Summary: AIA member Shane M. Rollison, AIA, has been censured by the National Ethics Council (“Council”) for violating Rule 4.201 and Rule 5.301 of the Institute’s 2004 Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (“Code of Ethics”).

Rule 4.201 states:
“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.”

Rule 5.301 states:
“Members shall recognize and respect the professional contributions of their employees, employers, professional colleagues, and business associates.”

Mr. Rollison and the Complainant were both architects employed by the same firm while that firm provided architectural services for a county office building. The Complainant was the project manager/designer for the project, and Mr. Rollison was the project’s construction administrator. The Complainant designed a terrazzo floor pattern for the project. The Complainant later left to join another firm.

Upon completion of the project, the terrazzo subcontractor submitted the terrazzo work to the National Terrazzo and Mosaic Association for an award. The association recognized the work with an honor award and subsequently displayed it in an advertisement in Architectural Record. The advertisement listed Mr. Rollison as the “designer/artist,” which was untrue. The subcontractor had provided the incorrect design credit on the award submittal form after the architecture firm did not respond to the subcontractor’s request for information about the project. After seeing the advertisement, the Complainant requested Mr. Rollison to correct the improper credit, but Mr. Rollison refused and never took any steps to do so.

In addition, the firm received an award plaque that contained the same incorrect credit, and the plaque was displayed in the firm’s offices. Mr. Rollison was aware that the plaque was on display and that it credited him for the Complainant’s work. The plaque remained on display at least 50 days after the Complainant requested Mr. Rollison to correct the credit in the award. After the ethics complaint was filed, another employee of the firm returned the plaque for correction, and the Complainant subsequently received a corrected plaque.

The National Ethics Council ruled that Mr. Rollison violated Rule 4.201 of the Code of Ethics by displaying the plaque with the erroneous attribution of credit in his firm’s offices. The Council also ruled that Mr. Rollison failed to recognize the Complainant’s professional contributions in violation of Rule 5.301 by displaying the plaque and by taking no action to correct the attribution of credit even when requested by the Complainant to do so. The Council imposed the penalty of censure on Mr. Rollison.