Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
How about the Ifa drops the so called Standards, which as if you need reminding are actually called standards and Guidance?s, and then it wouldn?t have to deal with as many complaints and just accepts new members based on their obvious good credentials and proven adherence to the Code. The concept of standards can only corral people down the Standards haven?t been met, your not very professional I am going to tell on you rather than lookey me I have exceeded the standards. It seems to me as madness that it accepts complaints from non-members and that?s from somebody who as a non-member complained but then that?s just me. I also think that all complaints should be public
The ifas Introduction to Standards and Guidences
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...intro2.pdf
also points out the discombobulation between standards and Codes in the on going but really very short, maybe it should be put out of its history of the ifa
Quote:quote: Since its inception, the IFA has been concerned with setting standards in archaeology. Initially it defined standards for membership, which were later developed into the present system of rigorous peer validation, and adopted a Code of conduct. As the Institute developed, steps were taken to increase the level and effectiveness of professional self-regulation. More detailed by-laws were introduced to underpin and expand the key principles of the Code of conduct, and in 1990 the Institute resolved to define and impose on its members written standards to maintain and improve the quality of archaeological fieldwork.
This state of New Labour of change for changes sake has always the affect of making its original members likely to be unqualified in its present standards. Anyway the introduction then goes on to talk about hierarchies and quality but I think the best part is the juxtaposition of
Quote:quote:
This Standard, like the others, deliberately lacks detail.
with
Quote:quote:
Thus failure to meet the standards is liable be in conflict with the Codes. Members who conduct ?sub-standard? projects may find themselves subject to the Institute?s disciplinary procedure. The ultimate sanction in such a case would be expulsion from the Institute. In the commercial world local planning authorities, advised by ?curatorial? archaeologists, will consider projects not meeting IFA Standards to be inadequate for their purposes: a decision which may rapidly result in contractual disputes between applicants and their archaeological teams. Defaulting archaeological contractors could find this very expensive, and would not see much repeat business. They might also, depending on the legal advice received by the planning archaeologist, be removed from the planning authority?s list of contractors.
so you failed the standards so you have failed the code why do you need both, The ifa seem to be threatening/encouraging expensive disputes between archaeological teams and applicants what ever they are, yes the mighty list of contractors.
and then theres those principle authors why were those principle authors worried about Applicants I cant put my finger on it who did they imagine the Applicants would be..the so called archaeological team will get them
you are tired very tired but looking at that list of principle authors sorry you are getting very tired
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
[quote]Originally posted by 1man1desk
"If you come across a piece of bad practice by an IFA member, you know who to complain to. If the archaeologist concerned is not an IFA member, and doesn't work for an RAO, to whom would you complain? And if you found someone to complain to, against what standards would your complaint be judged?"
It might be a bit difficult to implement, and I doubt the IFA would want to do so on the grounds of cost and practicalities, but why can't the IFA at least log complaints against non-members/non-RAOs/virtually anybody. They could even investigate them if they felt like it - although they would have no power to do anything about it if the results of their enquiries were public (at least in archaeological circles) it would be quite useful.
Before anyone says anything, I know it's all sounding a bit 'secret police' and could lead to a lot of unpleasant rumour mongering (the complainee/complainer/complainant, whatever the word is, would have to be recorded as well in some way to try and prevent this, although that of course then puts people off, afraid of being branded trouble makers) but if a unit or an individual is not a member of the IFA or an RAO and have done nothing wrong they shouldn't have anything to be worried about. If the IFA can't deal with complaints about/by non-members in some way it is never going to serve any useful purpose in terms of disciplinary action.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
If people have not signed up to the standards by joining the IFA or working for an RAO then I do think it is unfair for an organisation to investigate or hold information on them.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by historic building
The legal ombudsman is to manage disputes between solicitors and their clients not within the law society itself.
No it's not, the Complaints procedure for the legal profession involves first going to the Law Firm themselves, then to the Law Society (which is a professional body funded by legal firms themselves) then and only then if a solution is not reached will the Legal Ombudsman consider a complaint. It has to have been 'through' the Law Society first. The legal Ombudsman also effectively therefore manages complaints that the Law Society hasnt been wholly fair or impartial.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by RedEarth: Quote:quote:If the IFA can't deal with complaints about/by non-members in some way it is never going to serve any useful purpose in terms of disciplinary action
There are something in the region of 5000 members in the IFA, plus over 50 RAOs, which include most of the major archaeological units and consultancies. If you believe there has been misconduct by any of those individuals or organisations, then you can complain to the IFA about them, and you know that your complaint will be judged against a published set of standards and in accordance with a published code of conduct. Last year, at least one member was expelled from the IFA following such a complaint, and other cases have been subject to lesser disciplinary actions. That's useful isn't it?
