18th June 2008, 02:35 PM
Posted by Drumcharry:
Disagreement with your point of view is not the same thing as "an obstructive approach", and if you re-read the comments to which you refer I think you will find that they are a positive response to the specific points raised by the other side of the debate. I don't think there is much point in a debate that descends into name-calling and casting doubts on the motives of the other side.
To move on to one of the specific points raised:
Independent regulators set up by government generally are there to regulate the behaviour of commercial organisations that are in partial-monopoly positions (e.g. Ofwat regulates water companies). I'm not aware of any situation in any profession where there is a professional organisation (like the IFA, RIBA, ICE, etc) that regulates its own members, but has a separate over-arching regulator set up to regulate its own behaviour.
However, if there is a real perception that the IFA disciplinary process is insufficiently impartial (amongst non-members - I don't think there is one amongst members, who are probably in a better position to know), then there is a potentially workable solution. Rather than setting up a separate organisation, create an 'oversight committee' within IFA that is separate from and independent of IFA Council and has no Council members on it. The role of the committee would be to review actions and decisions of the IFA, where there is a complaint that the action or decision was not properly taken in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Bye-Laws. Part of that role would be to take on appeals against disciplinary rulings.
Of course, whether you have a separate organisation or an internal oversight committee, you come back to the same question - how do you recruit its members and ensure their impartiality, and who regulates them? Do you have a third level of regulation, and a fifth, and so on ad infinitum?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:What I am seeing in this thread is very much an obstructive approach from those who support the IFA, presumably financially as well as vocallyYou make 'supporting the IFA financially as well as vocally' sound as if it is a bad thing. All it means is that they put their money where their mouth is, by paying subscriptions.
Disagreement with your point of view is not the same thing as "an obstructive approach", and if you re-read the comments to which you refer I think you will find that they are a positive response to the specific points raised by the other side of the debate. I don't think there is much point in a debate that descends into name-calling and casting doubts on the motives of the other side.
To move on to one of the specific points raised:
Quote:quote:whereas amongst others there seems to be a general perception that a more independent regulatory body is desirableFrom my perspective, the IFA is supposed to be the 'independent regulatory body', and if I didn't believe that it was then I wouldn't be a member. What I would concede is that it isn't always as effective as it might be. That is largely because it is weak, and one of the main causes of its weakness is that so many archaeologists stay outside, saying "its weak and ineffective, and I won't join until it is strong and effective", which just perpetuates the situation.
Independent regulators set up by government generally are there to regulate the behaviour of commercial organisations that are in partial-monopoly positions (e.g. Ofwat regulates water companies). I'm not aware of any situation in any profession where there is a professional organisation (like the IFA, RIBA, ICE, etc) that regulates its own members, but has a separate over-arching regulator set up to regulate its own behaviour.
However, if there is a real perception that the IFA disciplinary process is insufficiently impartial (amongst non-members - I don't think there is one amongst members, who are probably in a better position to know), then there is a potentially workable solution. Rather than setting up a separate organisation, create an 'oversight committee' within IFA that is separate from and independent of IFA Council and has no Council members on it. The role of the committee would be to review actions and decisions of the IFA, where there is a complaint that the action or decision was not properly taken in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Bye-Laws. Part of that role would be to take on appeals against disciplinary rulings.
Of course, whether you have a separate organisation or an internal oversight committee, you come back to the same question - how do you recruit its members and ensure their impartiality, and who regulates them? Do you have a third level of regulation, and a fifth, and so on ad infinitum?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished