Hello fellow archinecters. Many of you probably heard about LA architect Stuart Magruder's run-in with the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Here's the short story: as an appointed member of the LAUSD Bond Oversight Committee, architect Magruder opposed the LAUSD's plan to spend over $1 Billion to provide iPads for students.
He wouldn't 'hush up' and so he wasn't re-appointed to the BOC (this was eventually overturned due to public backlash).
For those of you who are unfamiliar with BOC's - a Bond Oversight Committee is an independent oversight body charged with 'overseeing' the expenditures of public funds (in this case a facilities bond for LAUSD).
This is a good case study in the ethical responsibility of architects.
I recently had Stuart on my show to talk about it. You can catch the full interview here:
The laudable action of voting against unwise, massive public expenditures can be done by anyone sitting on a board, I'd presume. In this case, it appears that he was appointed as a representative of the AIA (a stakeholder in the bond committee).
So, though he was on the board as an architect-member, he was doing what any concerned citizen would do, architect or not.
Do architects have a moral or ethical obligation (beyond statutory) to act in the best interest of society at large, or only our clients?
We have a moral and ethical obligation as humans and citizens that naturally apply to our professions. If you need some sort of professional code of conduct in order to figure out how to act, you shouldn't be in any profession. That includes architecture.
Do architects have a moral or ethical obligation (beyond statutory) to act in the best interest of society at large, or only our clients
yes, architects do or should be obligated toact in the best interest of society at large. i think delegating or limiting architecture to mainly to service to specific clients and only perform technical aspect of designing buildings and its periphery is the reason our role as architects is not very effective and inadequate for today's world. it locks us into a compartment of a specialty which is increasingly automated.
as professionals who are trained in conceptualizing organizational structures and creative and critical problem solving, it should be our effort to expand our areas of effectiveness, expertise and role in the society and soft problems concerning non technical areas.
I also think it is wasteful to spend 1 billion dollars on i-pads alone. i can also see some apple contract lobby thing going in here as well.
Jul 28, 14 11:22 pm ·
·
As far as morals and ethical obligations, we are talking about values. Everyone has their own personal values and those we subscribe to. After all it is the values that defines the ethics and obligations.
The values that are popular supported are the ones that are imposed in our society but these values changes over time with the body of its constituents.
When it comes to serving the best interest of society at large or only to our client. I don't know there is a straight and consistent answer to this.
My personal take is that it is a bit of both. There is a basic factor that the design and construction of buildings including homes is a public act with implications on the neighborhood and the property values of neighboring properties where there is an impact which makes the neighborhood of properties as stakeholders. To extent we have a responsibility to them in that we don't devalue their property by producing trash and need to consider them. It is those many situations where we have to balance the clients needs and the public. As architects, building designers, etc. we do have a more dominant responsibility to the client because we are commissioned by the client and paid by the client. However, we have impact on others so in that respect we must respect them and not cause unnecessary hrm to their property including property value, views (which effects real estate value), and other. When serving a public office, you take a public oath to serve the interest of the public which means as public officials, you have a duty and obligation to the public. Therefore, your role of responsibility in that public office position defines your interest will be in the needs of the public not the individual. Therefore the principle value of the needs of the people generally outweigh the needs of the individual unless by rule of law says otherwise in the situation.
Since the public will have competing viewpoints on the matter, I would have to say that it isn't as simple. Because, you will end up pleasing only some but not all of the public.
As far as the conduct of Stuart, if he was already in a public committe position, I would have to argue was inappropriate of a public office position in a school district as far flipping the 'bird'. Rememeber that we are talking about a general moral and ethical obligation to represent ourselves with our children in mind to show a positive role model after all. Since he was part of a committee that is typically in closed door sessions... it wasn't such a big deal except the case that it was LAUSD and the shameless L.A. news media with nothing else better to do.
When you serve public, you have a higher standard of behavior conduct to adhere to.
As a citizen going to a board meeting, I can flip the bird if really wanted to but it doesn't really show a professional decorum.
A billion dollars for iPads.......yikes what a waste. Thank you Mr. Magruder for making a stand.
Jul 29, 14 1:14 pm ·
·
As far as investing a billion dollars on iPads, I agree. Lets not forget all the theft of the iPads. In the 1980s, when we had Apple II computers, theft was a concern but having the school buy a billion dollars worth of iPads for what... how is the school teachers going to manage to keep the items from being stolen BY THE STUDENTS. If we are talking middle and high school, you better bet your butts the gangs in L.A. would steal them to sell and make a quick buck on. The iPads are portable and easily consealed. The desktop towers, however, if attempted theft were done would have higher probability of detection. What was the idea behind it? Not sure. Should L.A. citizens be paying for buying every student in the school district's schools a personal computer? Isn't this the PARENT'S responsibility. I had the 16-bit TI-99/4A computers, and the Commodore 64 and access to the Commodore 128 computer as well as Plus/4 and then some.
Architect sacked after giving the 'bird' to Los Angeles School District
Hello fellow archinecters. Many of you probably heard about LA architect Stuart Magruder's run-in with the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Here's the short story: as an appointed member of the LAUSD Bond Oversight Committee, architect Magruder opposed the LAUSD's plan to spend over $1 Billion to provide iPads for students.
