IFA RO only as approved contractors

[trowelfodder]

I think that transparency of policies is key here - if a curatorial service is only allowing ROs to work this position needs to be made public allowing units to respond

[GnomeKing]

organisation is indeed an RO :

sanctions against individuals may yet stay my pen on this (i know someone who knows the actual Field team) - i am concerned with,
a)lack of Quality Control from contracting organisation,
b)fact that this was signed off by County.

It is the organisational failure that concerns me -
For the contractor it is all to easy to lay blame for technical failures with those at the bottom - even if they were in the wrong, they have managers whoes pay is supposed to reflect theier responsibilty for those 'under thier command' - (people make mistakes, yes, but this is why we have 'training', 'reviews', etc).

In terms of County - well yes they may lack time (especially these days) to be as rigours as they might be - .....in which case a formal process may be only way to bring this issue to wider attention.
They might also lack enough experience/talent, in which case, sorry, time to hand over the Baton.



Now Then:
A few things the IFA Might Consider addressing before they/we move any further with this (10 year long) Skills/Accreditation/Chartered status malarkey

1)Are all archives being deposited correctly (i hear that many receiving museum/similar that, if they still receive at all, they are increasingly having sort out the mess of contractors who don't seem to have the resources to CORRECTLY order,label, box, list etc.. their archives. This is presumably a fundamental aspect of the tenders they won, and the booty they gained...........It is also clearly against the Code of Conduct.
(i urge anybody receiving shoddy archives from RO's to start formal complaints!)

2)are all conservation grade artefacts being correctly and properly lifted, stored, packaged, transported ? i hear that several RO's routinely present artefacts for conservation which quite clearly have suffered badly since discovery.....the knowledge is there - the people are available - don't RO's want to pay for Expensive Expert Field Conservators or materials?(hmm).......again this seems to fart loudly in the face of the Code.

There really must be significant developments before and further non-sense about 'Acreditiaion' 'chartered stuatus' etc etc.

THERE IS ALREADY A CODE THAT IS NOT ALWAYS BEING FOLLOWED !!!

CLEAN YOUR OWN HOUSE, BEFORE 'INVITING' US ALL IN!!!

[Martin Locock]

Whatever the faults of the IfA, if, in this case, the curator approved a substandard piece of work then they are at fault.

[Kel]

What about the organisations that would easily 'be able to meet the registration requirements' but have no interest in doing so, BAJR for instance?

The argument was that shoddy work could be "punished" by removal of an org's RO status. Except if an org knows that it turns out shoddy work, it won't bother registering if registration's voluntary.

Orgs such as BAJR that do good work but don't want to be an RO, are a different (and I'd argue, far less significant) issue.

[trowelfodder]

I am afraid that may be a little simplistic Kel, if you have no real fear of repercussions then there is no fear of registering. A few letters can lend a respectability to an otherwise shakey company and until complaints are handled openly, consistently and impartially then chartered status is a long way off. And the fact that the sentiments of DC and others are that they do not wish to join is a reflection of how far there is still to go. A chartered body for archaeology should be aspirational not something that people are forced kicking and screaming into. I would argue that such a body is needed I just feel the IFA has too much baggage associated with it and there is a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

But i guess thats off topic xx

[Kel]

Ah - I was assuming that mandatory registration would automatically carry repercussions if you don't meet the requirements. If not, then I agree with you that there would be little difference between the mandatory and voluntary approaches.

[Dinosaur]

A chartered body for archaeology should be aspirational not something that people are forced kicking and screaming into. I would argue that such a body is needed I just feel the IFA has too much baggage associated with it and there is a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

But i guess thats off topic xx

Can't think of any statement on here so far that has been more ON topic! IFA are attempting, via pressure on already pressured curators, to enforce membership on non-ROs by the back door (it wasn't us, it was the curators who forced you to join IFA to get any work, honest gov) as part of their grand scheme for Chartered status/world domination/preventing anyone from working without paying them a percentage and doing things their way

[Marcus Brody]

A chartered body for archaeology should be aspirational not something that people are forced kicking and screaming into.

I would second Dinosaur's support for Trowelfodder's statement - the sentence quoted above exactly summarises the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread, but does it much more clearly. If it became a requirement that I had to be an IfA member in order to work, I probably would join up, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

[Dinosaur]

organisation is indeed an RO :

1)Are all archives being deposited correctly (i hear that many receiving museum/similar that, if they still receive at all, they are increasingly having sort out the mess of contractors who don't seem to have the resources to CORRECTLY order,label, box, list etc.. their archives. This is presumably a fundamental aspect of the tenders they won, and the booty they gained...........It is also clearly against the Code of Conduct.
(i urge anybody receiving shoddy archives from RO's to start formal complaints!)

As a slight aside to the main discussion, it would also be nice if museums didn't then 'mislay' all or parts of the deposited archives - am currently meant to be getting on with a large px/publication project which has required recovery from several receiving museums of archives relating to previous work back in the 90s - errr, right, well I'll get on with it when all the missing material turns up, eg. 3500 meso flints, not found the gold coin mentioned in one report in any of the boxes yet (or any documentation saying it was returned to the landowner), one huge element of the 90s work currently seems to have no paperwork or drawings/photos to clarify where all the boxes of finds came from (although we have a reliable witness that it was deposited at the museum) etc, plenty more.....not starting a crusade against museum people, just commenting, there's probably blame to be apportioned right down the rather imperfect system we operate in

....oh good grief, suppose it'll all have to re-archived somewhere down the line :0

[trowelfodder]

I'm with you on this Marcus - I was a member of AAI&S but have cancelled my membership as if I had wanted to be part of the IFA I would have joined them!

But I don't want to be a member as I have a number of issues with their operation and if the choice was join or be unable to work then i guess would prob join but like you I wouldn't be happy about it and think that coming into an organisation feeling hostile and bitter is not beneficial for anyone