| Author |
Message |
Joel McKellar, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: joelmckellar
Post Number: 38
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 - 02:22 pm: |    |
Schinnerer has recently stated in no uncertain terms that "Members of the upgraded LEED AP+ program now will face a higher standard of care for their services".
This discussion has been alive and well for awhile now regarding LEED APs, but I've never encountered any similar discussions regarding CDT, CCS, CCCA, etc. Has anyone heard of a malpractice or similar lawsuit revolving around standard of care and its relation to non-LEED accreditations and certifications?
In other professions, there is some indication that it's not the certification but the experience of the person behind it that is more important (http://www.abcworld.org/standard/). Similarly, do FCSI or FAIA designations have any impact on SoC? If not, how is that any different than a LEED AP one? |
Jonathan Miller, FCSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: jmma_specs
Post Number: 13
Registered: 04-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 04:59 pm: | |
I have worked with a few LEED APs that really needed help on the specification end for LEED.... so I am glad to hear a higher SoC is to be expected of them.
The CDT, CCS, CCCA and CCPR do more to lower liability and generally help practitioners to avoid lawsuits. There has been talk at CSI on having discussions with the A/E professional insurance carriers to see if discounts can be applied to firms having CSI certified personal in charge of their documentation.
As a member of the CSI Certification Committee (CertComm) and someone who writes exam questions I can tell you that having CSI certified people who know the construction process are much less likely to make errors in documentation.
The USGBC LEED and CSI CDT exams have undergone the BOKA (body of knowledge) ANSI Test Standard process through Prometric. This was implemented from July 1st on for LEED AP exam and last Spring for the CDT exam. By going trough the ANSI BOKA process these tests are highly defensible in a court of law to a more rigorous standard of care than before.
The CCPR, CCS and CCCA will all eventually go through the same process, meanwhile CertComm has many members who served on the CDT BOKA Task Team and are implementing many of the ANSI Test Standards as we review and update many of the exam questions every year.
Now... regarding Fellows.... As a Fellow of CSI I can state that Fellows are probably less likely to have errors simply due to the experience and recognized success. However, Fellowship is more a measure of the person than of their knowledge base as LEED AP and CSI CDT, CCS, CCCA and CCPR connote. |
Joel McKellar, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: joelmckellar
Post Number: 39
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 05:07 pm: | |
Since I posted this I've done a fair amount of research looking into case law and other sources... one of the most interesting takes, notably from the American Board of Certification ("The American Board of Certification is the nation's premier legal specialty certification organization - certifying attorneys as specialists in business bankruptcy, consumer bankruptcy and creditors' rights law."), had the following to say on the subject:
http://www.abcworld.org/standard/
"These standards for board certification can make a convenient bundle of facts for the plaintiff in a malpractice case. But these requirements in and of themselves do not create a specialty, they merely set standards for recognizing one. The ABC, like other certification boards, confers its certification as a recognition of that which the attorney has already achieved-i.e., special competence in his or her field. A certified lawyer is by definition a specialist prior to becoming certified, and will be so held by a court if subject to a malpractice action… Board certification does not make a specialist, it merely recognizes one."
Now, none of these organizations (USGBC or CSI) are equivalent to 'board' certifications for professionals that are typically legally recognized by state labor and licensing boards, so if anything they should carry less weight, but the fact remains that the 'convenient bundle of facts' issue is still in play. |
Joel McKellar, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: joelmckellar
Post Number: 40
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 05:08 pm: | |
...should have reread my original post. Referencing the same argument twice is a bit pointless! My apologies... |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 790
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 05:41 pm: | |
Jonathan:
I'm glad to hear that CSI is starting (or attempting) to work with the Professional Liability Insurance (PLI) carriers. I've mentioned this several times among CSI members as well as with my own PLI carrier.
On just about every application for PLI you will see the yes/no question, "Does your firm have an automated master specification system?" That is equivalant to a homeowner's insurance carrier asking if you have a weapon for personal protection. A "yes" answer is what they're looking for, but what they should really ask following that question is, "If yes, do you know how to use it?" Having it is one thing, knowing HOW to use it is another. A master specification in the hands of a person who doesn't know how to prepare specifications is probably just as dangerous as the homeowner, who has no training in handling a weapon, using one for personal protection.
Although a potential insured could answer "yes" to both questions stated above and still not have the basic knowledge, having certified people in their employee is verifiable and, in my opinion, provides a lower level of risk.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 896
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 01:20 pm: | |
considering that in both CSI and AIA, one can be elevated to Fellow for "service to the Institute", that elevation would imply no additional knowledge or professional qualifications -- in fact with some folks who are elevated, it means that they have an understanding boss who allows them a lot of time for professional associations. |
|
4specs.com Home Page