+- 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 - trowelfodder - 16th November 2011
Quote: I'd agree with tmsarch that if there are Councils who have adopted this policy, there should be no problem with naming them - after all, if this is their formally-adopted policy, it must be in the public domain, as otherwise it would be pointless as no-one would know about it!
If you scroll back through you will see that BAJR is waiting on an official statement from councils to confirm their positions
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 17th November 2011
Still waiting ... may have to chase up.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - bunnyhugger - 17th November 2011
BAJR (Hosty) did you contact a number of Councils? I for one would be very interested to see if any Councils do actually require RO status for carrying out work in their patch. I would like to know how this works in practice as it is my experience that the IFA are very guarded about letting people know who is in and out.
One unit in my patch was removed from the IFA and we had no way of knowing until the IFA handbook came out a year later. Rumours are that they are now back in but we will not know for sure until next years handbook. Have tried contacting them (the IFA) but they state that they cannot confirm or deny it.
Even if it was desirable to restrict archaeological work to ROs there would need to be considerable changes to the IFA to introduce some form of reporting system so that Curatorial services knew who was and wasn’t a member.
We maintain a list of the nearest IFA ROs to supply to people, again it is only householders who really ever ask for it, simply because the IFA list is very awkward to navigate but do not restrict work to just ROs.
How would a company start out if everyone did?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - kevin wooldridge - 17th November 2011
bunnyhugger Wrote:Even if it was desirable to restrict archaeological work to ROs there would need to be considerable changes to the IFA to introduce some form of reporting system so that Curatorial services knew who was and wasn’t a member.
er....why not just look at the IfA web site for its list of RAOs. Doesn't seem to be a big secret to me. I was there about 30 seconds back just to check it still existed from when I last looked (yesterday)....
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Marcus Brody - 17th November 2011
kevin wooldridge Wrote:er....why not just look at the IfA web site for its list of RAOs. Doesn't seem to be a big secret to me. I was there about 30 seconds back just to check it still existed from when I last looked (yesterday)....
I don't think bunnyhugger was saying that the list itself was difficult to find, simply that it was difficult to use. For example, if I wanted to find a contractor to undertake work close to Perth, I'd naturally assume that selecting the box marked 'Scotland' and hitting search would give me a list of contractors based in Scotland. However, on the first page of results, only one of the contractors listed is actually based in Scotland, and it's the same on other pages - contractors based as far away as Bristol being included in the results. Presumably this is because all these contractors have indicated that they'd be prepared to undertake work anywhere in Britain, and there's nothing wrong with that, but for the person who's building a small extension on their house and needs to find an archaeological contractor, it's not as helpful as it could be. While a list maintained by a local authority may also contain contractors from far afield, simply because they've asked to be included on it, it's likely to be more geographically-focused, and so more likely to be helpful to the first-time small-scale developer.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - RedEarth - 17th November 2011
Marcus Brody Wrote:I don't think bunnyhugger was saying that the list itself was difficult to find, simply that it was difficult to use. For example, if I wanted to find a contractor to undertake work close to Perth, I'd naturally assume that selecting the box marked 'Scotland' and hitting search would give me a list of contractors based in Scotland. However, on the first page of results, only one of the contractors listed is actually based in Scotland, and it's the same on other pages - contractors based as far away as Bristol being included in the results. Presumably this is because all these contractors have indicated that they'd be prepared to undertake work anywhere in Britain, and there's nothing wrong with that, but for the person who's building a small extension on their house and needs to find an archaeological contractor, it's not as helpful as it could be. While a list maintained by a local authority may also contain contractors from far afield, simply because they've asked to be included on it, it's likely to be more geographically-focused, and so more likely to be helpful to the first-time small-scale developer.
See my comment on this very issue on about page 1 of this discussion. The 'find an RAO' function on the IfA website is basically useless, or at best very confusing. BAJRs own version (based on Google maps I assume, I haven't look at it recently) is far better as you can actually search regionally in far more detail. At present if I were a confused developer trying to find an archaeologist and I used the IfA's site (as might be reccommended by the local authority) I would be even more confused. Is the IfA going to sort out this sort of frankly quite basic problem?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - kevin wooldridge - 17th November 2011
But to be fair (to me!!) that wasn't what you wrote.
You wrote 'Even if it was desirable to restrict archaeological work to ROs there would need to be considerable changes to the IFA to introduce some form of reporting system so that Curatorial services knew who was and wasn’t a member' My reply showed it is easy to see who a member is, just by looking at the IfA web site.
I accept the point though regarding where RAOs might be willing to work...but I think its a little like London cabs, until you ask you can't be certain if any of them are willing to go south of the river...even the ones right on your doorstep might turn down a job for a small householder if they couldn't cover their costs...
IFA RO only as approved contractors - RedEarth - 17th November 2011
kevin wooldridge Wrote:I accept the point though regarding where RAOs might be willing to work...but I think its a little like London cabs, until you ask you can't be certain if any of them are willing to go south of the river...even the ones right on your doorstep might turn down a job for a small householder if they couldn't cover their costs...
It's not a particularly good comparison though. At present the situation is more like looking for a cab to get you to, say round Perth, and calling a cab company in Cardiff or London. You simply wouldn't do it because it would obviously not make financial sense in most cases, and you certainly wouldn't sift a great long list of 'registered' cab drivers till you found one that sounded like a good option. You'd go to a local directory. Why can't the IfA's site have an option to search for where ROs are based rather than where they are willing to work (or does it already have this?)
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Martin Locock - 17th November 2011
From the Ifa members newsletter today:
"In order to apply for RO status, the organisation must have a MIfA-grade Responsible Post-holder in post. Registered Organisations are strictly bound to the IfA Code of conduct and other by-laws, they must work in accordance with defined policies and procedures, and comply with current best practice. One of the scheme’s aims is to help organisations to improve over time and even where they meet the standard of registration, most are registered with recommendations for improvement and are monitored in these areas regularly.
In an ideal world the Institute would like to see all practicing archaeological organisations register with the scheme. This would ensure adherence to IfA standards across the UK within a regulated and peer reviewed system. We believe that as the number of registered organisations increases, the industry will gain greater powers for improving working conditions for all within the heritage sector and we can move towards imposing barriers to entry into the profession. For the past ten years the Institute has been working with curators and colleagues in ALGAO to encourage them to move away from recommending local lists, and instead to recommend that work arising from the planning process is undertaken by Registered Organisations."
So the current issue fo LAs is this point of recommended lists, not a restriction on who can do work.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Dinosaur - 17th November 2011
GnomeKing Wrote:Regular Inspections....:face-thinks:
Weekly, on the last 3 I've done, or for smaller jobs on Guardianship sites they've usually got someone lurking full-time - why don't they just do the work themselves if they're being employed to be there anyway? (taking the wider taxpayer viewpoint.....) How many people does it take to screw a sign to a wall? Well 7, the last time I monitored one for them! (and the wall in question was clearly labelled 'Modern wall' in their guidebook)