13th August 2010, 12:21 PM
To save some time... here is the full transcript of Tim Howards musings
A Chartered Institute?
In medieval times Royal Charters were granted as the only means of incorporating a public or private body. Today Royal Charters continue to be granted by the sovereign on the advice of the Privy Council, but ‘are normally reserved for bodies that work in the public interest (such as professional institutions and charities) and which can demonstrate pre-eminence, stability and permanence in their particular field (1)’. With the development of other forms of incorporation, bodies such as the IfA do not need to be chartered but there are benefits which continue to prompt professional bodies to seek chartered status.
Foremost amongst these benefits is political, public and peer recognition and respect. Recent research (2) has highlighted the value of Charter, suggesting, for instance, that the ‘public ranks Chartered number one in terms of confidence in professionalism, over other designations like Fellowship and degree’. A distinction has to be drawn here between the chartering of a body (such as the IfA) and the ability of a chartered body to confer chartered status on its members. In the first instance, we are considering whether to prepare an application to the Privy Council to seek chartered status for the Institute. This would not, without more, confer the ability to grant chartered status (as a Chartered Archaeologist) to members, but this is something which could subsequently be pursued, for instance, by an application to amend the Charter to grant such powers.
Although some may see chartering the Institute primarily as a stepping stone to the introduction of Chartered Archaeologist status for practitioners, there are clear benefits in chartering the Institute in terms of increased profile, prestige and authority. For example, public endorsement of this nature is likely to strengthen the Institute’s hand in its longstanding campaign for the accreditation of professional competence in archaeology. However, Charter is not a panacea and there are potential drawbacks. To some degree, it involves a loss of independence and can increase the administrative burden with the Privy Council having to sanction any changes to the Institute’s by-laws. It can entail significant costs, not only in legal fees, but also in meeting the stringent criteria for eligibility, and even having incurred those costs and satisfied those criteria, the grant of a Charter is not guaranteed.
Nevertheless, investment in the future of the Institute and its members is necessary even in these straitened times and much of the work required to achieve chartered status (including high levels of membership) cannot be ignored. Council has considered the issues and resolved that further work should be done to investigate and, if appropriate, advance the case for Charter. This includes consulting the membership and others involved in the sector.
Consequently, we are canvassing the views as to whether members are in favour of preparing and presenting an application to charter the Institute. If you have any comments, please send them to Tim Howard at tim.howard@archaeologists.net
or at Institute for Archaeologists, SHES, Whiteknights, University of Reading, PO Box 227, Reading, RG6 6AB by 30 September, 2010.
1 See Privy Council website: http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page26.asp
2 The Stamp of Quality? The importance of being Chartered, Paper in Professionalism 5
A Chartered Institute?
In medieval times Royal Charters were granted as the only means of incorporating a public or private body. Today Royal Charters continue to be granted by the sovereign on the advice of the Privy Council, but ‘are normally reserved for bodies that work in the public interest (such as professional institutions and charities) and which can demonstrate pre-eminence, stability and permanence in their particular field (1)’. With the development of other forms of incorporation, bodies such as the IfA do not need to be chartered but there are benefits which continue to prompt professional bodies to seek chartered status.
Foremost amongst these benefits is political, public and peer recognition and respect. Recent research (2) has highlighted the value of Charter, suggesting, for instance, that the ‘public ranks Chartered number one in terms of confidence in professionalism, over other designations like Fellowship and degree’. A distinction has to be drawn here between the chartering of a body (such as the IfA) and the ability of a chartered body to confer chartered status on its members. In the first instance, we are considering whether to prepare an application to the Privy Council to seek chartered status for the Institute. This would not, without more, confer the ability to grant chartered status (as a Chartered Archaeologist) to members, but this is something which could subsequently be pursued, for instance, by an application to amend the Charter to grant such powers.
Although some may see chartering the Institute primarily as a stepping stone to the introduction of Chartered Archaeologist status for practitioners, there are clear benefits in chartering the Institute in terms of increased profile, prestige and authority. For example, public endorsement of this nature is likely to strengthen the Institute’s hand in its longstanding campaign for the accreditation of professional competence in archaeology. However, Charter is not a panacea and there are potential drawbacks. To some degree, it involves a loss of independence and can increase the administrative burden with the Privy Council having to sanction any changes to the Institute’s by-laws. It can entail significant costs, not only in legal fees, but also in meeting the stringent criteria for eligibility, and even having incurred those costs and satisfied those criteria, the grant of a Charter is not guaranteed.
Nevertheless, investment in the future of the Institute and its members is necessary even in these straitened times and much of the work required to achieve chartered status (including high levels of membership) cannot be ignored. Council has considered the issues and resolved that further work should be done to investigate and, if appropriate, advance the case for Charter. This includes consulting the membership and others involved in the sector.
Consequently, we are canvassing the views as to whether members are in favour of preparing and presenting an application to charter the Institute. If you have any comments, please send them to Tim Howard at tim.howard@archaeologists.net
or at Institute for Archaeologists, SHES, Whiteknights, University of Reading, PO Box 227, Reading, RG6 6AB by 30 September, 2010.
1 See Privy Council website: http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page26.asp
2 The Stamp of Quality? The importance of being Chartered, Paper in Professionalism 5