Quote:quote:Originally posted by YellowPete
Its a difficult issue to understand
RAO's cant be let to run free of contraints, but likewise all members should be held to the same remit.
The only problem for this is that when the use of the ifa comes into its own the likelihood of subversive tactics using the ifa for commercial gain will also come into the fore.
The ifa has its place where it is as a body whom advocate standards, but as yet it is still too early to access any further.
especially in relation to the future of the profession.
txt is
Mike
Still not sure I entirley understand the point(s) you're making, but I'll stick with it!
The main difference between the constraints on ROs and on an individual member is that ALL employees of an RO (whether individual members or not) are expected to abide by the Code of Conduct and the relevent Standards and Guidance. If they don't, the Responsible Post Holder will be held to account by the IfA.
If a RO doesn't abide by those rules, then they can be dropped from the scheme, just as an individual member can be removed from the IfA. Things such as the minimum pay issues are covered within the Code of Conduct under Principle 5 (and so are relevent to all members of IfA):
The member shall recognise the aspirations of employees,
colleagues and helpers with regard to all matters relating to
employment, including career development, health and safety,
terms and conditions of employment and equality of
opportunity. (NB, member in this case is not MIfA, it is all members of the IfA)
So, as far as I can see all members are held to the same remit - the Code of Conduct and Standards and Guidance.
There is then the discussion as to whether all 'archaeologists' ought to be a member of this or any other body in order to call themselves archaeologists. Personally, my present thoughts are that there should be a body which 'registers' archaeologists, and that could include archaeological organisations, and that the code and standards that IfA have developed are a good starting point.
I also think that if this happens, then not only must members apply and go through a validation process, but that they should be re-assessed on a regular basis (perhaps every 2 years) - this already happens with ROs. Having seen the problems associated with getting people to put in the relevant information for validation into IfA at first hand, however, I hesitate to be confident that this would be possible unless it was necessary in order to practice archaeology.
It also seems counter-intuitive to me to suggest that one body would develop the Code and Standards and Guidance (at present IfA) and another body decide whether individuals meet those standards. In the end, is this suggestion to do with individuals/organisations feeling disempowered and worrying that a large number of people (perhaps with a perceived vested interest?) will block attempts to change? That's democracy! (when I rule the worls however..... [:p])
Following on from that, I believe that as an Affiliate you still agree to abide by the Code of Conduct. Why not, therefore, be a corporate member (Member, Associate or Practitioner) and have the opportunity to be involved with the development of and vote on issues which affect the archaeological profession?
(As an ending note - I've been on Validation Committee and on the R(A)O Committee and so have seen some of the decisions for and against membership which have been taken by the people who are - in many cases- giving up their own time to sit on those committees. It's a pretty thankless task alot of the time but people do it because they feel it's important. In the case of the Validation Committee in particular, there is a good mix of PIfA, AIfA and MIfA members and everyone has an equal vote and an equal say. This committee now meets every 6 weeks for a whole day - that's quite a chunk of people's time!)