However, there are also a lot of archaeologists and some archaeological organisations that choose not to be in the IFA. While most of those people are just as ethically sound as any IFA member, when you come across an exception there is no-one you can complain to.
Sanctions by the IFA are also weakened by the fact that, if you are expelled from the IFA, there is nothing to stop you from calling yourself an archaeologist or practicing as one.
What would be 'useful' would be if all archaeologists were subject to the same potential sanctions if they transgress. At the moment, the only available route for that to happen is through the IFA, but only if IFA membership became a requirement if you want to practice as an archaeologist.
The IFA is a long way from perfect, but what we need to do is take our eye off the detail and keep it on the big picture. As far as regulating the profession and enforcing good archaeological practice goes, the IFA is the only game in town. It may not do the job very well, but no-one else does it at all, and it could do the job much better if everyone was inside, instead of standing outside and complaining.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2008
As has already been posted the IFA is not the only producer of Archaeological standards and why would it be better for every archaeologist to have a vested interest in overlooking the shortfallings of a proffessional organisation?
I'm afraid those who have tried to change things internally have, i understand, repeatedly come up against the 'IFA way or the highway' view that seems fairly prevalent in supporters of the organisation. I still don't understand why those supporters are so fearful of the IFA itself having it's quality of service monitored externally?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Quote:quote:Originally posted by tmsarch
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Noddy
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ne...toryid=130
Very occasionally details are released. Not often enough, but sometimes...
I note that the person in question in the above details posted by Noddy is still advertising himself as being an IFA member:
http://www.archaeologycymru.com/personnel/Personnel.htm
Hmm maybe this should be pointed out to the IFA?!
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Drumcharry
Quote:quote:Originally posted by historic building
The legal ombudsman is to manage disputes between solicitors and their clients not within the law society itself.
No it's not, the Complaints procedure for the legal profession involves first going to the Law Firm themselves, then to the Law Society (which is a professional body funded by legal firms themselves) then and only then if a solution is not reached will the Legal Ombudsman consider a complaint. It has to have been 'through' the Law Society first. The legal Ombudsman also effectively therefore manages complaints that the Law Society hasnt been wholly fair or impartial.
Comparisons to the legal profession are unhelpful. You are talking about southern Britain, where the Law Society of England and Wales is another non-chartered professional body. Archaeology needs a strong, chartered professional body, like the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or Royal Institute of British Architects. The government/taxpayer is not going to be interested in paying for a regulator for archaeology. Any other organisation is going to have the same problems as the IFA. Who is it funded by? What are their motivations in doing this? Are they really impartial? Are they truly independent? In a small profession, where everybody knows everyone else, I don't think these questions could be answered satisfactorily for everybody.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
"I'm afraid those who have tried to change things internally have, i understand, repeatedly come up against the 'IFA way or the highway' view that seems fairly prevalent in supporters of the organisation. I still don't understand why those supporters are so fearful of the IFA itself having it's quality of service monitored externally? "
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, please don't think I'm speaking on behalf of the IFA, I'm not. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the bottom!  It does strike me that the IFA staff and the individuals that give up their time to run the organisation might feel it was an easy way out to hand all the disciplinary stuff over to another organisation. But I think, as I've said before, that I would worry that a new organisation would have the same potential critisisms. Who does it answer to and who/what are its influences? And why should it just be the IFA and its members? (Genuine question!)
As for the 'IFA way of the highway'. I've had my views and opinions taken into account as a member on a number of occasions, not least because I've sat on committees and made sure they were heard.
(And if anyone wants to see the whole of the IFA disciplinary code, it's here :
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...202005.pdf
it also explains who makes up the disciplinary panels etc).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Quote:quote:I note that the person in question in the above details posted by Noddy is still advertising himself as being an IFA member:
http://www.archaeologycymru.com/personnel/Personnel.htm
Hmm maybe this should be pointed out to the IFA?!
I wouldn't be surprised if people in the IFA were already aware of this. However, now that they have kicked this individual out, there is nothing else they can do to him. I suppose that if his company made false claims on advertising then Trading Standards might theoretically take an interest, but only if someone complained to them.
Thanks for posting the link to the disciplinary procedure,oldgirl, I'll give it a proper read soon.
|
