Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
'This really was not intended as an IFA 'bash' I simply feel that there is a lot of misconceptions about what the IFA can, does and should do. I still feel the simplest solution is to have them be 'accountable' themselves to people and organisations other than their members.'
(I wrote an inital reply to this, and then realised I had pressed my Friday rant button too hard and it was stuck on full!)
I agree there are misconceptions about what IFA do. I had a lot of misconceptions before I joined, not least that I didn't 'fit' the criteria they had for archaeologists. I was wrong, but I didn't have apathy towards them. Since then I have been on Council, Validation and RAO committees and have seen that I was wrong about lots of things.
As for being accountable and favouring members, how are those who aren't members accountable? They can make complaints against members but aren't accountable for their own behaviour. They might, as you assert, be following very similar paths, but how do we know?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
indeed... a non member who brings a complaint aginst a member is not accountable... not fair on the memebr really?
we have been discussing much of this ... which is terrible.. when you think you should be enjoying a holiday, but its raining and maggies feet are sore. we have some great positive suggestions... but to give you a hint.
you should not have to join an organisation to find out what they are like.. the orgaisation should be doing everything to find out what people want.. and showing non members what they are missing... inspiration and open... not defensive and secretive. I still have questions and requests for info that have yet to be answered ... why? I get embarressed if I have to ask twice or wait a month.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
ps my rant button has been removed. positives ..yes
perhaps the positive and frindly nature of the IFA could list them then folk could see what they are missing.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
Hope the holiday picks up!
I agree, but maybe they think that they are trying to be open and every time something comes up they get hit with a big hammer? Plus (and I obviously don't know what the information is), maybe they just don't collect that information. Or maybe their priorities are set differently?
As for the complaint side, it's also true to say that if it was me someone was complaining about I wouldn't want that out in the open until I'd had my case heard. Mud sticks, even (especially!)unfair mud.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
true... mud indeed can stick.. and there are many that know that too well. many who will fear even bringing a complaint as they will find that their names are handed over. Or the accuser is allowed to openly crow about censure ... but can,t be stopped as they are not ifa member. bashing the ifa should not be a hobby... it is negative and in the end.. pointless. but they should be more open to what non members want. one thing that I once pointed out was that all memebership benefits were only made available to memebers... er.... etc. now they have tim. phew
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Not wishing to contribute to the good / bad IFA argument, I think that Drumcharry's suggestion of a regulatory body - Offarch?? - is a brilliant idea and one I've heard mooted about before.
Such an organisation could be seen as delivering inpartial judgement and monitoring as long as its members were free from association with commercial units and the IFA, or even from local and national government bodies. I also believe that the IFA's role could be more defined as the professional organisation it attempts to be, leaving the matters that cause so much contention up to a higher authority. Perhaps its members could not only include archaeologists but also other professionals such as lawyers, engineers, doctors, members of the public...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
One man and his desk said
"No-one else has defined any standards, so what other standards could they uphold than the ones the define themselves?"
Not true - see my paper at the BAJR conference. Many organisations issue standards not least English Heritage.
I would note that the disciplinary procedures need a major revision. I recently asked the IFA what the rules of evidence were for a disciplinary complaint and the IFA were unable to tell me what they were.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
Quote:quote:"Not true - the RAO itself is obliged to ensure that all its employees adhere to the standards, whether or not they are IFA members."
As it would be illegal to insist on IFA membership for an individual within an organisation and a non-IFA member has no obligation to work under someone elses contract with the IFA the individuals are not of course answerable to the IFA. One would hope that archaeologists would adhere to there own standards which should pretty much match those of the IFA but an RAO cannot legally enforce IFA standards on employees, but can enforce it?s own standards, via a contract, on employees these standards would have to be rigidly defined though within the contract as 'acceptable' or 'suitable' standard could equally apply to methods outside of IFA guidelines but still ethical and accurate. A non IFA member cannot therefore be brought to task for not following IFA standards and therefore developers, for example cannot have the perceived security of IFA standards when not everyone is answerable to them within an organisation.
1man1desk is quite right here. If you work for an RAO, you are obliged to adhere to the standards and guidance of the IFA. That is really the whole point of the company being an RAO. I have sugned one of these employment contracts in the past, and they are well within their rights to include a clause saying something like "the employee will abide by the standards and guidance of the IFA". An RAO cannot require you to be a member of the IFA (though they can offer to pay your subs).
The IFA is never going to meet your definition of "independent", as it will always be reliant on its members for funds. Just like all other professional associations and trade unions. Barring the possibility of an eccentric millionaire setting them up with a trust fund.
Therefore the idea that the IFA has no authority over non members is entirely false if they work within an RAO. There is a very interesting legal point here that you cannot be bound by the rules of an organisation that you chose not to sign up to but, in order to gain employment, you are forced to comply with that organisation which does not necessarily have authority or consensus. I am also not sure whether RAO's are obligated to force IFA standards in there contracts as I caould name (but won't due to BAJR Forum Regs.) at least one that doesn't. I did also say that simply working within an RAO alone wasn't enough to make a non member subject to IFA standards but that a very 'tight' reference to the specific standards would need to be made in the contract of employment so this post actually repeats my assertions!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2008
Apologies for double posting but I wanted this to be seperate from the one above.
'Sparky' at least thinks an independent regulatory body would be a good idea ('Offarch?'). I do not see how the IFA or it's members could object to this as they, presumably, back there own self appointed remit. A regulatory body would serve simply to ensure transparency and fairness in all aspects of the profession and would probably actually help to enhance the IFAs image as there would be less reason to distrust them and their procedures.
As an archaeologist for over twenty years and an ex Fieldwork and General Director I can say that the standards we employed were different to but no less effective than those required by the IFA. I think that, regretfully, there is a way of thinking within certain parts of the IFA that their way is the only way and i find this both disrespectful to archaeologists outside the organisation and a little blinkered.
Would it really be that difficult to set up the regulatory board consisting of the 'great and the good' (or at least the 'moderately successful and the ok') which would allow the profession to take a huge leap forward in perceived fairness and ethical enhancement both inside and out both the profession and internal organisations such as the IFA?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
My views on the IFA have been previously stated and i dont want to get back into them again but i think that an independant overseer is a fantastic idea and i wish that there had been one when i put in my complaint, which i do not feel was delt with fairly or impartially but where do i go to complain? Do i complain to the ifa about the ifa or is there a higher power?
