Exercising my right to speak in the ARB debate
Further to Kate Macintosh's and Mark Benzie's letters (AJ 17.3.05), I feel justified in using the term 'Salisbury's apologists', as only the two aforementioned have written to the AJ in support of Ian Salisbury (on four occasions in as many weeks).
Benzie rightly says the profession decides who represents it in the ARB board election. But it is worth noting that, of the 30,399 architects registered in 2003, less than 3 per cent voted for Salisbury. I fail to see how this can be the 'most relevant measure of strength of support' that Benzie alludes to. He now turns the tables and invites readers who share my view to write in. I would add to this by encouraging the 97 per cent of architects who didn't vote for Salisbury to also write in.
Benzie goes on to again question the validity of my input in the ARB debate. I refer him to Kate Macintosh's letter in that same edition of the AJ, correctly quoting the then Department of the Environment's edict that the ARB should be a 'focused and effective body which represents the interests of both the profession and the general public'. To allay Benzie's doubts, the latter category quite clearly includes me.
David Rothmire, St Albans, Herts