IFA RO only as approved contractors

[vulpes]

In this system how could any new units be set up? How could they get the references they need to become ROs if they are unable to get work?

Do keep up TF, pretty sure that point has already been covered. Next question? :face-stir:

[Oxbeast]

There is not the slightest evidence of the IfA having teeth because the disciplinary process is secret. There can be no deterrent if any sanction is taken in secret. I've posted before that the IfA seem determined to undermine any credibility that they have through secrecy, unaccountability and uneven application of the rules.

[trowelfodder]

Of course its forcing people to join if your options are join and be able to work or dont join and therefore be unable to tender.

As you say Vulpes you are not the IFA so therefore maybe it would be more helpful if they were to clarify their position rather than you speaking for them when you deem appropriate but backing off when pressed on specifics.

Could we please have an official IFA statement. Are you pushing for chartered status or are you remaining a voluntary membership organisation.!

[trowelfodder]

In this system how could any new units be set up? How could they get the references they need to become ROs if they are unable to get work?
Do keep up TF, pretty sure that point has already been covered. Next question?

As i appear to have missed it p[lease clarify how this was covered

[vulpes]

As i appear to have missed it p[lease clarify how this was covered

What am I your PA or summat? Go and have a root through the thread, or the AUP!! As for me representing the IFA, nah, never said I did.

The IFA is pursuing chartered status though. You'd know that if you were a member!!

And they have booted out ROs I can think of 3 right now, I think they were all let back in after a bit of a clean up? And individual members too. It does happen. Perhaps not often enough for some's tastes but nonetheless...

Right I'm off to get some kip. I wouldn't wait up too long for an official statement from the IFA. I suspect they're sleeping too :face-kiss:

[kevin wooldridge]

I can confirm Trowelfodder that a unanimous motion was passed at the IfA AGM earlier this month instructing the IfA executive to proceed with an application for Chartered status. To the best of my knowledge this is not a secret (At least amongst IfA members) but may be news to non-IfA members.

As I posted before on this subject, Chartered status does not mean that archaeology will become a closed shop, but I am guessing that it might be used as a criterion by curators and/or sponsors.

[Sparky]

Problem is, Foxy, for this plan to take root, the IfA would require the concensus of curators, and as I understand the situation, this isn't the case. Those curators insisting on RO status of contractors are currently a small minority.

Personally, I applaud the IfA for their recent responses to the draft NPPF and also to various councils on the closure of their HER and curatorial services.

However, an example of their gummed efforts to enforce standards was highlighted recently when in response to a complaint about a repeat offender and an RO, the IfA informed a curator that they supported the case in principle but if the accused party were to pursue legal recourse, the IfA would not pursue the matter. This suggests that some standards have dropped within a RO andthe IfA are not willing or able to enforce discipline.

[BAJR]

So once again it comes down to enforcement of standards. and who does it.

I feel a loophole - if I get into trouble I make it legal and then the disciplinary has to back away :face-approve:
And please Vulpes, turn the sarcasm meter down a little bit. Perhaps it is not meant - but thats what comes over, so obfuscating what you are trying to say.

And they have booted out ROs I can think of 3 right now, I think they were all let back in after a bit of a clean up?

Not exactly a glowing reference for the system? Booted out, then let back in after a bit of a cleanup - you think? Where can we find this information? Surely must be accesible to an IfA member. perhaps I can also find information on discipled IfA Members as well. Otherwise - what's teh point? No better than the BAJR quiet word approach

To return to the topic. There are chartered surveyors and chartered accountants, as well as chartered architects. HOWEVER - there are also NON CHARTERED - the choice is there for the client. Making it a cartel if you only allow a particular group to work in an area is not a good move. :face-huh:

[P Prentice]

this standards malarky is all a bit of a smoke screen innit. before the ifa there were none and now everybody has adopted them and everybody knows roughly what they are about - ergo the job is done and it will be up to the mounties to determine if those aformentioned are met innit.

@ vulpes - quite enjoying your unitesque humour:face-approve:

[kevin wooldridge]

this standards malarky is all a bit of a smoke screen innit. before the ifa there were none and now everybody has adopted them and everybody knows roughly what they are about - ergo the job is done and it will be up to the mounties to determine if those aformentioned are met innit.

....well I'm not going to doubt anyone's integrity...It seems to me however that there is a difference between accepting and implementing a standard (which I am sure that the majority of archaeological practitioners in the UK do) and standing up and being accountable for that standard. It strikes me that IfA members fall into the latter group. If any curator or sponsor wants to acknowledge that due diligence and professed statement of responsibility, I think they should be allowed to exercise that right (In exactly the same manner that those who don't wish to belong to the IfA can exercise their right not to join). The IfA's legal position would appear to suggest that the practice of acknowledging IfA membership is not a constraint on trade and I would not be surprised if making IfA membership a pre-requisite for certain job applications does not also soon follow that trend.

Personally I am tired of the argument for or against the IfA, it strikes me its much more simplistic - in or out. The revealing trend might be that in future, if you want to maximise work opportunities the place to be is in, but no-one is forcing anyone to do anything. I wonder if there is the appetite for any non-IfA member or corporate body to challenge the IfA's 's legal interpretation. If not - hello Brave New World!!