50 CONTEXT 178 : DECEMBER 2023 Such reservations will be shared and recognised by many, but although they came in the context of the petition, they are not really specific to the charter. Instead they represent a service and operations issue to which the IHBC should respond regardless. In this case, and with the agreement of our independent consultant and survey respondent, I contacted him to plan a way forward. He agreed that I could outline the concerns internally as early as possible (direct to our board, as it turned out, most unusually) to allow us to first scope and plan on addressing these concerns. Inevitably the development of such pan-IHBC standards on generic professional practice will become a significant thread across our future planning. Almost certainly it will be a specific issue, or part of one, in our planning under ‘CP30’. I know this because the petition-linked consultation has highlighted a matter arising directly from the IHBC’s organisational maturity today: the need for its specification as a ‘unique profession’, which is also a fundamental principle of chartering. The respondent’s concern – that the IHBC needs standards for our practitioners that are not specific to conservation practice such as health and safety – represents a simple, even inevitable consequence of our peculiar evolution as advocate of an avowedly interdisciplinary practice. However, without the idea of a charter, its urgency might well have passed us by, not least as the reasons around this hiatus in support for members are both simple and sensible. On the one hand, and historically, so many members have come from more substantial builtenvironment disciplines that there has been no substantial demand for non-conservation-specific practice standards. That is because the practice standards of their primary discipline would cover them. Equally, the early membership rump of non-built-environment practitioners (including, originally, myself, as an architectural historian by origin) did not need such standards, as their practices’ profile did not generate that demand. On the other hand, writing standards such as these, in a way that could successfully read across all our members’ diverse background practices and disciplines, could not be an early priority for a largely voluntary, entirely self-funded and always cash-strapped charity. Today, the IHBC represents a broad but now coherent interdisciplinary conservation discipline that needs to offer more context for members to understand and apply professional practice standards. The very general statements on practice standards in our Code of Conduct remain exemplary, but there is not much detail to guide members otherwise. As it stands, the code represents high-end practice ideals: motherhood-and-applepie perhaps, on the surface, even if meat-and-two-veg below that. But it does not give much, or even any, detail on how matters might be assessed before details go to disciplinary review. Some standards in the code are more generic and aspirational, if potentially difficult to dissect in the real world: ‘Those engaged in the conservation of historic buildings, areas and landscapes will adhere to the highest standards of ethical and responsible behaviour in the conduct of the conservation of such buildings and sites.’ Others are more specific and, perhaps, easier to evidence, but they are not detailed: ‘Members shall abstain from, and shall not sanction in others, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in historic building conservation matters.’ While our historic approach may have been efficient and understandable in a world dominated by the local conservation officer operating as valued public servant, it is hardly so today. Now there are so many pressures on members (diverse employers, multiple political and monetary issues, and a diverse workforce profile) that we see many young and early-career practitioners in roles where there is almost no informed personal or other guidance on matters of huge public, practice and financial interest. Times have changed. Regardless of a charter, the IHBC needs to better reflect and respond to those changes. We can see that clearly and precisely because of the exploration of the petition and charter. By the time you read this, I will have spoken to our board and trustees about these issues, and heard back on how we might address them. It is a big job however we plan the next steps, with the horizon-scanning inspired idea of a charter, and the exploration of its petitioning informing what and how we might map out our future services and corporate planning. But if the mapping out of the route ahead in our Corporate Plan has been made easier through our examination of a petition, then regardless of other outcomes, the petitioning exercise will have more than paid for itself. Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=