13th June 2008, 03:09 PM
"Perhaps it is time to re-examine this policy. If they were to publish their disciplinary judgements, their reasoning and the outcomes of their judgments it might significantly improve their reputation."
There are two points to make on this (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just making the points):
1. The disciplinary procedures, including the decision not to publicise cases, were set up by the membership. If you want to change them, join the IFA and put new regulations forward to the AGM. You don't have to be on council to do that, but you do have to be a corporate member (i.e. PIFA, AIFA, MIFA).
2. As 1man1desk pointed out, these cases only refer to members of the IFA. What happens to those that aren't members? Who deals with them? (Rhetorical question)
In the case of the pipelines and the geophysics, I think the thread suggested that that was the basis for the decision, but didn't state it definitely was. And, as I said on the thread (and I don't know anything about the job either) there can be other good reasons for not having a watching brief - such as previous monitoring or destruction of archaeological deposits. Each site/project needs a mitigation process that is appropriate to that project. Do you expect IFA to monitor every single mitigation strategy/WSI?
There are two points to make on this (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just making the points):
1. The disciplinary procedures, including the decision not to publicise cases, were set up by the membership. If you want to change them, join the IFA and put new regulations forward to the AGM. You don't have to be on council to do that, but you do have to be a corporate member (i.e. PIFA, AIFA, MIFA).
2. As 1man1desk pointed out, these cases only refer to members of the IFA. What happens to those that aren't members? Who deals with them? (Rhetorical question)
In the case of the pipelines and the geophysics, I think the thread suggested that that was the basis for the decision, but didn't state it definitely was. And, as I said on the thread (and I don't know anything about the job either) there can be other good reasons for not having a watching brief - such as previous monitoring or destruction of archaeological deposits. Each site/project needs a mitigation process that is appropriate to that project. Do you expect IFA to monitor every single mitigation strategy/WSI?