13th November 2009, 02:42 PM
IfA ' 'Council also affirmed its prioritisation of any initiatives that will lead to the preference of accredited professional archaeologists and the rectification of market failure that such preference could bring. Such rectification should result in, and will be expected by IfA to result in, significantly increased benefits and rewards for the employees of Registered Organisations.'
I am a little bit confused by this opening statement. In previous discussions within IfA the issue of accreditation was with regard to compliance with the Valetta Convention - to get away from the current soft Government response that the planning system (PPG16) regulated standards of work to the extent that we were in compliance with the Convention. In other words, accreditation was for individuals and was a step towards reaching and maintaining high standards in archaeology. The arguments basically centred on how we could create an accreditation scheme that allowed full participation for all sectors of the archaeological community - commercial and non-commercial. This is where the push towards Chartered status should be taking us.
How has this now become linked with 'significantly increased benefits and rewards for employees of Registered Organisations'? Employees of ROs are already tied into standards through adherence to IfA Standards and Guidance documents and this would not change as a result of any accreditation scheme.
Consultants such as myself can advise clients that RO status for contractors represents one way in which competence can be assessed, but I would not like to be told by a curator or anyone else that I can recommend only ROs. This is way too close to a closed shop position - any contractor that is not an RO would find it difficult to survive.
Personal accreditation represents one way to increase standards, another is through increased reporting and investigation of poor standards with regard to IfA members and ROs.
Increased benefits and rewards for RO employees is an entirely different matter, and one that it is legitimate for IfA to get involved in - but it needs to be a bit more subtle than the setting up of a closed shop for contractors.
Beamo
I am a little bit confused by this opening statement. In previous discussions within IfA the issue of accreditation was with regard to compliance with the Valetta Convention - to get away from the current soft Government response that the planning system (PPG16) regulated standards of work to the extent that we were in compliance with the Convention. In other words, accreditation was for individuals and was a step towards reaching and maintaining high standards in archaeology. The arguments basically centred on how we could create an accreditation scheme that allowed full participation for all sectors of the archaeological community - commercial and non-commercial. This is where the push towards Chartered status should be taking us.
How has this now become linked with 'significantly increased benefits and rewards for employees of Registered Organisations'? Employees of ROs are already tied into standards through adherence to IfA Standards and Guidance documents and this would not change as a result of any accreditation scheme.
Consultants such as myself can advise clients that RO status for contractors represents one way in which competence can be assessed, but I would not like to be told by a curator or anyone else that I can recommend only ROs. This is way too close to a closed shop position - any contractor that is not an RO would find it difficult to survive.
Personal accreditation represents one way to increase standards, another is through increased reporting and investigation of poor standards with regard to IfA members and ROs.
Increased benefits and rewards for RO employees is an entirely different matter, and one that it is legitimate for IfA to get involved in - but it needs to be a bit more subtle than the setting up of a closed shop for contractors.
Beamo