meetings I have attended in the past, it was populated by those of us who would consider ourselves AIA junkies. We junkies choose to be delegates and shape what we want the AIA to be.
Any AIA member (full AIA member or Associate) can become an accredited delegate, based on the practices of the individual's component. Few members, in terms of percentage, are delegates. The delegates who attend the business meeting make their “My AIA, Our AIA.”
The business meeting had significant Bylaws amendments that affect our governance, and I'm writing to engage my fellow members to get involved and know the issues to be a part of making their "My AIA, Our AIA" inthe future. The voting failed three Bylaws amendments. An amendment requires a two-thirds vote to pass. This requirement is appropriate because amendment changes affect the governing practices of the Institute, and there should be more than a simple majority to make this modification. I feel that so few members are aware that these discussions are going on because the attendance at the business meeting of accredited delegates is a small subset of member convention attendees.
The three amendments that did not pass all had to do with membership. The first failed amendment, 09-B, was to recognize membership category for public members. This would've allowed the Institute to invite anyone from the public at large to be involved with the AIA for a membership fee, i.e. "Supporter of the AIA." The second failed amendment, 09-C, was to recognize architects licensed in foreign countries as AIA International members instead of International Associates. International Associates currently are licensed in their native jurisdictions, and this amendment would have allowed International Associates to use the “AIA International” designation. The third failed Amendment, 09-D, was a follow-on action from a passed resolution from the 2008 Convention to allow Associate Members as Regional Directors on the Institute's Board of Directors. This amendment would have allowed Associate Members to have voting privileges on the national Board, representing their region.
I write this partial summary of the business meeting so that the average AIA member is aware of it and can be a part of it in the future. I think these decisions are important. Delegates represent either their components or individual interests. Members need to be involved so that they are properly represented. The average member can be involved by attending their local component board meetings or interacting with any of the board members at the different component functions, sharing their thoughts on the Institute's governance. This article is not to suggest that you support a vote one way or another, but to say that these are important issues and that as members we all should be aware and contribute what makes "Our AIA, My AIA."
These bylaw amendments should return to the business meeting in 2010 in Miami. I want all of you, our members, to be engaged to shape "Our AIA to be My AIA." To put some of what I'm saying in perspective and demonstrate the significance of one of the amendments: approximately 20 percent of AIA members are Associates and none of them is allowed to serve on the national Board as Regional Representatives. Maybe this is appropriate. Were you aware of this and do you agree with it? Is this "My AIA or Our AIA"?
Our profession is transforming and needs leadership. You need to be involved. The leadership is speaking from your heart. Leadership is the courage to make a difference. This difference is what makes "Our AIA, My AIA." That is the AIA that I want to be a part of, one that will lead our industry through the transformation that will get us through the 2030 Challenge.
This journey will require implementation of the Institute’s three strategic initiatives: Sustainability requiring collaboration, IPD requiring respecting those on the team, and Diversity requiring all stakeholders of the team to participate. My AIA needs you to make that difference. Get involved.
Get involved and make a difference with your membership. Attend your next component board meeting. Contact your component president or its executive director and tell them that you want to be a part of shaping your AIA. We need you to be active to shape our future. That is the AIA that I think we all want to be a part of, My AIA, Our AIA.
Comments (8)
Some Questions-
Why is it that no one at AIA will answer the phone?
Why would anyone want to be a member of an organization that does not anwer its own phones?
Why is it that an organization that charges annual dues and thousands of $$ for products, does not have enough money to answer the phones?
Does anyone know if AIA issues a Peformance and Payment Bond for Subcontractors?
