IFA RO only as approved contractors

[differentcolourmud]

hmm .... secret surveys, compulsory membership on pain of financial ruin... i bet they all sit in the dark wearing hoods at board meetings

[the invisible man]

On BAJR threads we often use comparisions with other professions (if archaeology can be said to be a profession....). Well;, you don't have to be an architect to design a building, or to submit planning or building regs applications. The applications are considered by the relevant authority regardless. You don't have to belong to a chartered institute (RIBA) to be an architect (although it is a protected title). Oh, and it is not usual for amateur groups to set themselves up as practising architects.......

[Marcus Brody]

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).

Yes, I wondered about that, as it was BAJR who originally introduced the existence of the IfA survey into the topic, after all!}

[vulpes]

yes, never mind. At least we know where we stand now. Mum's the word }

[BAJR]

I did indeed introduce it, - however I did mention I would have to check to see if it was public or not.

I do apologise to those that are already aware of it, and have access to it Vulpes. It must make you feel special. I have however been told that it is not public. so will not make any comment on content.

However, it is not exactly breaking official secrets to say it exists. it is the content that is unavailable to people (as it stands)

Can we perhaps now return to the topic, and cut the smug smartypants ?

BAJR says sorry for mentioning a survey that is currently embargoed.

So here is teh question Vulpes. Will you go for RO only lists? or is that a secret? :face-approve:

[vulpes]

No. I can be quite open about the fact that I don't maintain a contractor list. Why bother when there are perfectly good ones already available?

Have you considered changing the name of this website to BAJRleaks?

[kevin wooldridge]

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.

IfA AGM this year had a motion asking the membership whether they should pursue chartered status. It was passed unanimously. Whether the process lasts for years is another matter. I suspect if they gain PC approval that this may take on a momentum all of its own....

[BAJR]

Believe me... BAJRleaks could happen right now... but it would not really be help I can take comfort that people trust me enough with information.

Now..

Why bother when there are perfectly good ones already available?

So as you say "good ones" I take it you utilise a number of available lists. Could you list them?

Chartered Status has been a holy grail. But this once again does not get away from the whole premise of this thread. (and this is without Chartered Status) if a local authority archaeologist is accepting only ROs on 'lists' this can only be seen as restrictive practice.

It is not about whether RO status is good/bad, it is about whether or not it would stand up to a legal challenge. On Monday, I will contact some of the services that may be undertaking this practice. To clarify the situation further.

BAJR ( not just a keyboard warrior )

[trowelfodder]

I think BAJR performs a vital role for those involved in British archaeology, and dont worry Vulpes I know your post was only joking :face-approve:

but it is important that there is somewhere for us to go when no-one else will help. A prime example was when a site for an (RO) that I was working on were all given contracts to the 22nd december. We all knew that the site had months more to run but the unit in question had planned to lay us off without pay over the Christmas period as the building company had a longer than normal break for employees. David was able to stop this happening - and without revealing the identity of the person who had brought the issue up originally. I know this is a small thing that affected say 25 people but in a proffession where you often feel helpless its good to know that at least someone is there that you can trust.

And again the fact that it was BAJR that was the place contacted with concerns about the legality of practices by some local authorities speaks volumes for where archaeologists feel that the most support will be given and the trust best placed

[Kel]

No answers, just another idea...

Dredging up local authority experience from many years ago, I ran a tendering project for my local council adhering to EEC (as it was then) regs. One of the core stipulations was that any organisation chosen to provide a service to the council (in that case training on Microsoft Office packages) should have some kind of measurable qualification for the job. The only thing available was the official Microsoft certification, which automatically excluded a number of organisations that I would have liked to consider.

Does this restriction still apply under EU law? Are councils actually applying it (I remember asking at the time whether anybody really cared and what would happen if we ignored it, but I just got a lot of shuffling and throat-clearing)? If so, how is it used for archaeology, where there's currently no such certification available? Might this be a further line of enquiry about how RO status is attained and the legality thereof? Could be very interesting and useful, but could also be opening a shoot-ourselves-in-the-foot-type can o' worms.