Proposed AAI&S and IfA merger

[ArcServ]

Its disappointing that there has been very little debate on this and an apparent lack of interest, as its important to the future of both members and the profession. Important to any organisation today is financial management and a website. The website is the window to the world and how members and the profession are informed. Much has been said about AAI&S representing the interests of members to the profession, clients etc. There have been significant recent changes to legislation/guidelines that impact on members but neither AAI&S or ISSIG made any representation even when this was requested by IfA. These matters seem to have suffered from lack of commitment and its difficult to understand how this was allowed to happen. Important therefore is to consider if these and similar problems would be resolved with a merger.
In my opinion the basic criteria for an organisation (be it independent AAI&S, ISSIG or merger) is to represent the interests of Illustrators and Surveyors to the archaeological profession, clients and authorities. In parallel communicate the requirements of archaeology, clients and authorities to members as regards standards, methods and legislation etc. It is not clear to me if or how the currently proposed merger would achieve these objectives. The proposal seems to be that the ISSIG either as it is or similar, takes over the role of AAI&S, which then fades away. The ISSIG was formed, some time ago, to be a vehicle of communication and involvement to achieve the above objectives but has not done so. Whilst I understand the arguments for IfA handling administration, this has a cost, IFA is a registered business with paid staff and overheads, which takes most of the subscription with very little spare. There has been much talk about the merger/ISSIG doing many things such as separate conferences and similar, with the IFA paying, I doubt this very much. IFA rules state that interest groups are not allowed to charge for membership but may raise money for specific purposes. IFA rates are already high to pay for the administration etc., I suggest the chance of raising further money to be dubious, so where does the money come from to do all the things promised. As I understand it, currently the majority of ISSIG members are not from AAI&S but IfA. It seems likely that an ISSIG dominated by the IfA and run as it is now, would not achieve the objectives as above.
This is not to say that a merger with a semi independent group within IfA, representing the interests of Illustrators and Surveyors, having active management, the commitment, structure and ability to make representation both within and without the IfA, might not be of benefit. However as has been shown, to be successful would require radical restructuring of the ISSIG or similar. This important aspect is not at the moment clear from the proposals. AAI&S is not exactly ICI but a small members organisation. It occurs to me that the radical restructuring required to make a merger work, is more or less the same as needed for AAI&S to continue. I suggest it is important that members are informed as to what restructuring is required, to resolve the problems of merger or for AAI&S to continue as independent. At the moment the only proposal is to merge, I think its important that members are sufficiently informed so as to be able to make a choice. A matter that is clouding the debate is the proposal to grant MIFA to MAAIS, the issue is what is best for Illustrators and Surveyors not personal advantage to a few.