Two Architects Expelled for Bidding on the Queen Anne School

The council of the Washington Chapter of Architects yesterday took decisive action in reference to the conduct of two of its members in having submitted bids for the Queen Anne school building. A meeting was held in the office of C. C. Evers, in the New York building, and consideration had on complaints made against two members who had submitted plans in competition for the school building. On the statement of facts both were expelled for unprofessional conduct. The grounds of this action are that one of the two men took part in the meeting at which suggestions had been drawn for the guidance of the board of education, and had even made certain recommendations, while the other, after the resolution had been adopted, was furnished with a copy and assented to the provisions in every particular.

The resignations claimed to have been sent to the chapter were not received in due form, nor were they received until after the plans had been submitted. Consequently they were not accepted. The action of the council will be sent to the secretary of the American Institute, at Providence, R. I.

In addition to disciplining the two members, the council also expressed its disapproval of the action of the board of education in allowing changes to be made in the plans after they had been filed with the secretary. The following statement, signed by George W. Ballard, of Tacoma, president, and Charles W. Saunders, of this city, secretary, was prepared for publication in the Post-Intelligencer:

"To the Editor: In your last Monday's issue you published an article concerning the new Queen Anne school, in which the Washington State Chapter of the American Institute of Architects was referred to. The Washington State Chapter regrets to find its name brought in in connection with this matter, and denies the statement made as to there being any 'three-cornered fight' in which it was a participant. The name of the chapter has been mentioned. It seems timely that an explanation of its position towards the competition should be made. The board of education instructed its secretary to issue invitations to the architects of this city, a large majority of whom are members of the chapter. The terms of the invitation appeared so vague and indefinite and so absolutely one-sided that a meeting of the chapter was called to consider the subject, and a paper of suggestions was drawn up and submitted to the board of education through a committee appointed for the purpose.

"The suggestions had in view placing all architects on an equal footing by asking for more definite instructions regarding arrangement, size of rooms, heating, ventilating, etc.; the appointment of an experienced judge, who might assist the board in its decision, and the adoption of the 'secret system,' by which the names of the authors of the plans should remain unknown to the judges until the award had been given, thus doing away with any possibility of favoritism and unfairness.

"By adopting these resolutions the board would have obviated all the objectionable comment and criticism which have necessarily developed through the award of the competition under its original invitation. The school board had plenty of time to act upon the suggestions, as a reference to dates will show.

"In offering the suggestions the Washington State Chapter was merely carrying out one of the objects for which its members are associated. It is in no way antagonistic to public interests, but on the contrary it seeks to offer such suggestions that, as in matter of competition, the best ideas may be brought out on the fairest basis and that judgment may be given by impartial men in the same profession, they being the only competent judges of an architectural drawing in all its phases.

"The chapter regrets that any of its members, or, indeed, any architect, should have submitted plans upon conditions so unfair both to the competitors and to the true interests of the general public."

It is understood that the two members referred to are William H. Willcox and A. B. Chamberlin, although the officers of the chapter refuse to reveal their names.

As to the plans having been opened to the public before the contract was awarded, School Director King said yesterday: "I do not see what possible objection any architect could have to allowing the public to see his plans when they were placed on file with the secretary of the board. They were then public property, to all intents and purposes.

"What I object to is the way the firm of Skillings & Corner was allowed the privilege of altering the plans submitted so as to suit the requirements of the people of Queen Anne hill, while no other bidders were allowed the same privilege. I feel that it is a great injustice to all the other architects who submitted plans and specifications in good faith not to have given them an equal chance with the successful firm. I have nothing to say particularly against the architects, but I do not think the other firms were given a fair show."

J. R. MacDougall indignantly denied having allowed Skillings & Corner the privilege of changing their plans so as to meet any requirements. He said: "We were suited with the plans submitted by this firm, and concluded to report in its favor. The main work of the plans is satisfactory, and of course we reserve the right to make any alterations we think necessary, and to this Skillings & Corner agree. The roof is to be raised and other changes made to suit the people on the hill, who certainly ought to have something to say about the matter. We are trying to treat them and all concerned in a fair and upright manner. Any unprejudiced architect will say that we have picked the very best plan submitted. The whole transaction was regular, and the criticisms made by the unsuccessful architects are not in good taste or founded on facts."

The terms of the contract state that the successful firm of architects shall receive in return for furnishing plans and specifications 5 per cent of the gross cost of the building.