IfA/AAIS merger

[Jack]

Yes. Exactly. So unless you manage to climb into the council elite and have a majority within it. You cannot effect any changes for the better except to adjust the details of the dictates from on high.

Wonder how easy it is for someone to join, climb the ladder, then get on the ruling council? Bet you have to be a member of the right gentlemans club. Or am I being too cynical?

[Martin Locock]

Council membership is more open than you suggest; any member can stand, and the election is of the entire membership. Council members include Practitioners, members of the Digger's Forum special interest group and AIFAs as well as MIFAs. It is easy if you are willing to contribute.

It is common to portray fFA membership as consisting solely of Unit managers, but it actually represents large numbers of experienced site staff, supervisors, and specialists.

[BAJR]

Exactly, though it can be a bit like wading through treacle having wandered through the hallowed halls myself.
Currently I will be backing council candidates who are clearly field and site staff - who will support implementation of the long forgotten (though not by BAJR) benchmarking.

I will be listing candidates who those who are in IfA should consider backing.

[Jack]

Interesting...thanks.

But of course you are still just voting for someone in the hope they will represent you...or their 'election promises' - sounds familiar. Rather than actually having a direct say in what the 'strategies or direction' should be.

At least as you say its less of a closed shop than it seems.

Still flawed if you ask me though.

[P Prentice]

Interesting...thanks.

But of course you are still just voting for someone in the hope they will represent you...or their 'election promises' - sounds familiar. Rather than actually having a direct say in what the 'strategies or direction' should be.

At least as you say its less of a closed shop than it seems.

Still flawed if you ask me though.

or you could stand for election and have a more direct say

[dirtpixie]

...I will be backing council candidates who are clearly field and site staff - who will support implementation of the long forgotten (though not by BAJR) benchmarking.
I will be listing candidates who those who are in IfA should consider backing.

I agree. Backing field staff is one of the objectives of my membership of the IfA, hence I will be backing such candidates. At the same time I shall be raising questions regarding the motivation and agenda of candidates who are also Directors, high-level management or Board trustees of large commercial Archaeological companies. Scratch that, I'll ask questions regarding the motivation and agenda of ALL candidates!

I also believe though that more needs to be done to encourage membership from those in the field - those looking to enter at PIfA and AIfA level.

[Jack]

or you could stand for election and have a more direct say

Ah but whose to say that I would then represent archaeologists any better. i wouldn't trust me.

'power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately'

[Marcus Brody]

I'm not a member of the IFA, and if I was asked why not, I'd say that it's because I've never needed to be in order to find work. I realise that this is an entirely selfish position, and that I (and everyone else) should join in order to improve the profession as a whole, but there you go. From that perspective, chartered status and an associated restriction on who could describe themselves as an archaeologist would probably force me to sign up, as I wouldn't be able to work otherwise, but I'm not certain that such a coercive approach would be beneficial - it would simply result in a lot of unhappy members who felt that they'd been co-opted into the IFA against their will. I wouldn't be in favour of the IFA going down that route.

The other reason I've never joined goes back to some of the first sites I worked on, where there were a number of PIFAs and AIFAs who didn't seem to know one end of a trowel from another (we were never visited by any MIFAs), while the people I learned the most from weren't members. This led me to the (possibly mistaken) conclusion that a lot of IFA members were solely in it so that they could put another string of letters after their names, a prejudice that I'm sorry to say has stuck with me.

[chiz]

Yes. Exactly. So unless you manage to climb into the council elite and have a majority within it. You cannot effect any changes for the better except to adjust the details of the dictates from on high.

Wonder how easy it is for someone to join, climb the ladder, then get on the ruling council? Bet you have to be a member of the right gentlemans club. Or am I being too cynical?

I joined the IfA in 2008 as I went freelance, before that it was fairly irrelevent to my career as I worked for a large unit, plus I didn't really understand it, and didn't trust them. Especially if they would let me in! I was once almost persuaded to join by colleagues as a way of pushing for change from within, but to be honest, I couldn't be bothered. Once I was freelance it was more useful to be in the IfA when I was working in new areas or with new clients. It was the middle of the recession and for a while I was working as a digger for a big unit struggling to keep my family fed and occasionally, maybe, see them. Not exactly elite.

At the 2009 election there were a couple of Diggers' Forum members who were standing down from council and I decided to stand to try and keep their numbers up. I didn't get in, perhaps my election statement calling for increased minima and introduction of benchmarking wasn't what people really wanted? But I tried. To my surprise I was co-opted onto Council this year, for a year. As a fieldworker its not easy to get to the meetings, but you do get listened to. Its surprising who is on council, there are a surprising number of actual archaeologists on there, not just bosses. But they do need persuading that upping minima is the right thing for the IfA to do. I'm standing again this year, as are two other DF committee members: Sadie Watson and Geoff Morley. Both have many years of experience on council arguing for better wages and a more representative IfA, but until the members vote for more members like them, it can't happen. That's what a democratic institute means.

The DF is trying to get more fieldworkers onto council to represent the site workers, that is what the DF is all about. Getting an industry that represents everyone. Creating a profession that is fair for everyone from the start to finish of your career. If we can get all three of us on council then we will not only be able to present our arguments showing why it is essential that minima are put up, but argue our case at council and persuade those who are undecided that it is the right thing to do. If we don't present the arguments for increasing minima and getting benchmarking back on track, then who will? There would be those with the opposite vested interests (low wages) arguing against wage increases, but no-one actively opposing that view.

I want an IfA that represents all archaeologists at all points in their career. And that is working to try and create a financially sustainable career at that. Standing for council again is one way I'm trying to get that to happen, along with the DF newsletter and research like the DF survey on away work and travel. Maybe if I get on council I'll be playing into their hands: being inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside the tent pissing in. Except most of us don't seem to be doing anything as positive as pissing on the IfA's tent, we're just wandering around outside the tent pissing on ourselves.

Chiz

[BAJR]

I would like to comcur -with both Chiz and dirt pixie.