Council contractors list and the IFA

[troll]

Bit of a double-edged sword this one. On the one hand, we desperately need a system where competent practitioners can be differentiated from the incompetent. Sadly, contractors lists can be a bit of a joke.
It has to be said that Membership of a professional body in no way guarantees competence and professionalism.
It also has to be said that competition "laws" can hobble curators. There have been cases of clearly incompetent individuals/organisations who remain on contractors lists simply because the curator feels that by removing them-they would find themselves on the unpleasant end of litigation.

If a curator relied upon the judgement of a professional institute/body- surely the curator would be simply passing the buck and not recognising where real responsibility lays.After all, the curator is the only player in the game here who is ultimately answerable to local government within the flimsy terms of planning guidence. Contraventions committed by members of the contractors lists rarely result in "accounting" events. Even then, that will only happen if an individual/organisation is a Member of a professional institute or body.

Lets not forget, archaeological contractors are only required to do the "minimum", are not required to sign up to voluntary standards, nor are they required to voluntarily join professional institutes or bodies. Bit of a joke really. Just how is a curator supposed to fulfill his "legal" obligations to local government within this largely, minimalist and voluntary free for all?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[peteraf]

One of the difficulties as I see it is that there is no Professional body for Archaeology. IFA were and still maybe working toward that end. I suppose one way forward would be to use s106 agreements more to outline provisions relating to the Archaeology. I could go on a rant here over how we are losing the initiative a lot of it down to too much infighting.

[kevin wooldridge]

There is a small summary of how European Competition law applies (or doesn't apply) to public service undertakings available on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Co...regulation

It seems (at least to my rather secretive and anarchistic reading) that section 86(2)of the European Treaty could be used by local authorities to justify limiting competition on the grounds of a wider or greater public interest.

If only we had an umbrella organisation in archaeology that could inform archaeologists about things like this....

With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

[drpeterwardle]

PeterAF said:
"They could put it up as policy but it would fall because it is not lawful"

I am not sure you are right, Peter, about this. I think it hangs on what PPG 16 says (which is not law) and thus a local plan could have a policy or a statement clarifying what they mean by suitablely qualified. I think the issue in law would be at an enforcement prosecution would employing a good organisation who is not a RAO do building recording would the defence of de minimus hold up.

The judge would have to rely on an expert witness to say if the work was up to standard or not. If the work was upto standard the prosecution must fall because the intent of the policy had been followed.

A unilateral obligation could be used in this way and indeed I have used a S106 to achieve a similar thing.

Peter Wardle
(I will continue this tomorrow I have to go to an open day today)

[peteraf]

The point that I am making Peter is that they could not specify that the person has to be a member of the IFA or any other organisation. They could however specify a recognised minimum qualification. But even that could cause problems with relevant experience. It?s so much simpler with medicine, accountancy or law. You have to be a member of the right organisation and have the right qualifications and have the time in to do the job. With the EU bit you have the problem of transferable qualifications in conflict with free movement of labour. I think that there is a bit on that on the official EU law web site. and I do like s106

[drpeterwardle]

Yes S106s are good but hated by curators - lawyers are involved - much can be achieved with them however.

Peter

[peteraf]

Yes I think some curators treat lawyers the same way hobbits see Gandalf It?s always good to see them because they tell interesting stories but you just know that there is going to be trouble. And it?s going to be in the small print.

[beamo]

Afarensis wrote:

'As a curator I would agree that the critical phrase here is "must be led by a member of the IFA or IHBC or EQUIVILANT'

We do not require that a company be led by a full member of the IFA (MIFA) just that the overall manager of the work (Project Manager) be of equivalent expertise, i.e. could be a MIFA if they wanted but chooses not to.'

I'm not at all sure about how this would work. Take the case of a non-MIFA applying to carry out the work and then being assessed by the curator as not being of 'equivalent' expertise and therefore not being allowed to continue.

The IFA criteria for MIFA status are clearly published and any application is assessed by the Validation Committee. There is also a Membership Appeals Committee that deals with cases where applicants feel that their case has not been properly dealt with.

What would be the curator's criteria for being of MIFA 'equivalent' expertise? Who actually assesses this? What is the appeal produre and who assesses any appeal?

The whole thing looks like a way of asking for everyone to be MIFA but with an 'equivalent' status thrown in to keep the anti-competition lawyers happy.


Beamo

[BAJR Host]

I go back to the old... can you or can you not do what you say you can. And that is up to the Curator to decide...

"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli

[peteraf]

Could you not just take the the general requirements for a MIFA as the base? Something like must have degree plus 3 years relevant experience at the right level or 5 years without degree?