IFA Complaints Proceedure

[trowelfodder]

Is it just me or is the ifa complaints proceedure stacked against diggers raising concerns/making a complaint?

Obviously no specifics but how do people feel about the fact that the ifa will not offer anominity to anyone making a complaint against a unit?

Archaeology is a rather close knit community and the fallout from taking this course of action can be grave, particularly in areas with one main unit. But yet nothing is in place to allow us to pursue a complaint with the piece of mind that our job and in some sences livelyhoods are protected.

How do people feel about this? Should there be an anonamous complaints proceedure in order to improve standards and encourage the making of complaints without fear of repocusions?

Not including the bajr hotline (which has been v.helpfull) does the industry not have an obligation to take standards seriously and open an outlet for us bottom of the ladder lackies and not a closed old boys network for unit directors?

[Tile man]

The IFA Disciplinary regulations (updated sept 2006) can be found here
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...202005.pdf
Which does recognise that a complainents name may need to be witheld and the IFA may nominate a third party to investigate a complaint ( c.f. clauses 2 and 11)

[BAJR Host]

The only small prob is that ... there can be no gaurantee that the name will be with-held.. so you do have to worry a bit.... however BAJR is quite happy to be a trusted 3rd PArty to 'hold' names of those to scared to hand them over to the IFA..

We have to remember that anon complaints are worthless... but perhaps some form of protection can be offered.



Another day another WSI?

[troll]

Am still yet to formalise my complaint- will let you know how things pan out soon.The IFA have, to be fair, been very helpful so far.Some time ago, we established that at the bottom line, the Curators are ultimately responsible and I`m currently looking into ways in which the more slack/incompetent members of said species can be held accountable for either appalling standards in the field or, inadequate and somewhat "loaded" specs. In my view, if we all signed up to IFA standards (at a level we all feel comfortable with) I would make a point of ensuring the main players knew exactly who I am when formalising a complaint relating to breaches of said standards.It will be the same name that appears on the top of the headed court summons paperwork should I find myself ultimately unemployable.There are plenty of laws about designed to protect the individual (savagely eroded recently)so I`m not worried about being named.Lets get in the system-take the IFA at their word.If we all end up unemployable-the media will love it and courtroom staff would get plenty of overtime.

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

[BAJR Host]

good words troll mate...

It is best to try the IFA approach and see what happens .. if it is unsatisfacory, then it will be so from experience.

Ultimately, for the IFA to work, we all have to be in it. and ulimately, the buck stops at the Curatorial system - If we (as Development Control or County Archaeologists) fail to uphold the standards produced by the IFA, then we are to blame... that said, we are overstretched, underfunded and expected to be everywhere at once.. in many cases, we place a trust on the Units to conform to the standards as well.

If they don't, we again rely on being informed when this is not happening... so I would like to see the ability to contact the curator.. or the IFA.. as a hotline.... if you are asked not to clean the bottom of machine trenches for example (then if this is reported to the county mountie, then it can be seen to right away.. with a quick site visit... as after the event is too late.

At the end of the day we all have a responsibility .. and too often I am now hearing that archaeology often plays second fiddle to the final cost... act now... act fairly and things will change.

Another day another WSI?

[vulpes]

David. As council officers curators are available as a 'hotline' - the phone numbers are public domain or the switchboard will put you through. Any complaints I receive from any source will be taken seriously, investigated and acted upon - but as has been said repeatedly on this forum our powers are limited.

[BAJR Host]

Absolutely.... and as a small plug, you can now get the direct number via the BAJR Mobile WAP site

http://www.bajr.org/mobile

As you also so rightly say, we have limited powers, but we do have the power to enforce the adherance to the WSI and the the standards and guidance.. the HSE can deal with H&S issues and the IFA can uphold the standards it has created.

Another day another WSI?

[drpeterwardle]

This is the calmer response.

If a field team is performing below par accussing them of wrong doing is a serious matter. I do not know why everybody thinks the IFA are the people to sort this out.

In the first instance the correct person to complain to is the local planning authourity not neccessarily the curator. They have the power to investigate and do something. They will respect confidentiality. The buck does not stops at the Curatorial system - it stops with LPA.

I think that everybody should remember we do not live in a perfect world and people are not perfect.

The BAJR hotline does act in effect as an "anonamous complaints proceedure" why is more needed.

I actually see the situation in archaeology as been too over regulated with too many standards too many documents that it is impossible for any field team to conform to all of them more than 50% of the time. The fact that new guidelines standard and what ever are produced so often it is virtually impossible to keep track of what the exact situation is.

For example for a IFA desk top regulation 3.1.11 states
3.1.11 However it arises, an archaeologist should only
undertake desk-based assessment which are governed by
a written specification or project design (see Appendices
2 and 3), agreed by all relevant parties as this is the tool
against which performance, fitness for purpose and
hence achievement of standards, can be measured.

I would ask all curators on BAJR to state how many briefs that have issued and specs they have read and all the consultants to say how many they have written for an assessment? (Excepting desk top studies covered by EIA.)

Peter

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle For example for a IFA desk top regulation 3.1.11 states 3.1.11 However it arises, an archaeologist should only undertake desk-based assessment which are governed by a written specification or project design (see Appendices
2 and 3), agreed by all relevant parties as this is the tool
against which performance, fitness for purpose and
hence achievement of standards, can be measured.

I would ask all curators on BAJR to state how many briefs that have issued and specs they have read and all the consultants to say how many they have written for an assessment? (Excepting desk top studies covered by EIA.)

However, the latter part of IFA reg 3.2.5 states:

The brief/project outline or a specification may be prepared by
the applicants or their agents, but it is essential that the planning
archaeologist has agreed the proposals so that they have been
accepted as ‘fit for purpose’

..which seems a get-out for the overworked curator. I am guessing that many archaeological contractors who undertake DBA work could produce a 'generic' written DBA specification if so required. (Pointless after all in such a document being too detailed as it could by definition require as much research as the intended DBA).

My understanding is that this is not actually an 'original' IFA regulation, but one they have borrowed from the ACAO guidelines.

[monitor lizard]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
I would ask all curators on BAJR to state how many briefs that have issued and specs they have read and all the consultants to say how many they have written for an assessment? (Excepting desk top studies covered by EIA.)

For a DBA[:0]? Who has time for that (outside of EIA scoping opinions)? I do often have informal chats with the consultant or unit if I think there is anything above the norm that should be in an assessment, or if I know of other information relevent that they will not have access to (sites not yet on the SMR or geotech results from an adjacent area, for example). And will also put this additional bits on any letter written to an LPA asking for an assessment.

Briefs for fieldwork get done for excavations (usually) but not evaluations or wbs unless they are outside of the ordinary. This seesm to work fine. And if you consider that a decent excavation brief takes the better part of 1/2 day to prepare, there simply isn't time to do much else. But all specs must state that the local AND IFA standards and guidlines will be adhered to.

Would love to ramble on about the volume of standards and guidance papers, but must get back to the pile

ML