13th June 2008, 02:11 PM
Drumcharry has obviously given a lot of thought to his/her post at the start of this thread and tried to be constructive, but unfortunately I think a lot of the comments are based on misconceptions. For example:
One of the main things that, in practice, undermines the IFA is the perception that they don't take action often enough. It is hard to comment on that, because the actions they do take are not often publicised. However, please bear in mind that expulsion is not the only possible course of disciplinary action. Please bear in mind also that not all complaints are justified - somtimes the complainant is mistaken, or the apparent breach can be satisfactorily explained, or (rarely) the complaint may be malicious.
There is a strong tendency on these forums to take the view that "serious breaches of standards by IFA members are common... expulsions aren't... therefore the IFA doesn't care." However, I am not convinced that serious breaches that warrant expulsion are common, and no one has produced evidence to suggest otherwise. Lesser breaches can be dealt with in other ways.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:the IFA makes an attempt to uphold standards, the only criticism here is that it is standards as the IFA sees themNo-one else has defined any standards, so what other standards could they uphold than the ones the define themselves?
Quote:quote:individuals within RAOs who are not themselves IFA members have no obligation to adhere to IFA standardsNot true - the RAO itself is obliged to ensure that all its employees adhere to the standards, whether or not they are IFA members.
Quote:quote:There are a great many extremely competent archaeologists who are members of the IFA and their opinion of the organisation varies hugely from apathy through anger to incredulityTrue, but you omit those whose opinion is much more positive.
Quote:quote:The IFA can never be impartial or independent. It is a ?self appointed? organisation which relies on members fees for survivalThat is just what makes it independent - if it was appointed by someone else, it would be in someone else's control.
Quote:quote:The IFA does not have a Royal Charter so it does not have the authority of professional bodies that do, being a member of the IFA can never legally be a requirement or condition of employment.Most Chartered organisations are also wholly or largely funded by member subscriptions, so a Royal Charter changes nothing in that respect. It is perfectly true that some (but not all) Chartered organisations are able to control entry to the profession, where the IFA can't. That isn't a reason to stay out of the IFA - rather it is a reason to join, and to try to help the IFA to become chartered.
Quote:quote:It is not impartial because it must, for it?s own survival, favour members over non members and RAO?s over individuals.....why?It can't favour members over non-members, because it has no power over non-members. It can't favour RAOs over individuals, because its by-laws prevent it from doing so, and because it is controlled by its individual members (who have a vote at the AGM and in Council elections) and not by RAOs (which can't vote).
Quote:quote:the IFA is essentially a ?vanity? organisation! Its members draw kudos from being part of it and it draws kudos from the number of individual members and RAOs it hasThe same could be said of any membership-based organisation, including all professional bodies, and probably more so in relation to Chartered ones - but that does not make them 'vanity' organisations. A vanity organisation gives members a grand title but places no obligations on them, whereas you acknowledge in your post that the "IFA have set in motion an extremely effective series of guidelines and standards which, on the whole, serve the industry well", and they do try to enforce those standards.
Quote:quote:Because the IFA ?club? relies on the quantity of members to maintain its authority there is clearly going to be a tendency not to expel or discipline members however heinous their ?crimes?.The IFA relies for its authority on its willingness to take action when there is a complaint. Number of members is irrelevant, because its authority only covers members anyway.
One of the main things that, in practice, undermines the IFA is the perception that they don't take action often enough. It is hard to comment on that, because the actions they do take are not often publicised. However, please bear in mind that expulsion is not the only possible course of disciplinary action. Please bear in mind also that not all complaints are justified - somtimes the complainant is mistaken, or the apparent breach can be satisfactorily explained, or (rarely) the complaint may be malicious.
There is a strong tendency on these forums to take the view that "serious breaches of standards by IFA members are common... expulsions aren't... therefore the IFA doesn't care." However, I am not convinced that serious breaches that warrant expulsion are common, and no one has produced evidence to suggest otherwise. Lesser breaches can be dealt with in other ways.
Quote:quote:The solution is actually fairly simple, at least in principle, a small independent organisation should monitor the activities of the IFA, a watcher for the watchers if you willSo, who would appoint this panel? and who would monitor their independence and fairness?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished