IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress

[GnomeKing]

Thanks for the insight RG.

The problem with the IFA is (as Dino says) > they have done nothing to either identify or punish crap work and charlatans....some of those charlatans are key decsion makers!!!!!!!!!

Whatever the general membership consists of, commercial and corperate interests seem to dominate > lobbyists if you will.

I will not support an organisiation getting more power when it can not use {what little it has) effectiveley or responisbley.

IE. When was the last investigation into the standards and practice of a commercial company?, and what was the results?

(answers on back of fag packet please)


ps: dont get me wrong - 5 years ago i was massivley in favour of more status for the IFA, even though 10 years before that it seemed hopelessly irrelevant to commercail work...However, not now.

If anybody really still believes institutions can help us, then this is what they must do:

Hugely embarass the IFA with a string of compliants against ROs and senior members>
THEY NEED THIER ARSES KICKING

more importantly> anybody who really cares about archaeology and archaeologists should start grouping together in more/less informal ways to apply pressure on County Councils (and irrelevant bodies such as the IFA if you so wish)(whisleblowers and troublemakers PM me)....NOTHING will happen if you leave to the IFA, even if your a member and have a 'vote'...

Councils (who i strongly support in princliple) need to be pressured by the 'informed public' (when?, who?, what?, how much?)> seems harsh in these 'difficult economic times', but in fact this creates the demmand that underpins thier continued existence!!!!!

If only those lovley chapesses and chaps who have been beavering away at a Toffs Charter FOR YEARS had spent that time taking the simple but brutal steps to clean up the organisiation and make it a Real Guardian of standards and quality. :{ v.sad.

Forget the Dire-FA, and sod a 'royal charter'.

[Dinosaur]

Sensible words from BAJR - sadly no sound card driver on this machine and no speakers in office for video - may have to borrow Jack's earphones on monday (eek!)

.. well when they do come on here and flame us...

Since sadly few archaeologists treat archaeology as a 24/7 lifestyle any more (bring back the tents!), I'd be thinking around 9am Monday morning when they drop back into the 'job' and need to spend 8hrs 'working' :face-stir:

Poll's not going well though...BAJR, did you fix that way of multiple voting? am still convinced I wos robbed of 'digger of the year'... }

Ok, back to writing a lecture (finding stuff sometimes has its drawbacks) then down the pub, tis saturday night .

[kevin wooldridge]

IfA already has 3 grades of corporate membership (Practitioner,Associate, Member)and there is no reason why these wouldn't continue if the organisation gained a Royal Charter. I would like to see an additional Chartered grade established that would require both examination and experience to attain. Surely this would satisfy those who criticise the higher ranks of IfA as being out of touch, inexperienced and/or self seeking. But the only way that is going to happen will be through IfA members insisting upon it, by making sure the Charter doesn't allow the current crop of MIFA just to transfer their membership status from corporate to Chartered status...my opinion is that no amount of criticism by non-members will make that happen....only those who sign up will get a say and/or be influential in setting the standard for years to come....

[Dinosaur]

Unfortunately added membership also serves to strengthen IfA's claim to represent the majority of archaeologists - at the moment that's their weakest point, the fact that they don't represent the majority of the profession...maybe they should turn the whole organisation into one of their special interest groups - 'archaeologists who prefer playing politics'...

[Doug]

Unfortunately added membership also serves to strengthen IfA's claim to represent the majority of archaeologists - at the moment that's their weakest point, the fact that they don't represent the majority of the profession...maybe they should turn the whole organisation into one of their special interest groups - 'archaeologists who prefer playing politics'...

ehhh there very close depending on how one counts it. A big benefit (big in the sense of quantity e.g. most organizations offer) offered to employees is paying IfA fees (from what I have been told this can then be claimed back from the taxman so actually the gov. pays for it). So lots of people are in the IfA. Looking at the recent count of archaeologists 4200-4900 and the recent count of IfA membership (3300 last I heard) they probably do represent half or more of professional archaeologists(however one defines that). It gets a little dicey when one counts student members and affiliates in those numbers. Are they really students or interested or just people who want the benefits (except voting) but don't want to personally pay 200+.

