List of objective and subjective objections to the actions of officials of the Czech Chamber of Architects

Enumeration of objective objections to specific actions of the ČKA, actions in which the ČKA and its officials acted in violation of internal regulations, in violation of the law, or interpreted them arbitrarily.

Subjective comments

1. The ČKA permanently revoked the authorization of an architect in his absence by a ruling of the Disciplinary Court dated February 28, 2008. In the justification of the ruling, it cites legally irrelevant facts and fails to take into account the substantive arguments of the convicted party.
I believe that sufficient evidence for the irrelevant justification of the ruling is that the ruling was subsequently annulled and the case closed without any conditions for the injured party.

2. The ČKA did not inform, according to the law and its own internal regulations, about the ruling on the permanent revocation of authorization to the person from whom the authorization was revoked. The ČKA did not allow for defense and questioning of this ruling. It allowed the ruling to become legally valid, informed building authorities, and published this information on its website. After the intervention of the injured party's legal representatives, after the reinstatement of the appeal deadline, and after the annulment of the ruling, the ČKA did not remedy its mistake in any way.
I consider this to be arbitrary and irresponsible enforcement of the law based on the personal feelings of ČKA officials.

3. By another ruling of the Disciplinary Court dated June 11, 2007, the ČKA suspended the architect's authorization for a duration of one year, from June 11, 2007, to June 11, 2008. However, this ruling was applied for more than a year later by publishing it in the lists of authorized architects on its website.
Irresponsible ČKA officials may see this as a trivial matter, but for the practicing architect, it is a fundamental complication.

I am convinced that these three examples of ČKA's functioning would be sufficient in a society with a normally functioning legal system for the ČKA to cease to exist, but I will continue with the enumeration of objections.

Enumeration of objective objections when the ČKA does not fulfill the function of managing the professional environment and when it exceeds its powers

1. The ČKA does not guarantee equal work opportunities for all authorized architects throughout the territory of the Czech Republic that it manages. It does not address the situation when a group of local architects with personal interests decides, in cooperation with the state administration, to prevent another architect from entering their "territory."
I believe this constitutes corrupt behavior or at least a conflict of interest when the building authority in Vrchlabí issues a negative opinion on the zoning decision based on the intervention of the Architects’ Association and when an architect signed this intervention as a state administration employee. It is true that the ČKA condemned this behavior in writing, but no remedy was made. The architect whose architecture was officially banned in the region has been and still is forced to work anonymously, without the ability to officially authorize his work. (this concerns the Snowboard Lodge in Herlíkovice, a project positively received internationally). Gentlemen officials, writing a self-serving text is not a solution, it is mockery! What is the purpose of authorization then? A completely relevant response to this is not to pay ČKA membership fees!

2. The ČKA, through its Professional and Ethical Code, does not address a situation where one architectural firm, whose one member is a ČKA official at the time, takes over a project from another architect without reimbursing the costs associated with the preparation of the winning competition documentation and documentation for the zoning procedure.
This is an old and time-barred case, but I cite it as one of the examples where I see no reason for the existence of the Professional and Ethical Code or the chamber itself.

3. The ČKA does not respond or communicate.
I am certainly not the only one to whom the chamber has not responded for a year to an open letter criticizing its activities. Although various ČKA officials were officially tasked with responding during board meetings, the response has not yet arrived. I no longer care for it, and this enumeration of objections is also my last communication to the chamber and the professional environment in its current state.
I do not consider letters from individual officials, which do not address the essence of the matter and only admonish me on how to behave in civic life (a letter from the then-chairman of the ČKA Štípek), ironic and problem-marginalizing responses from officials Hradečný and Jírovec, or the threatening letter from the chairman of the ČKA Borák to be communication.

4. The duties of some ČKA employees and officials exceed the competencies of the professional self-governance.
I was surprised to see monitoring of the publishing and presentation activities of architects to whom authorization has been suspended or revoked. Primarily, however, the discussion (documented in writing in my folder) about whether an architect has the right to present as the author of a work if the project documentation was authorized by someone else, e.g., a structural engineer. I believe that the attempt to deny copyright in this discussion is unacceptable.

Subjective objections to the ČKA and the professional environment in general

1. The ČKA is unable to guarantee a fair process in architectural competitions. It does not have trust in this regard either in the professional environment or in society.
I believe that for this objection, I do not need to present a list of all the errors, doubts, and conflicts of interest that often occur during architectural competitions. From the always the same monochrome juries and results, to procedural errors in some competitions, to the situation where the chamber does not mind that an architect sits on the jury who just before was accused of corrupt practices (the jury for the public architectural competition for the design of the Library and Information Center U Přívozu – KIC). I believe it would be much better if the chamber would not interfere in architectural competitions at all and leave them to independent entities, such as architectural studios specializing in organizing competitions, which are interested in building trust with investors, architects, and society. Ambitions within the chamber create opportunities for conflicts of interest and do not create natural pressure for quality and correctness.

2. The ČKA has ambitions to control and influence the academic environment of universities.
I see no positive reason why the still-free academic environment should be degraded by ČKA regulations, as stated in the preamble of the agreement that the ČKA presents to the schools. I also see no reason why the ČKA should interfere in study programs and why its representatives should be delegated to diploma committees. A school is something different than practical work. It should remain that way. If the presented agreement was meant to be an offer for cooperation, it should have been written as such. I present my opinion, not the official opinion of the school.

I believe it is clear that the ČKA does not fulfill its function; it is not a technical, impartial, precise, and objective manager of the professional environment. On the contrary, it is full of ambition and interests, often exceeds its competencies, and often comes into conflict with what it should be caring for, coming into conflict with architecture.