27th October 2011, 10:43 PM
Martin Locock Wrote:On the question of the efficacy of the disciplinary process, the IfA's casework was independently evaluated a while ago. It is as transparent as it can be given the need to protect the innocent or potentially innocent from prejudicial publicity. It is worth saying that the Code of Conduct is about individual responsibility, which means that it is theoretically possible for an archaeological disaster to clear all those involved because they acted within the Code. This is where the RO scheme's role becomes significant, since it establishes failure at a corporate level.
Except Martin that it doesn't as there is no corporate membership category within the IfA..... Each RAO has to have a 'responsible' MIFA who in a position of power (not necessarily the head of the organisation) who will effectively carry the can. If an IfA enquiry clears the individuals involved, it also has, by default, to clear the organisation, as neither (at least in IfA terms) exists independently of each other.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...