BOARD OF EXAMINERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 40, 17 February 1939, Page 15

BOARD OF EXAMINERS

ARCHITECTURAL PAPERS

CONFERENCE DISCUSSION

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

DUNEDIN, February 16.

The opinion that the institute at its last conference had passed a motion the implication and ramifications of which it had not fully considered was expressed by Canterbury members at the annual conference of the New Zealand Institute of Architects this morning, when the Canterbury branch introduced a remit seeking to alter the resolution of last year.

That resolution, dealt with the setting up of a board of examiners on architectural papers, and suggested that one of its members should be an overseas educationist. The proposal was endorsed by the executive, and was sent forward to the Senate of the University of New Zealand, which had agreed to the proposal.

A Canterbury remit, which was introduced by Mr. G. D. Griffiths, was as follows: "That the institute take steps to see that all examination papers for institute examinations be set and marked by a full-time lecturer in conjunction with a practising architect, and that such practising architect be nominated from any part of the Dominion by the council of the institute."

• "Canterbury was under the impression that the board of examiners was to be set up purely to check the syllabus and nominate examiners," Mr. Griffiths said, "and it came* as a great surprise to us when we learnt that it was to approve of papers set for examinations, and to approve of results. We did not believe that the resolution adopted at the last conference gave the board powers to set and mark examination papers, and we feel that a 'slinter' has been worked. The composition of the board, too, means that the institute, with a legal representation of only two, can be outvoted by the School of Architecture, which would have the greatest voting power. If the institute has allowed this to go through there is very little that can be done about it, but our feeling is that members of. the conference did not foresee the result."

The remit was seconded by Mr. W. Watts Rule.

HISTORY OF CASE

Mr. F. E. Greenish (Wellington) outlined the proceedings which led up to the passing of the motion, stating that at the last annual meeting no mention had been made of a board of examiners in the report of the committee of architectural education. It had come up later, and had been discussed, only two delegates voting against the proposal. The proposal had been sent forward to the University Senate, and now they had a verbal report that it had been approved.

"That leaves us in a peculiar position," Mr. Greenish said, "because if the senate has approved of it we cannot turn round and alter it. Another thing is what will be done about expenditure on an overseas educationist? I do not think the institute could pay the substantial fee he would have to receive, and I presume the senate will suggest that the institute should bear some of the cost."

He moved the following amendment: "That in view of the verbal report that the Senate of the University of New Zealand has agreed to a proposal for a board of examiners, no action can be taken."

The amendment was seconded by Mr. F. H. Forge (Poverty Bay) and carried.