IFA RO only as approved contractors

[Jack]

Hmmmm not heard this one either. Is it from guidance or recommendations being taken as law?

Surely anything the council says about who a contractor can employ is guidance rather than enforcement?

[vulpes]

But RedEarth, BAJR and the Phone Book have a terrible record for disciplining naughty units! :face-stir:

[kevin wooldridge]

Vulpes is right... the IfA announced a while back that it had received a legal opinion to the effect that curators could be justified in excluding non-RAOs. I am sure I mentioned this on BAJR at the time, but can't for the life of me find the thread right now....

......such a policy doesn't necessarily discriminate against new units. The RAO system is based on the principle of a responisble IFA member rather than the organisation itself, so the obvious answers for a 'new unit' are 1) make sure you are compliant with the IfA RAO rules, 2) make sure you have a 'responsible' (MIFA) grown-up in a position of authority, 3) Apply for RAO status. I note that some RAOs are infact 'single person' so I guess size is not everything...

I think the arguments of not trusting the IfA, not wanting to become a member etc etc are perfectly valid and I know some folk feel that the IfA have let them down in the past, but if the rules of the game say that we are now playing with a round ball on a big green pitch, then that's the rules of the game....I don't think anything is going to persuade the IfA that they need to consider the wishes of the recusants above the aspirations of its members. Especially if those aspirations are supported by law, rather than the laissez-faire situation that now governs archaeological standards.

[Sparky]

Hmmmm not heard this one either. Is it from guidance or recommendations being taken as law?

Surely anything the council says about who a contractor can employ is guidance rather than enforcement?

Jack,

The IfA employed a barrister to engineer an argument that may have a strong legal case against a challenge to local authorities requiring only IfA ROs as archaeological contractors. The answer was not a definitive 'yes we can', and they paid good money for it, so naturally it was going to be positive. Or at least the announcement details did not suggest arguments to the contrary.

[moreno]

A County I'm familiar with did require IFA RAO, MIFA to undertake work on their patch. Though I'm not up to date on their current requirements.

*thanks trowelfodder for pointing this out *

[vulpes]

Surely anything the council says about who a contractor can employ is guidance rather than enforcement?

Not if it's in properly worded planning condition, then it could be enforced. This was set out some time ago in The Archaeologist magazine article (Reference anyone?). Only a matter of time before it was picked up. And hopefully only a matter of time before it becomes standard practice off the back of some positive appeal decisions.

[trowelfodder]

Vulpes I think that calling me a liar is unacceptable. I understand that we have different points of view and that is the point of the forum - to discuss issues and understand all the different points of view. Accusing me of making this up is hardly likely to add to the thread.

And I am waiting for David to clarify the position of councils before posting names as it is really important to me that BAJR is not caused any problems. But in a way it is not important at this stage who is involved it is simply an issue that may affect BAJRites and it is put up for discussion.

[moreno]

In the county I'm familiar with the question of enforcement (as Vulpes quite rightly points out) was raised. The explanation was that it was council policy until the issue/policy was legally challenged. The primary reason being was recourse. Surely a legitimate reason, but does make the issue of IFA membership a necessity rather than an option.

[trowelfodder]

So does this mean that we are now moving close to membership of the IFA being compulsory?

And will this change the status of the organisation?

Will it be become a chartered institution and is this the position that they are aiming for?

Did the IFA instigate the decision by councils?

[kevin wooldridge]

Not if it's in properly worded planning condition, then it could be enforced. This was set out some time ago in The Archaeologist magazine article (Reference anyone?). Only a matter of time before it was picked up. And hopefully only a matter of time before it becomes standard practice off the back of some positive appeal decisions.

It was in The Archaeologist 77 (Autumn 2010). The precise wording of Peter Hinton's introduction was:

"IfA has commissioned a formal opinion from counsel on the lawfulness of local authorities requiring archaeological work to be done by Registered Organisations. IfA’s Honorary Legal Advisor briefed counsel about the objectives, scope and administration of the Registered Organisations scheme. Counsel researched the relevant legislation, case law, PPG 16, and the consultation draft PPS5 and its practice guidance. While these latter documents restrict the application of his advice to England, it seems unlikely that it would not hold elsewhere in the UK".