IFA RO only as approved contractors

[GnomeKing]

Track Record...Peer Review....Reputation...Results

Missed a bit in this thread, but i am still stuck here @ : Lack of effective Action taken against RO's who have manifestly IFA breached code of conduct/Produced incredibly shoddy work.

Until this issue is resolved the IFA is an Accreditation Farce....(though i still think it has an important role to play in Lobbying, and i will fight hard to keep the Code of Conduct).

These are the steps I am taking:
1) i may well bring a formal complaint against a big RO for a demonstrably misleading and S*it piece of work
2)I may well copy BAJRhost into the information
3)I am likely to encourage the client who suffered from this to peruse a complaint, or to let me represent their views on this matter.
3)I will certainly be informing all interested members of the public (interested passers-by, amateur groups, metal detectorists etc.) about this issue, and encouraging them to take it up with their councils.
I am drifting away from the IFA, despite previous support....too slow...too ineffective...stinks of self interest.
I am not alone.

a polite warning : SORT OUT YOUR EXISTING RO'S BEFORE YOU EVEN DARE TRY TO IMPOSE THIS NONSENSE !!!

For everybody else who wants to seen improvements in the profession :
1) start by joining unions (standards CAN be dealt with in union context, and even with reference to IFA code of conduct),
2) then form work-bassed communities where you can make direct complaints about employers/companies.
3)Get some shoddy people practices closed down, and make space for those many others who will do a better job of it!

[Wax]

a polite warning : SORT OUT YOUR EXISTING RO'S BEFORE YOU EVEN DARE TRY TO IMPOSE THIS NONSENSE !!!

Here here !!!!!!!! Nicely put GK straight to the heart of the issue:face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

Beat me to it - all I can do is concur wholeheartedly :face-approve:

[Martin Locock]

I hope Gnome King does raise a complaint. If you see what you think is poor professional practice and take no action then you are also guilty.

I would note, however, that all these units which aren't ROs are almost impossible to bring to account. Logically we should be encouraging all to become ROs because at least then they can be dealt with.

[kevin wooldridge]

I would note, however, that all these units which aren't ROs are almost impossible to bring to account. Logically we should be encouraging all to become ROs because at least then they can be dealt with.

It's actually impossible under the IfA rules to bring any 'oganisation. to account as the IfA does not have Corporate members. All the IfA can do is to take action against the individual who the RAO put forward as their 'responsible person'. Of course that could result in the organisation being suspended from RAO membership, but any sanction would have to be against the individual(s) involved.

[Martin Locock]

True. But if the postholder were ejected from the IfA for serious breach of professional standards, the RO would lose its RO status.

[kevin wooldridge]

True. But if the postholder were ejected from the IfA for serious breach of professional standards, the RO would lose its RO status.

Not necessarily...the RAO could just nominate another postholder...(although I admit if I were on IfA disciplinary committee I might get a little concerned at the idea that postholders could be expendable if the 'good name' of the organisation was at stake).

[Kel]

I would note, however, that all these units which aren't ROs are almost impossible to bring to account. Logically we should be encouraging all to become ROs because at least then they can be dealt with.

But the ones most likely to need dealing with, are the ones least likely to volunteer to become ROs.

Encouragement will never work. The only ones which will register are the ones which are confident that they'll be able to meet the registration requirements.

Mandatory registration would be the only way to make this work.

[Dinosaur]

But the ones most likely to need dealing with, are the ones least likely to volunteer to become ROs.

Encouragement will never work. The only ones which will register are the ones which are confident that they'll be able to meet the registration requirements.

Mandatory registration would be the only way to make this work.

What about the organisations that would easily 'be able to meet the registration requirements' but have no interest in doing so, BAJR for instance?

[BAJR]

Yup.... I don't want to be an RO... and the curatorial people are happy with my work.

I am confident but curious.

pps have asked one of the Curatorial organisations to clarify there seeming RO only stance