IFA RO only as approved contractors

[vulpes]

the organisation or individual held comprehensive professional indemnity insurance

You wouldn't be able to carry out work for most council's without this.

[vulpes]

Using RO as a mark of accreditation is not a universal belief

Really? Reading this thread I'd have thought it was!!

[Sparky]

Really? Reading this thread I'd have thought it was!!

Must be lunchtime at the Teapot. Best you pop to get your eyes tested, once you've removed your head from the sand.

[vulpes]

oops sorry missed off the silly face used when stating the blooming obvious :p but thanks for the advice o humourless one :face-approve:

[Marcus Brody]

That'll be the ALGAO survey which showed that IFA standards were favoured by 84% of curators?

But that's not the same as 84% of ALGAO members (or the 72 members who responded to the survey, anyway) being in favour of only allowing ROs to undertake developer-funded work, is it? It's perfectly possible to be in favour of IfA standards without necessarily accepting that only ROs should be allowed to carry out work under the planning system.

[Oxbeast]

Absoultely Marcus. I would also add that I would support the IfA in geting a democratic mandate to seek chartered status in principle. I would assume that chartered status is at the end of a process that will last for years.

I don't see how that translates into a democratic mandate to restrict development-led work to ROs from the present time.

[vulpes]

But that's not the same as 84% of ALGAO members (or the 72 members who responded to the survey, anyway) being in favour of only allowing ROs to undertake developer-funded work, is it?

Ha! Well spotted can't get anything past wily old Marcus

[BAJR]

Just as a point. I don't think Vulpes should be quoting bits from a survey that I have not been made public. I can confirm after a chat with the IfA that it is not, and so therefore the contents are not available for discussion. I would say that quoting a single statistic is not helpful. I will say - in relation to this topic - that I would be pursuing this and discussing with curatorial services that may be enforcing restrictive practice for their views.

The point is not if the IfA guidelines are wrong (to my opinion they are not) it is whether or not the restriction of practice is defensible. THe curatorial service are the enforcers and police of standards.... I would put my trust in this.

[trowelfodder]

I agree - that is the crux of the issue - not whether the RO status is right or wrong but rather can curatorial serivces restrict non-members from working.

It is one way of demonstrating competency but it is not the only route and to force the hands of archaeologists by saying join or don't practice is hardly a hearts and minds approach!

[vulpes]

But that's not the same as 84% of ALGAO members (or the 72 members who responded to the survey, anyway) being in favour of only allowing ROs to undertake developer-funded work, is it? It's perfectly possible to be in favour of IfA standards without necessarily accepting that only ROs should be allowed to carry out work under the planning system.

Careful Marcus. BAJR host says you can't quote stats from that survey now it's been introduced to the forum by him. Remember he makes the rules (up as he goes along).