13th June 2008, 01:11 PM
Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to address each point in the original post. So I'll keep it brief and positive!
My reading of the original post is that this could be an argument for making the IFA a chartered organisation! (Although clearly I recognise that this was not the intention of the poster!)
Just picking up on one point on RAOs, there are a couple of things to say. There has to be a responsible post holder in an RAO who is a Member of the IFA (i.e. MIFA). RAOs sign up to the IFA codes of conduct, standards etc on behalf of all their staff and if anyone, whether an individual member or not, is proved to have broken these, the organisation can be removed from the scheme. However, the scheme was set up to be a peer reviewed system, with other people from within the IFA (not all from RAOs) monitoring. It is also supposed to improved standards through this peer review process. i.e. it's not a 'hang them shoot them' process, it's always been initially a 'point out the problems and help organisations get better' system. Only if organisations were consistently ignoring the assistance/advice were disciplinary measures undertaken in the past.
And on the external evaluation side, if the complaint is from a client against an IFA member or RAO there is a system for external mediation.
Appeals against (for example) Validation committee decisions are within IFA, but from a completely different committee who can and do overrule original decisions.
As for the fundament with a trowel comment, perhaps this is a reason (much as bang my head on the table each time I hear this kick off again) to discuss the 'field' in the IFAs name. I know some people believe that you have to be digging (and only digging) to be an archaeologist, but do we really think this is true? :face-confused:
Anyway, if the IFA isn't what people want (and if there is good with bad, why throw the baby out with the bath water?), what do you all want? I've always taken the line that if you don't like it, get involved and change it, and I've tried to do that. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do as much as I'd like (darn this having to work for a living). [:p]
My reading of the original post is that this could be an argument for making the IFA a chartered organisation! (Although clearly I recognise that this was not the intention of the poster!)
Just picking up on one point on RAOs, there are a couple of things to say. There has to be a responsible post holder in an RAO who is a Member of the IFA (i.e. MIFA). RAOs sign up to the IFA codes of conduct, standards etc on behalf of all their staff and if anyone, whether an individual member or not, is proved to have broken these, the organisation can be removed from the scheme. However, the scheme was set up to be a peer reviewed system, with other people from within the IFA (not all from RAOs) monitoring. It is also supposed to improved standards through this peer review process. i.e. it's not a 'hang them shoot them' process, it's always been initially a 'point out the problems and help organisations get better' system. Only if organisations were consistently ignoring the assistance/advice were disciplinary measures undertaken in the past.
And on the external evaluation side, if the complaint is from a client against an IFA member or RAO there is a system for external mediation.
Appeals against (for example) Validation committee decisions are within IFA, but from a completely different committee who can and do overrule original decisions.
As for the fundament with a trowel comment, perhaps this is a reason (much as bang my head on the table each time I hear this kick off again) to discuss the 'field' in the IFAs name. I know some people believe that you have to be digging (and only digging) to be an archaeologist, but do we really think this is true? :face-confused:
Anyway, if the IFA isn't what people want (and if there is good with bad, why throw the baby out with the bath water?), what do you all want? I've always taken the line that if you don't like it, get involved and change it, and I've tried to do that. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do as much as I'd like (darn this having to work for a living). [:p]