Posted by Darryl J. Taylor | June 10, 2010 12:49 PM
Posted on June 10, 2010 12:49
Thanks for all the posts. LD, I've never been on the National Board. I do know a lot about its governance as a local and regional component leader. The main point of my post was to say that there are a few people that get to determine the destiny of the AIA and that more people should get involved to help shape it. I do feel that Associate members should be able to be elected to the National Board as voting members from various Regions. The hypothesis that the National Board would ever be composed of more than a handful of adept and committed Associates is ludicrous. Each region elects/selects their representatives will best choose the individual that can advocate their interest/agenda. I find it hypocritical that the AIA can employ our Associates in our practices as “Professionals” in salaried positions, ask them to be advisors/leaders in our businesses or be recognized by other associations as professionals (i.e. USGBC) and we will not give them an opportunity to sit at the table to contribute similarly. Why can an Associate be Chair of a Knowledge Community but not sit on the National Board as a voting member? Why did we invite twelve individuals to come to the last plenary session of the national convention to share their work to our profession and at the same time bar five of them from sitting on the national board representing their region because they lack licensure? I think what your saying is that an Associate can provide value in how we allow them to and we are not allowing them to lead? Why would anyone want to be part of an organization that has such an obviously low glass ceiling? There has been significant discussion about this issue within the component President’s community. I think that is great. I also think that more people should determine this “basic” right than just the Presidents and or us AIA junkie’s as to what our AIA is. Our By-Laws determine the Institutes destiny and I’m very concerned that this creative profession is allowing fears to determine the possibility of where it can lead us to. Let the states determine who can practice or call themselves an architect. The institute should determine who are. We are currently pre-qualifying our leaders on the National Board based on the ability to provide professional service in a specific jurisdiction. My point is that we operate our businesses one way and the institute is essentially a club that cards its members. I feel that our profession will not be able to transform and address the very real issues in front of us in terms of sustainability, Integrated Project Delivery and Diversity, which are the National Board’s initiatives, until we can be open minded, collaborative and recognize that licensure has nothing to do with professional leadership. We are OK providing professional services one way and deny its professional institute to be informed or guided similarly. I think they call this separate but equal. Carol’s parting comment about AIA’s vacuum like experience might be true if it cannot respect everyone’s reality. We have a lot of our member’s unemployed and businesses financially challenged. Do we ignore this reality or embrace it with alternatives to meet our objective to make this Our AIA instead of someone’s AIA.
Posted by Zigmund Rubel | May 29, 2009 5:10 AM
Posted on May 29, 2009 05:10
I'm involved: I just wrote an AIA leader that the AIA is too expensive and that I receive nothing but a magazine for the beuracracy that I pay for. $750 dollar a year is way too much for any club. I say let in everyone and charge them double, so my dues get cut in half. I am involved in saving My firm by attending tax day tea parties and protesting our president and his irresponsibility at printing money that will be worth nothing as inflation hits us. In the same token, I'm trying to get my piece of the governement pie and feed off the trough like so many others. The AIA sucks.
Posted by Carol | May 11, 2009 2:11 PM
Posted on May 11, 2009 14:11
Seems like there is only one associate on the entire national board: http://www.aia.org/about/structure/board/AIAS078622
The original article is about getting involved to make this representative of the members. I know the discussion has been about Associates, and that is important. I do not know why the International Member Resolution failed. They're licensed in their home country but are considered associates in the US? Something seems off.
Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2009 5:17 AM
Posted on May 9, 2009 05:17
LD - The associates do have a Representative to the Ex-Com and have for several years now. The vote for 09-D talks about the changing face of those within our profession, that goes beyond associate members on licensure track (which is most often represented by the two voting members on the board). For better or for worse, licensure in our profession has not been top of mind for quite some time now. While NCARB will probably disagree, I would go so far as to argue that Architecture is a dying profession. Associates are professionals both old and young. They are the most diverse membership group in the AIA, and I think it would have done well to have their voice heard at the National level if their region believes them to be the best voice they can send forward.
Posted by Anonymous | May 8, 2009 8:25 PM
Posted on May 8, 2009 20:25
I don't see anything wrong with the concept of including an Associate on the National Board. The issue is establishing election proceedures that would limit it to one. The current Regional and National election rules do not provide that control.
Posted by Thomas S. McVey, AIA | May 8, 2009 11:19 AM
Posted on May 8, 2009 11:19
I would vote for Amendment 09-B for certain.
Posted by Anonymous | May 8, 2009 3:12 AM
Posted on May 8, 2009 03:12
This is an incredibly misleading article. While I appreciate the sentiment, it doesn't at all accurately reflect the representation of Associate Members on the national Board. The reason for that is its being authored by someone who likely knows very little about what its like to serve on the National Board. As a former National Board member I will go ahead and say that I would have voted against Amendment 09-D as well. That said, I'm still an Associate Member and feel that our absolute best representation on the Board is with a voting Associate Representative and a voting (though that still hasn't been worked out) Associate Rep. to the Ex-Com. The potency of that representation is reflected in the tremendous respect bestowed on those representatives by the remainder of the Board. Their voice is often among the leading voices on the Board. It would likely provide little for the Institute or Associates in general to not have full members constituting the general regional representative positions on the Board.
Posted by LD | May 6, 2009 9:49 PM
Posted on May 6, 2009 21:49