Letter Bombs
NO ACTION
ON MY FORMAL IFA COMPLAINT
So Evelyn Baker blames everyone but the IFA for not
removing what she calls 'dud' archaeologists from that
body's membership.
A few years ago I lodged a formal complaint with the
IFA about the conduct of one such 'dud' who had failed
to properly record an excavation for which he was paid
and over several years, despite numerous offers of help,
also failed to produce a report. The case was examined
by Evelyn and a colleague who saw how poor the site
records were and who accepted that no report had been
produced but who, in a letter to me later, said that
no action could be taken against the individual. To
the best of my knowledge the individual concerned remains
a member of the IFA and now has several other unreported
sites to his credit (or otherwise).
Come off it Evelyn, the blame lies squarely with you
and your colleagues. The IFA is ineffectual bordering
on pathetic and will not be worth joining until it develops
a proper disciplinary system to deal with the few 'duds'
amongst the membership.
MENDACIOUS IFA PASSING THE BUCK
Several points in reply to the letter in the last
issue by Evelyn Baker. It is no surprise that only 28%
of diggers under thirty are members of this mendacious
and pointless organisation. Evelyn begins by complaining
that the IFA has investigated one unit, which has 'cost
the IFA dearly'. The IFA claims to enforce standards
in archaeology, and would have us believe that it deserves
to be a chartered institute responsible in a statutory
capacity for enforcing its own standards. Can we really
have faith in its suitability for such a role, when
one investigation elicits such complaint from the organisation?
If it really is intent on enforcing standards, it must
accept that its investigations will cost money - and,
indeed, some will be fruitless.
'Site visits' are made (apparently), as well as other
procedures, to investigate units and 'remove cowboys
from the RAO list'. But how many people realise that
the infringements closest to most diggers hearts and
pockets - wages and conditions - are not considered
to be important enough to remove an RAO! A company can
pay less than the IFAs pitiful minima with impunity!
It is clear that the IFA, with its major membership
base being senior members of units, makes the rules
to suit
itself.
A typical passing of the buck from the IFA:
If cowboy units still exist, 'it is because you, the
diggers, won't use your communal strength to cry foul
and get them out'. So, in addition to being the lowest
paid professional workers in Britain, we shoulder the
blame for the piss-poor standards in archaeology. Then
what the hell is the IFA for? Could it be that, as we
all suspect, it exists solely to protect the interests
of management? The IFA has nothing to offer diggers
- join if you must ('IFA membership preferred'), but
for heaven's sake don’t confuse them for an organisation
with diggers' best interests at heart. Spend less money
more wisely and join Prospect.
CURATOR NOT SURPRISED BY IFA
RESPONSE
I wish I could be surprised by the IFA's response to
the complaints by the low paid, temporary contract staff
about the conduct of a unit. Dismissing these as 'moans
in the pub' in this extremely insulting manner only
justifies the view that the IFA is only interested in
presenting itself as a functioning self-regulatory body
rather than actually taking action.
The letter from the ex Vice Chair for Standards notes
that the IFA are 'encouraging more participation from
archaeological planning officers.' Well thanks for that,
because it's not as if curators aren't already doing
so. In the end the IFA is a confused organisation with
no teeth and, it appears, little understanding of what
planning archaeologists do. Every day reports are returned
deemed unacceptable, sites are monitored, context sheets,
plan and sections are examined by curators all without
the 'encouragement' of the IFA. It is clear that the
IFA are only interested in the perception of themselves
as an effective organisation rather than being one.
One way of 'encouraging' curators would perhaps be
to support them when they make complaints about organisations
instead of discounting any problems as 'moans'. I have
attended planning appeals where IFA archaeologists from
RAOs have argued not to evaluate sites in advance of
designating them as development areas despite the potential
for significant remains. Is this raising standards?
Is this encouraging curators? No! Clearly the IFA represents
client based units and favours a market lead archaeological
response rather than one based on the best practice
of management of archaeological remains. The idea that
we need to stand up and be counted is laughable! I for
one have no compunction to make a complaint, be dragged
through the mud by unit managers, dismissed by the IFA
as a 'moaner' and then find my career compromised.
My message to the IFA is simple: stop being an organisation
where units pay to appear professional by having the
IFA stamp and use your funding to ensure they behave
professionally.
- From a planning archaeologist
April
2005