So maybe they don't represent exactly half of professional archaeologists (however one defines that) but they are pretty damn close.

YES- person(s) who point(s) out that they or none of their friends are in the IfA or anyone they know in archaeology blah blah blah. Both can be true. IfA doesn't cover everyone and I suspect that there are certain groups missed. Just saving us some time

[kevin wooldridge]

....lots of people are in the IfA. Looking at the recent count of archaeologists 4200-4900 and the recent count of IfA membership (3300 last I heard) they probably do represent half or more of professional archaeologists(however one defines that). It gets a little dicey when one counts student members and affiliates in those numbers. Are they really students or interested or just people who want the benefits (except voting) but don't want to personally pay 200+.

As of last week there were 3062 IfA members of whom 900 were student/affiliates.....we have had this discussion before and Dinosaur is insistent that the IfA does not represent the majority of archaeologists. I think Dinosaur should be allowed that privilege.......its an irrelevance. As the IfA point out 75% of voting archaeologists need to approve the Charter petition for it to go ahead. I will be voting in that ballot, Dinosaur won't......

[RedEarth]

As of last week there were 3062 IfA members of whom 900 were student/affiliates.....we have had this discussion before and Dinosaur is insistent that the IfA does not represent the majority of archaeologists. I think Dinosaur should be allowed that privilege.......its an irrelevance. As the IfA point out 75% of voting archaeologists need to approve the Charter petition for it to go ahead. I will be voting in that ballot, Dinosaur won't......

Dino seems to be under the illusion that his way of thinking alone represents all archaeologists and everyone else is some sort of clock-watching part timer, who plays politics in order to climb the greasy pole, while not really caring about the archaeology. At the same time he cares so much he is putting together talks at the weekend, presumably unpaid. Who's the bigger sucker? The IfA member getting screwed over by their organisations lack of effectiveness (discuss) or the person getting screwed over by their employer but convincing themselves it is because they love the archaeology so much? What a shambles all round.

[Wax]

Huum my money is on them only getting around 65percent to vote either for or against. Lots of members but how many are actually active or belive in the organisation rather than feel forced to join? I will admit to once again contemplating joining just to get an advantage when applying for jobs. Not in my opinion a good reason for joining any organisation but unfortunately the way things are going. I am loosing the will to the engage with the arguments any more. I don't like the IFA but apart from BAJR (which I do believe in) they are about all there is. May be having a Royal Charter might get them to regulate the industry properly. (won't be putting any money on that). Red Earth is right it is a shambles

[kevin wooldridge]

Huum my money is on them only getting around 65percent to vote either for or against.

My interpretation of the Charter petition is that it's 75% of those who vote that is required and not 75% of the membership....

[Dinosaur]

My interpretation of the Charter petition is that it's 75% of those who vote that is required and not 75% of the membership....

Hence my comment above, it'll be the same tiny proportion of the membership who normally vote (judging by the turnout in previous votes they've had) - and they are presumably the 'active' can-be-politically-arsed minority, no evidence their views are representative of the membership as a whole. The Chartership thing should have to be 75% of the whole membership. Who actually comes up with these figures for how many people there are in the industry? And indeed how? Am not aware we ever reply to surveys, and can remember a conversation a while back with the guy who runs another outfit who has never even been surveyed on the subject! Can't be the only one. They making the numbers up?


Doing lectures is cos I said yes, not cos anyone told me to, certainly wouldn't do it for free as a work activity - but as a personal enterprise, am having to use a day's leave to deliver it at the far side of the country, that'll be £30 in petrol too, no lecture fee... - hate doing the bl**dy things, but not much point digging stuff up it you're then going to keep it secret - oh, sorry, forgot, apparently we just do archaeology as a 9-5 job for the money, not cos we're interested in it, must remember that....