by Thom Lowther and Maria Sigillito

To maintain membership in the AIA, architects are obligated to comply with the Institute’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Another highly visible element that sets AIA members apart in clients’ eyes is the AIA mandatory continuing education program that convention delegates voted into the AIA Bylaws and Rules of the Board more than a decade ago. What may not be as well-known, though, is that fraudulent reporting of continuing professional education learning units is a violation of professional ethics.

The AIA Continuing Education System (AIA/CES) maintains an honor system for members recording continuing education. This means that AIA/CES record keepers accept both the accuracy of what is submitted on a Self-Report Form as stated and that a member who signed his or her name on an attendance sheet at the beginning of a seminar actually did attend the entire seminar.

There are also mechanisms in effect that recognize that violation of the professional code of ethics is possible. It was initially the medical and accounting organizations that recognized that fraudulent reporting decreased credibility within and outside of the fields and consequently increased restrictions on reporting. In July 2005, for instance, an article in the Washington Post reported a physician in Maryland who was caught falsifying his professional continuing education records. The State Board of Medicine’s response was to fine the physician $20,000 and suspend his license for five years for ethical violations.

A hypothetical: who is responsible?
An architect walks into a seminar, and signs in with an AIA-member number. The architect has to “answer a call” after 20 minutes into the seminar and does not return. The absence of the architect is noticed by the provider and peers. In fact, it is noticed by many that this architect has to “answer a call” often during MCE seminars. What are responsibilities of AIA staff and CES providers?

The situation should end before it becomes a problem, and the architect’s name should be deleted from the course attendance list. If the scenario continues unaddressed, this could become a serious problem. At the very least, this is a breach of ethics. The State of Texas has already stated that if an architect is caught falsifying his or her continuing education records, it will lead to the immediate forfeiture of his or her license. Should the states begin to find serious fault in the AIA Continuing Education Systems, rest assured those states will adjust and tighten their requirements of reporting.

The AIA/CES record keepers can take two possible actions. First would be to refuse to accept the course credit for the architect. AIA/CES can simply refuse to list the event on the architect’s AIA transcript. Second, if the architect is from a firm or chapter that is a CES Provider, and the AIA/CES administrators know that the firm or chapter is aware of the improper ethical situation, they can suspend that CES Provider. Firms offering in-house programs can save themselves thousands of dollars and billable hours by monitoring diligently attendance at their qualified in-firm programs. In some firms, unethical reporting can get an employee dismissed.

AIA Bylaws and Rules of the Board on CE
The AIA Bylaws codify the continuing education requirement in section 2.111:
“Effective January 15, 1996, Architect members shall fulfill a periodic continuing education requirement to remain eligible for membership. The Board shall define the elements of the continuing education requirement in the Rules of the Board. Architect members who fail to meet the requirement on and after January 15, 1996, shall be subject to termination under section 2.08 of these Bylaws.”

The Rules of the Board make the requirements explicit, in section 2.11, as “18 learning units, which must include eight (8) hours of health, safety, and welfare education. The Institute shall determine what activities or programs qualify for learning units. One hour earned in an eligible activity or program shall equal one learning unit.”

AIA Code of Ethics
It is always good as well to revisit the AIA Code of Ethics for edification; in this case, as it might pertain to continuing professional education. (A copy of the Code is contained on the AIA Ethics Web page.) For instance, the preamble to the AIA’s Code of Ethics describes the principles upon which the Code is based and includes a brief summary of the document. It provides that:

“Members of The American Institute of Architects are dedicated to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and competence. This Code states guidelines for the conduct of Members in fulfilling those obligations.”

Within the Code of Ethics are Ethical Standards and Rules of Conduct. (Some pertinent ones are listed below.) Ethical Standards (E.S.) are goals toward which members should aspire in professional performance and behavior. Rules of Conduct (Rule) are mandatory. Violation of a Rule is grounds for disciplinary action by the Institute.

Rule 1.101 In practicing architecture, Members shall demonstrate a consistent pattern of reasonable care and competence, and shall apply the technical knowledge and skill which is ordinarily applied by architects of good standing practicing in the same locality.

E.S. 1.2 Standards of Excellence: Members should continually seek to raise the standards of aesthetic excellence, architectural education, research, training, and practice.

E.S. 4.1 Honesty and Fairness: Members should pursue their professional activities with honesty and fairness.

Rule 4.103: Members speaking in their professional capacity shall not knowingly make false statements of material fact.

Rule 4.2 Dignity and Integrity: Members should strive, through their actions, to promote the dignity and integrity of the profession, and to ensure that their representatives and employees conform their conduct to the Code.

Rule 4.201: Members shall not make misleading, deceptive, or false statements or claims about their professional qualifications, experience, or performance and shall accurately state the scope and nature of their responsibilities, in connection with work for which they are claiming credit.

A deliberate abuse of the AIA/CES by an AIA member could result in a complaint being filed with the National Ethics Council. If the Council were to find a violation of the AIA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct by the member, he or she would be subject to appropriate disciplinary sanctions described in § 5.14 of the Rules of Procedure governing the disposition of ethics cases.

To uphold the high standard recognized for AIA members, the AIA Board elected continuing education requirements as did 34 state licensing boards. Although the requirements may differ depending on the governing agency, all of these agencies recognize the need for continual learning to uphold and better the standards of the architecture profession. Subverting these requirements is held in a similar light to taking shortcuts in design.

Copyright 2006 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. Home Page