Is this Restriction of Trade?

[kevin wooldridge]

....Or they may, having sort advice. realised they didn't have a case worth pursuing....

[BAJR]

CPAT wisely don't have a list at all, but direct people to the list ( I see no irony in that statement )

Sorry Martin.. I should have clarified. Dyfed Briefs require the archaeologist to be MIfA therefore non MIfA archaeologists will be unable to fulfil a vital criteria of the brief - therefore defacto excluded from tendering for jobs, as they will be unable to fulfill briefs.

THe legal challange is not the point - and as I have said. I would welcome people to join the IfA. what I don't like is the way people are being forced to join . and I don't like the attitude that if you don't like it, then tough.


I will ask this again. Martin ( who gives reasonable and sensible answers - and in my opinion is a better advert for IfA than others)

If I have worked well in this county, if I have produced excellent reports - why would I be effectively barred from being allowed to work in an area because I had not joined the IfA for whatever reason? Does joining the IfA make me competent and not being in the IfA make me incompetent? I still want to see membership as something to aspire to, not forced to.

Kevin's past boiler steam seems to have cooled and Vulpes seems to have forgotten that questions are different from non-stories - The title of the thread is "Is this a restriction of trade?" it is called a question one that requires an answer. Martin was able to answer it without recourse to calling this a non-story. It is called a bit of respect. Respect the right of others to ask questions - respect other peoples points of views, respect the right for a person to get a good answer and be able to either respond or say thanks that makes a difference. I apologise to Vulpes for forcing him to comment on this thread when it is clearly of no interest to him.

Martin gives reasonable and sensible and measured answers - and in my opinion is a better advert for IfA than some others.

[Martin Locock]

I have seen various implementations of MIfA requirements in briefs, usually with a degree of latitude, and so I'm surprised to see that yes Dyfed briefs require that the project manager for a project should be a MIfA, with the implications you draw that organisations without MIfAs are effectively excluded from working in the area.

[BAJR]

Thanks Martin . So I am not completely mad

When I was a planning archaeologist I operated a policy of adhering to IfA standards whether or not in the IfA -- like the adverts on BAJR I allow IfA preferred OR IfA or equivellent OR IfA member or can show they would be able to achieve membership ... latitude to accept people who can do the job well.

Perhaps soon the IfA will be the must have sign of professionalism along with CSCS and Driving Licence ( perhaps even my Skills Passport ) I want peole to join .. not be beaten into submission.

[Martin Locock]

I can see that the problem with allowing 'equivalence' is that curators would then spend a lot of time arguing whether a professor or long-term amateur or classicit counted as equivalent. The IfA and the RP scheme are well established by now and I sincerely don't understand how a comemrcial arcaheological with any prententions to professionalism would fail to join - the only arguments I've seen boil down to: it costs money, some people were or are involved who I don't like, it has failed to police its members effectively, it has policed its members too harshly, or I'm a brilliant archaeologist and shouldn't have to prove myself to anybody.

[kevin wooldridge]

Curators who are members of the IfA have a duty to follow the IfA Code of Conduct and the standard and guidance for archaeological advice.......This was put in place last October and was subject to discussion on BAJR forums. Some people took advantage of the consultation period and the re-consultation period to reply directly to the IfA and ALGAO.....The advice states in section 13.1.2 'Advisors should seek to ensure the compliance of all archaeological work with IfA standards and guidance and the agreed specification, and should monitor the quality of all stages of assessment, investigation and post-investigation work', and in section 13.1.5 'Advisors should seek to ensure that archaeological investigation is undertaken only by practices or individuals that can demonstrate adherence to IfA or other recognised standards. To facilitate this they should consider requiring that suppliers be professionally accredited by the IfA’s Registration scheme or other recognised accreditation scheme. Advisors should not use local lists of suppliers unless they are compiled and monitored using criteria at least as stringent as those for IfA registration'. So it could be said that curators are following advice mandated through their membership of IfA

My memory is that this guidance was formulated in close liaison with the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers so not only represents the view of the membership of IfA but also of the organisation with the responsibility of representing those who implement the advice. It might not be popular with all sectors of UK archaeology, but surely with the backing of all involved and the extensive consultation undertaken (and re-consultation as I recall), this matter has to be considered done and dusted. Apologies David as I can see the issue is causing you angst, but when do we say enough is enough?

[BAJR]

I'm a brilliant archaeologist and shouldn't have to prove myself to anybody.

damn... Martin you already know my excuse. though I am also a MIfA ... thanks to being an illustrator. ( though to be fair I was also a MIfA before based on competence at running projects ) It is heartening to know that an illustrator MIfA could tender for work in Dyfed while a competent actually done it before and can show the proof... cannot.

I guess equivelence is if that company has carried out work in that area in the past or can prove that they have a good track record of commercial project completion to IfA standards. I did that myself in teh past. though those that had that status havfe had that removed, if they are not IfA... hmmmmm

The interesting thing about the discussion is the concept that it is done and dusted ... a standard and guidance ... the clue is the word guidance...

"To facilitate this they should consider requiring that suppliers be professionally accredited by the IfA’s Registration scheme or other recognised accreditation scheme"


Kevin... the angst is one that like to see fair play not bullied compliance.

Enough is enough I suspect. Enough has been said, and it is clear that this is the way it is to be played. I am still not sorry to highlight this.

I will say it one last time. Standards must be maintained and seen to be done. Curators must create an even playing field - If MArtin was the person who promoted the IfA I would guess that people would join happily. sensible and reasonable talk. A robust discussion is needed to test the mettle of a tact. I can accept it, if not agree with the method. I hope you Kevin can see that disregarding teh views of many other archaeologists is not the way to win hearts and minds. and the statement above is so full of carefully worded as to be a fist in a velvet glove. I will continue to voice concerns.... and listen to replies with open ears.

[RedEarth]

This is surely old news. I am certainly aware of one local council that was going to abandon its list and only point people in the direction of the IfA RO list and another council that has for years wording to the effect that work must be carried out by AIfA level or equivalent. Of course, the latter got round the problem of insisting IfA membership but it provides a bench mark, however impossible to enforce. The council lists have been a joke for ages anyway for despite resolutely not being a list of recommendations, they effectively are because you usually can't just ring up and ask to get on one without jumping through some hoops to prove competence. Where's the story? If CPAT have specifically said that only MIfAs or ROs can carry out the work maybe that is a legal step to far, but if you can't be arsed to join the IfA why not? Stop trotting out the same old excuses. (And yes, the Illustrators becoming MIfAs does make a bit of a mockery of the whole thing).

[Crocodile]

Sounds like closed shop to me.

[NWA]

Good lord, where do I start??? Nice to see that common sense is prevailing in at least one corner of the archaeological profession (i.e. bajr).

Re contractor lists, woe betide any individual / organisation that relied on being 'on the list' to get their work........whatever happened to marketing, reputation etc. etc.

Re the requirement for PMs to be MIfA, I am sure that CPAT could not reasonably exclude an individual who could demonstrate that they had equivalent experience etc.

It makes me want to quit my MIfA status in order to be able to challenge such stupidity.................it's becoming clear to me that the IfA (and FAME for that matter) are nothing more than collectives of self-serving blowhards who think they know better...........and don't get me started on the Southport Group.........or perhaps you think otherwise?

However, getting back to the title of the thread, no I don't think it is Restriction of Trade as it is unenforceable under law.