Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:quote:As pointed out by Hosty, Curators apply the IFA's standards.
Who watches the IFA?
Unlike EH/HS/Cadw, curators, SCAUM, ALGAO, CBA, BAJR or any other archaeological organisation that I can think of in the UK, the IFA is democratically accountable. Its Council is elected on a regular basis by the corporate members (i.e. all MIFAs, AIFAs and PIFAs), and key decisions are made at the AGM where all corporate members have a vote.
So, who watches the IFA? We do - thousands of ordinary archaeologists throughout the country. If you want a say, all you have to do is join.
As in most other forms of election in the UK, the IFA's elections are marred by voter apathy. But at least in the IFA, the rules are set by archaeologists for archaeologists and they are validated through the votes of the membership.
If you want some sort of 'Offarch', then please remember that such organisations are appointed by government and government sets the rules they operate, and can change them to suit itself. Is that really what you want?
On a separate but related point, any industry-wide overseeing body would not oversee the IFA, because it would replace it. If we put such an organisation in place, what would be the point of keeping the IFA as well?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
I have to say I agree with 1man on this issue.
On a point of fact the CBA is also democratically accountable in that each and every member of the CBA is entitled to nominate and vote for Trustees. (Trustees in the CBA are what every other society would call Council). To quote from Article 29 of their constitution:
"...any person wishing to be elected or re-elected as a Trustee must be nominated by either six individual Members or one Institutional Member or CBA Wales Cymru, the Council for Scottish Archaeology or an English CBA Group in writing to the Trustees to be received by them no later than three calendar months prior to the date of the next Annual General Meeting."
(The full CBA Articles of Association are here.
It is then put to the vote at the AGM, in the usual fashion of such organisations. It costs ?28 a year to join the CBA.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
No one is asking for an end to the IFA. I think that would be a sad day. The problem here is trust and confidence.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Quote:quote:Trust and confidence.
Yes indeed. Something which may be undeserved or perhaps lacking, due to a number of factors.. the question is.... where are the IFA? What do they do? What are they doing? etc etc.... I once pointed out that telling members how good it was to be in the IFA was missing the point of telling non-members how good it would be to join... and that means getting out there (Tim Howard is good, but can't be everywhere) using every available medium - including BAJR, to dispell fears, explain reasons, etc. It may be argued they would spend too much time arguing the point with 'anti' people.. but surely it is better to talk, explain and show that the reasons put forward are incorrect.. or if a critisism is valid, to act on it and be seen to act on it. Just a thought [hm]
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Hi All
Isn't this all a bit navel gazing and over reacting here? First we start with an idea that the IFA isn't a full regulator and now we're calling for an Offarch!
So a Site Assistant digging a ditch will be overseen by, the site supervisor, the site PO, the Project Manager, who is in turn monitored by the curator (and by extension the IFA and ALGAO), the curator is managed/employed by democratically elected members, and all of these will be overseen by OFFArch, a quango similar to EH but involved in "normal DC cases", and it is OFFArch that has the final say in terms of standards and conditions.
So will OFFArch be able to sanction proceedings against the local elected members or the curator themselves? If the latter, then curators are going to find themselves prosecuted for decisions made by members. If OFFArch also presides over members then there is an unelected, unrepresentative body (which might end up being three recent graduates on power trips) making decision concerning arcane practices which most members of the public will not care about or understand.
How many regulating powers does that Site Assistant need to properly excavate and record that ditch? None, they just need proper training, experience and a company that tenders correctly that has qualified, experienced staff and a curator with similar qual/train/ex.
The issues in archaeology will not be solved by adding more regulatory bodies with overreaching powers, that's just mad! The problems we have are not concerned with businesses overcharging customers, or raising costs within a monopolistic industry to pay shareholders. The problems are internal and are to do with the approach taken by individuals who "cheat" by relaxing (or abandoning) proper standards.
Steven
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Remember that the IFA do not monitor standards, they only react to complaints about members and RAOs ( I have my own feelings on that) Curators are the ones who enforce standards (cue comments of variable implementation - with one example being where a similar project in one county will elicit a different response, a complaint often raised by contractors, who must know what each area will want, rather than a standardised approach....which is tricky in itself!) And lets not even get started on who can call themselves an archaeologist ... and why they can?
I do agree that the basis is training... from university onwards.. verifiable, trusted and a benefit to the individual and the sector. a mark of a professional (or amateur) - a solid record of ability and skill... a skills passport for example.
Something that is recognised as a sign of competence in skills, from excavation to survey from ceramic analysis to dendro-work.
The question keeps returning... who to complain to who is truely independent of any group? Simplify the system, not complicate it.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Sparky
OldGirl,
I think you are splitting hairs. An overseeing body would oversee everyone, not only the IFA. We would all be committed to their requirements, IFA members or not. Much like we are to curators...
And now another quote from the 1st post :
Quote : 'The solution is actually fairly simple, at least in principle, a small independent organisation should monitor the activities of the IFA'
I was commenting on the original post, so I don't think I was splitting hairs! The original comment was SPECIFICALLY with regard to IFA and no-one else and most of my comments have been in response to this original proposal.
The discussion has, however, mover on with the replies from 1man, Mr Host, Paul Belford and Steven and so I'll leave this at this point!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by BAJR Host: Quote:quote:The question keeps returning... who to complain to who is truely independent of any group?
There is no such thing in the world as 'truely independent of any group'.
Any regulating body has to be appointed by someone, who will not only determine membership but will also set the remit. In terms of membership, you have certain options:
- self-appointment (like BAJR Host)
- appointment by someone else (e.g. HBMC is appointed by government)
- ex-officio membership (like members of ALGAO or SCAUM)
- democratic election (like IFA Council or Trustees of CBA)
If you go for a democratic process, then you have to define your electorate. If your electorate is 'all archaeologists', then you have to define 'archaeologist'.
Assuming that you want 'archaeologist' to mean someone with a good professional knowledge of archaeology and professionally involved in archaeology, you need to find a way to limit the electorate to that group.
One way to do that is to set up a process to validate the status of all who want to be considered archaeologists.
Follow all that through and, hey presto, you have something uncannily like the IFA!
Of course, you can depart from that path at any point along the line - but you still won't be able to find anyone genuinely independent; it is still just a choice of who they will be dependent on.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Hosty said "The question keeps returning... who to complain to who is truely independent of any group? Simplify the system, not complicate it."
Of course it depends what you are complaining about - and indeed what your relationship to the various parties is. Most 'complaints' are, I suspect, contractual in nature and it is for the Consultant and/or the Curator to respond as appropriate.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by the invisible man
Hosty said "The question keeps returning... who to complain to who is truely independent of any group? Simplify the system, not complicate it."
Of course it depends what you are complaining about - and indeed what your relationship to the various parties is. Most 'complaints' are, I suspect, contractual in nature and it is for the Consultant and/or the Curator to respond as appropriate.
And also what if the complaint is about a curator?
Plus, not all curators are ALGAO members, only the senior staff member in each place, and therefore (and this is not a critisism, just an observation) less likely to be 'at the coal face' in some areas of the country.
And also, some development control (DC) 'archaeologists' aren't archaeologists at all, they're planners. And they've been appointed by people (in many cases) who aren't archaeologists either.
I'll stop again now, 1man put it much better than i will. I'll go and lie down and take the frog pills.......
[:o)]
|
