Sean, Bill, et al. My views are my own and I am not responsible for the views expressed by Joel or anyone else. As for my two posts, I don't think I have said anything rude, derogatory, or insulting to or about Jeff or his organization. Jeff raised some issues in his post this morning that caught my attention, and so I responded. If he wasn't interested in a conversation about his post, he probably should have kept it to himself.
And Bill, I don't think Jeff "should be expected to defend a membership of 160 diverse, highly competitive individuals" either, and that is kind of my point. I don't think that the SCGCA can defend them or speak for them either, for the exact reasons you mentioned. Yet it seems to me to be what the SCGCA is trying to do. And if an organization makes representations about the conduct of its members, then those representations are bound to be called into question if a member's conduct doesn't seem to live up to those representations.
________________________________________
Jeff I appreciate your response to my apparently horrific and insulting questions. I don't consider myself "hardcore anti-ASGCA" but was just trying to understand your comments this morning, and your post helped clarify at least some of it, so thanks for that.
My example was actually your example, I think. I used you and Ross because you had used you and Ross, but let's set you and Ross aside and focus on something more close to reality. To me, it doesn't seem so far fetched that an architect would exaggerate his knowledge or expertise regarding a certain type of project to get a job, or to promote himself after doing the job. You mentioned that no one had come up with any real world examples of such a thing, but I had one in mind when I asked the questions in the first place. I doubt you want me to name names, so I will just say that, to my mind, my example involves an ASGCA architect trying to pass off his work as sympathetic restoration work when it is nothing of the sort, and then continuing to try and trade on the good name of the original architect after the work is finished.
To my mind that sort of behavior really ought to fall directly under those sections of the Ethics Code prohibiting dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in securing or executing work, and prohibiting architects from promoting themselves or their services with false, exaggerated or misleading information and publicity. Yet what are the odds that the ASGCA would censor an architect who was passing off his work as restoration work when few if any reasonable and knowledgeable observers would consider it to be restoration work? Would you consider that sort of situation within the ASGCA's purview? From your response this morning, I'd have guessed no because it would be too subjective to determine, but from your most recent response I am not so sure.