2011 IfA Council Elections

[Unitof1]

Does that mean that these chancers.- post-ex staff, specialists, museum staff, curators- have exemptions from parts of the codes which are irrelevant to them and which they would never have to uphold but will use in judgement against others who do?

[Martin Locock]

Membership of the IfA is primarily about people committing themselves to standards of practice. The principles of ethical /professional behaviour enshrined in the Code of Conduct are universals. Other codes are specific - obviously if you are not engaged in contractual arrangements for archaeological work, that code won't directly affect you, but the codess/standards are about areas of work not roles (so that standards sections relating to finds work, archiving and museum curation.

As I said, most of the IfA documentation is guidance about best practice, recognising that people may depart from this if they wish, for whatever reason. They might reasonably be asked by others to justify that decision.

[chiz]

Election results are now out. All three DF committee members got in, many thanks to all who voted -whoever you voted for, the main thing is to have an active and involved membership.

Only 4% turnout though, makes you wonder what could be achieved if it wasn't for apathy.

[kevin wooldridge]

Congratulations Chiz (and Sophie and Geoff)....

.....but 4% is very low. Without appearing to look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth, would you be interested in raising this in Council? It seems to me that there has to be a better way for democracy and the IfA to co-exist (yeah yeah I hear the baying laughter already from 'oop north...'). Maybe if online voting was allowed it might be one way to encourage people to vote.....just pressing a button rather than having to find an envelope and a stamp. It seems to me that you already begin with a huge disadvantage. Any critic only needs to say 'Well you whole lot are only representative of 4% of the small percentage of archaeologists who are members of IfA anyway. What does that represent in real terms?'

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Congratulations Chiz (and Sophie and Geoff)....

.....but 4% is very low. Without appearing to look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth, would you be interested in raising this in Council? It seems to me that there has to be a better way for democracy and the IfA to co-exist (yeah yeah I hear the baying laughter already from 'oop north...'). Maybe if online voting was allowed it might be one way to encourage people to vote.....just pressing a button rather than having to find an envelope and a stamp. It seems to me that you already begin with a huge disadvantage. Any critic only needs to say 'Well you whole lot are only representative of 4% of the small percentage of archaeologists who are members of IfA anyway. What does that represent in real terms?'

Even with online voting I cannot see it making much of a difference to the amount, even though people with just a few taps on a key-board could make their voices heard will chose to do nothing!!!! I am finding this out myself that apathy rules, trying to motivate people to just vote online is producing near total 'no-response'-no matter what the issue!!!

[BAJR]

Sad but true... but often the other 96% ( I suppose in real terms it must be 98%) of the archaeologists in the UK... will grumble and complain... or do they fully accept that tehy are powerless? or that there is no point in voting? I will still say... and say it again... What will be achieved this session? and if not... why not?

[Unitof1]

4% -does anybody know what the actual number was?

[Marcus Brody]

Sad but true... but often the other 96% ( I suppose in real terms it must be 98%) of the archaeologists in the UK... will grumble and complain... or do they fully accept that tehy are powerless? or that there is no point in voting?

However, the election result can obviously only be determined on the basis of votes cast. If only 4% of IFA members bothered to vote, then all you can do is count those votes and declare those with the most to be the winners. You can't really say 'well, only 4% voted, we'll run the election again until we get a decent turnout'. People who are members of the IFA had the opportunity to vote, if the majority chose not to exercise this right, then they can't really complain about the people that were elected, as they had the chance to influence this but decided not to. Similarly, people like me, who are not members of the IFA, can't really complain that we weren't given the chance to vote - if I decide not to join a club, I can't really expect to be included in its election process, or to complain if I don't like the result.

[Oxbeast]

Maybe if online voting was allowed it might be one way to encourage people to vote.....just pressing a button rather than having to find an envelope and a stamp. It seems to me that you already begin with a huge disadvantage.

I think its a great idea, but you'd only get people saying that it's unfair because not all members have access to the internet. Have they never heard of smartphones or public libraries? If you ask me, its having access to a permanent and stable postal address for snail mail that is more of a problem for some people.

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Election results are now out. All three DF committee members got in, many thanks to all who voted -whoever you voted for, the main thing is to have an active and involved membership.

Only 4% turnout though, makes you wonder what could be achieved if it wasn't for apathy.

I think the key word here is 'apathy', approx 1 in 25 voted-how much of this is because a lot are members only for the use of letters after their name as being advantageous within archaeology? as opposed to being members because of what they believe in trying to achieve beyond their own personal career!

Hats should be raised to the 4 % for actually voting and are at least trying to do some thing for archaeology by.....trying !! :face-approve: