3rd January 2006, 07:44 PM
Mercenary,
The point of my argument is that Troll wants the IFA to be more pro-active in the way they police and enforce archaeological standards. However, being pro-active involves resources.
At present, they are reactive (i.e., they wait for a complaint to come in, and then investigate it). Their existing resources are barely enough to do that. If they are to be pro-active, they will need to go out to units and audit them, make surprise visits on site, etc. etc. To do that successfully, they would need staff and resources bigger than English Heritage.
When you say "the IFA might have fallen into the trap that also afflicts most charities eventually. Growth and solvency become more important than the original goal of the organization", you are interpreting my comments as representing the view of the IFA. They don't - I am a member, but not an official, of the IFA, and they are my comments, not theirs. They don't necessarily even represent my own views, just my interpretation of the logical consequences of what Troll wants them to do.
On IFA powers of discipline, I am afraid you are wrong. The IFA can only discipline its members and RAOs. If a non-member, non-RAO does work to an IFA standard and fails, it is the curator or the client/consultant that have made the standard a requirement, and only they can take action against them for being in breach of the terms of the WSI or of the contract. The IFA would have no power - after all, the only sanctions it has available are reprimand or expulsion - not much use against someone who is not a member!
Remember that the IFA is not a government or other official body, or even a Chartered Institute. There is no legal requirement for an archaeologist to be in it to practice. If there were, then expulsion would be a much stronger sanction than it is now.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
The point of my argument is that Troll wants the IFA to be more pro-active in the way they police and enforce archaeological standards. However, being pro-active involves resources.
At present, they are reactive (i.e., they wait for a complaint to come in, and then investigate it). Their existing resources are barely enough to do that. If they are to be pro-active, they will need to go out to units and audit them, make surprise visits on site, etc. etc. To do that successfully, they would need staff and resources bigger than English Heritage.
When you say "the IFA might have fallen into the trap that also afflicts most charities eventually. Growth and solvency become more important than the original goal of the organization", you are interpreting my comments as representing the view of the IFA. They don't - I am a member, but not an official, of the IFA, and they are my comments, not theirs. They don't necessarily even represent my own views, just my interpretation of the logical consequences of what Troll wants them to do.
On IFA powers of discipline, I am afraid you are wrong. The IFA can only discipline its members and RAOs. If a non-member, non-RAO does work to an IFA standard and fails, it is the curator or the client/consultant that have made the standard a requirement, and only they can take action against them for being in breach of the terms of the WSI or of the contract. The IFA would have no power - after all, the only sanctions it has available are reprimand or expulsion - not much use against someone who is not a member!
Remember that the IFA is not a government or other official body, or even a Chartered Institute. There is no legal requirement for an archaeologist to be in it to practice. If there were, then expulsion would be a much stronger sanction than it is now.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished