+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: IFA RO only as approved contractors (/showthread.php?tid=4146)
IFA RO only as approved contractors - GnomeKing - 13th November 2011
Track Record...Peer Review....Reputation...Results
Missed a bit in this thread, but i am still stuck here @ : Lack of effective Action taken against RO's who have manifestly IFA breached code of conduct/Produced incredibly shoddy work.
Until this issue is resolved the IFA is an Accreditation Farce....(though i still think it has an important role to play in Lobbying, and i will fight hard to keep the Code of Conduct).
These are the steps I am taking:
1) i may well bring a formal complaint against a big RO for a demonstrably misleading and S*it piece of work
2)I may well copy BAJRhost into the information
3)I am likely to encourage the client who suffered from this to peruse a complaint, or to let me represent their views on this matter.
3)I will certainly be informing all interested members of the public (interested passers-by, amateur groups, metal detectorists etc.) about this issue, and encouraging them to take it up with their councils.
I am drifting away from the IFA, despite previous support....too slow...too ineffective...stinks of self interest.
I am not alone.
a polite warning : SORT OUT YOUR EXISTING RO'S BEFORE YOU EVEN DARE TRY TO IMPOSE THIS NONSENSE !!!
For everybody else who wants to seen improvements in the profession :
1) start by joining unions (standards CAN be dealt with in union context, and even with reference to IFA code of conduct),
2) then form work-bassed communities where you can make direct complaints about employers/companies.
3)Get some shoddy people practices closed down, and make space for those many others who will do a better job of it!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Wax - 13th November 2011
GnomeKing Wrote:a polite warning : SORT OUT YOUR EXISTING RO'S BEFORE YOU EVEN DARE TRY TO IMPOSE THIS NONSENSE !!!Here here !!!!!!!! Nicely put GK straight to the heart of the issue:face-approve:
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Dinosaur - 13th November 2011
Beat me to it - all I can do is concur wholeheartedly :face-approve:
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Martin Locock - 13th November 2011
I hope Gnome King does raise a complaint. If you see what you think is poor professional practice and take no action then you are also guilty.
I would note, however, that all these units which aren't ROs are almost impossible to bring to account. Logically we should be encouraging all to become ROs because at least then they can be dealt with.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - kevin wooldridge - 13th November 2011
Martin Locock Wrote:I would note, however, that all these units which aren't ROs are almost impossible to bring to account. Logically we should be encouraging all to become ROs because at least then they can be dealt with.
It's actually impossible under the IfA rules to bring any 'oganisation. to account as the IfA does not have Corporate members. All the IfA can do is to take action against the individual who the RAO put forward as their 'responsible person'. Of course that could result in the organisation being suspended from RAO membership, but any sanction would have to be against the individual(s) involved.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Martin Locock - 13th November 2011
True. But if the postholder were ejected from the IfA for serious breach of professional standards, the RO would lose its RO status.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - kevin wooldridge - 14th November 2011
Martin Locock Wrote:True. But if the postholder were ejected from the IfA for serious breach of professional standards, the RO would lose its RO status.
Not necessarily...the RAO could just nominate another postholder...(although I admit if I were on IfA disciplinary committee I might get a little concerned at the idea that postholders could be expendable if the 'good name' of the organisation was at stake).
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Kel - 14th November 2011
Quote:I would note, however, that all these units which aren't ROs are almost impossible to bring to account. Logically we should be encouraging all to become ROs because at least then they can be dealt with.But the ones most likely to need dealing with, are the ones least likely to volunteer to become ROs.
Encouragement will never work. The only ones which will register are the ones which are confident that they'll be able to meet the registration requirements.
Mandatory registration would be the only way to make this work.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Dinosaur - 14th November 2011
Kel Wrote:But the ones most likely to need dealing with, are the ones least likely to volunteer to become ROs.
Encouragement will never work. The only ones which will register are the ones which are confident that they'll be able to meet the registration requirements.
Mandatory registration would be the only way to make this work.
What about the organisations that would easily 'be able to meet the registration requirements' but have no interest in doing so, BAJR for instance?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 14th November 2011
Yup.... I don't want to be an RO... and the curatorial people are happy with my work.
I am confident but curious.
pps have asked one of the Curatorial organisations to clarify there seeming RO only stance