He wouldn't 'hush up' and so he wasn't re-appointed to the BOC (this was eventually overturned due to public backlash).
For those of you who are unfamiliar with BOC's - a Bond Oversight Committee is an independent oversight body charged with 'overseeing' the expenditures of public funds (in this case a facilities bond for LAUSD).
This is a good case study in the ethical responsibility of architects.
I recently had Stuart on my show to talk about it. You can catch the full interview here:
http://www.businessofarchitecture.com/business-of-architecture-podcast/architect-speaks-out-stuart-magruder/
Stuart gives several suggestions for 'getting involved' and using design and problem solving skills to contribute to society.
What do you think?
Do architects have a moral or ethical obligation (beyond statutory) to act in the best interest of society at large, or only our clients?
I knew I liked Stuart the moment I met him.
The laudable action of voting against unwise, massive public expenditures can be done by anyone sitting on a board, I'd presume. In this case, it appears that he was appointed as a representative of the AIA (a stakeholder in the bond committee).
So, though he was on the board as an architect-member, he was doing what any concerned citizen would do, architect or not.
Do architects have a moral or ethical obligation (beyond statutory) to act in the best interest of society at large, or only our clients?
We have a moral and ethical obligation as humans and citizens that naturally apply to our professions. If you need some sort of professional code of conduct in order to figure out how to act, you shouldn't be in any profession. That includes architecture.
Do architects have a moral or ethical obligation (beyond statutory) to act in the best interest of society at large, or only our clients
yes, architects do or should be obligated to act in the best interest of society at large. i think delegating or limiting architecture to mainly to service to specific clients and only perform technical aspect of designing buildings and its periphery is the reason our role as architects is not very effective and inadequate for today's world. it locks us into a compartment of a specialty which is increasingly automated.
as professionals who are trained in conceptualizing organizational structures and creative and critical problem solving, it should be our effort to expand our areas of effectiveness, expertise and role in the society and soft problems concerning non technical areas.
I also think it is wasteful to spend 1 billion dollars on i-pads alone. i can also see some apple contract lobby thing going in here as well.
As far as morals and ethical obligations, we are talking about values. Everyone has their own personal values and those we subscribe to. After all it is the values that defines the ethics and obligations.
The values that are popular supported are the ones that are imposed in our society but these values changes over time with the body of its constituents.
When it comes to serving the best interest of society at large or only to our client. I don't know there is a straight and consistent answer to this.
My personal take is that it is a bit of both. There is a basic factor that the design and construction of buildings including homes is a public act with implications on the neighborhood and the property values of neighboring properties where there is an impact which makes the neighborhood of properties as stakeholders. To extent we have a responsibility to them in that we don't devalue their property by producing trash and need to consider them. It is those many situations where we have to balance the clients needs and the public. As architects, building designers, etc. we do have a more dominant responsibility to the client because we are commissioned by the client and paid by the client. However, we have impact on others so in that respect we must respect them and not cause unnecessary hrm to their property including property value, views (which effects real estate value), and other. When serving a public office, you take a public oath to serve the interest of the public which means as public officials, you have a duty and obligation to the public. Therefore, your role of responsibility in that public office position defines your interest will be in the needs of the public not the individual. Therefore the principle value of the needs of the people generally outweigh the needs of the individual unless by rule of law says otherwise in the situation.
Since the public will have competing viewpoints on the matter, I would have to say that it isn't as simple. Because, you will end up pleasing only some but not all of the public.
As far as the conduct of Stuart, if he was already in a public committe position, I would have to argue was inappropriate of a public office position in a school district as far flipping the 'bird'. Rememeber that we are talking about a general moral and ethical obligation to represent ourselves with our children in mind to show a positive role model after all. Since he was part of a committee that is typically in closed door sessions... it wasn't such a big deal except the case that it was LAUSD and the shameless L.A. news media with nothing else better to do.
When you serve public, you have a higher standard of behavior conduct to adhere to.
As a citizen going to a board meeting, I can flip the bird if really wanted to but it doesn't really show a professional decorum.
PS: Hello Enoch.
Im sorry...IPads for school kids? Get out of here.
A billion dollars for iPads.......yikes what a waste. Thank you Mr. Magruder for making a stand.
As far as investing a billion dollars on iPads, I agree. Lets not forget all the theft of the iPads. In the 1980s, when we had Apple II computers, theft was a concern but having the school buy a billion dollars worth of iPads for what... how is the school teachers going to manage to keep the items from being stolen BY THE STUDENTS. If we are talking middle and high school, you better bet your butts the gangs in L.A. would steal them to sell and make a quick buck on. The iPads are portable and easily consealed. The desktop towers, however, if attempted theft were done would have higher probability of detection. What was the idea behind it? Not sure. Should L.A. citizens be paying for buying every student in the school district's schools a personal computer? Isn't this the PARENT'S responsibility. I had the 16-bit TI-99/4A computers, and the Commodore 64 and access to the Commodore 128 computer as well as Plus/4 and then some.
Thanks all for your input. I know I can always count on 'archinectors' for some classic wit (GraduatedLicensure).
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.