Arb or not to arb?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

But they will be allowing the CHAS contractors to enter the frame work (which is entirely focused on cost) and there is no requirement to be an AAAC. This as I see it puts those of us you are AAAC at a distinct disadvantage as we will be competing entitely on cost with other contractors who do not incur all the other costs involved in being an AAAC. DCC want cheap work, thats that. Its is hard to see the financial benifits of being arb approved when county councils no longer request it (and theres no shortage of AAAC's in Devon to obtain tenders from). Its hard to see where the AA have sucessfully promoted the scheme recently.

 

 

DCC were aware of AAAC status prior to this tendering situation AND indeed used AAACs previously.

DCC sent reps on a recent(ish) HSE/AA event at Okehampton (I believe) where the AAAC was (discreetly) promoted.

DCC have spoken to me about this framework situation on several occasions and about the connection between AAAC & CHAS

DCC have asked me to attend a presentation to their appointed contractors, when done, to discuss AAAC & CHAS.

 

Not sure what else we/I/the AA could have doen here to be honest?...sorry!

 

I have spoken with several AAACs in the Devon area who, whilst holding some degree of frustration regarding the "...or equivalent" consideration, seem reasonably satisfied with the AAs involvement.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Yorkshireman]

Hi Andy, thank you for your post and it is my intention to be here for the 'long haul', so to speak, AND thank you also to all forum members for making me feel so welcomed (hope that's not famous last words).

I acknowledge times are very difficult in the industry at the moment, this has impacted on the AA too with a colleague being made redundant AND no maternity cover for another (and why shouldn't it as we're innit together), and its aboslutely right to scrutinise every business outgoing to ensure it represents value for money (that's a very individual decision for all of us as circumstances are so different).

In terms of what benefits will AAAC status bring, and thank you for the question, several...potentially.

Firstly, and most importantly IMO, it would contribute towards the 'critical mass' I referred to in an earlier posting which = 'a bigger voice' and more resources.

Also, you can view it as a company health check, which whilst not essential has to be viewed as an investment in ensuring you are operating in a manner compliant with regulations and consistent with industry good (best?) practice. This may also serve to protect your interest, as an employer, in the (hopefully unlikley) event of an incident / accident and investigation by HSE.

Some ACs also report it's become easier to attract/retain staff as an AC (but IMO this is probbaly more to do with being a good employer).

The other thing is access to certain tree work contracts as many, and 'anecdotally' an increasing number, express a preference for ACs OR award an additional score to ACs (if they use that mechanism in procurement). This is particularly the case since HSE have been running their 'Engaging Arb Contractors' SHADs (sorry, Safety and Health Awareness Days).

It can secure further discounts on insurance premiums, some ACs by as much as 5% of premium.

It now involves a dual award with CHAS, on full approval, as we carry the ability so to do thereby avoiding duplication to you, the contractor.

Also many firms feel a sense of achievement and kudos and wear their badge with pride, so to speak, and it is probably from this that the term 'elitism' came in which isn't the case at all. Some conctractors see benefit in AC status, some don't, some clients request it, some don't, BUT (hopefully) we all work to the same standards day-in, day-out...nothing elitist about that, we're innit together (as they say).

I'm sure there are other potential benefits that I haven't mentioned but one thing almost all, and yes I really do mean the vast majority and regardless of whtehr they pass or fail, say is that it's been a really useful exercise and they've seen great benefit in the process. Also we're not out to criticise in any way shape or form, 'yes' if something isn't right we'll flag it up, explain why (actually I usually get the named manager to do this whihc works really well, kind of a self-checking process AND works extremely well when scrutinising work quality) AND then offer advice and guidance on how to address it, i.e. we don't leaving them in the lurch and floundering.

Andy, sorry I have to dash at this point as I have a 4pm training session with my sons and their junior footie team, great fun, even tho I do always get a good kicking.

PLEASE respond if you have further questions or I haven't addressed anything adequately...thank you!

Paul

 

Hi Paul

 

How does this work as Chas is an Annually renewed & assessed criteria

from my understanding aaac is not annually inspected

[Andy Clark]

Below is an extract from the AA Memorandum and Association of Articles.......

 

 

3. OBJECTS

The object of the Charity is to advance the science of arboriculture for the

public benefit (‘the Object’)

4. POWERS

The Charity has the following powers, which may be exercised only in promoting the Object:

4.1 To advance the study of arboriculture, including the management, care, cultivation and improvement of trees and woodlands grown for amenity

4.2 To raise the standards of the practice of arboriculture

4.3 To promote or carry out research

4.4 To provide advice

4.5 To publish or distribute information and hold seminars and conferences

4.6 To co-operate with other bodies

.......

.......

4.23 To do anything else within the law which promotes or helps to promote the Object

 

5. BENEFITS TO MEMBERS AND TRUSTEES

5.1 The property and funds of the Charity must be used only for promoting the Object and do not belong to the members of the Charity but

5.1.1 members who are not Trustees may be employed by or enter into contracts with the Charity and receive reasonable payment for goods or services supplied

5.1.2 members (including Trustees) may be paid interest at a reasonable rate on money lent to the Charity

5.1.3 members (including Trustees) may be paid a reasonable rent or hiring fee for property let or hired to the Charity

5.1.4 individual members who are not Trustees but who are beneficiaries may receive charitable benefits in that capacity

 

 

 

I've removed some of the points, however for those that wish to view the full text, it can be seen at http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/memandart.pdf Please feel free to pick up on anything that I have missed or have maybe taken out of context.

 

 

Now i've read this thread with much interest - especially in light of the now published response to the AAAC scheme consultation, and i don't want to go repeating questions and responses already posted, but what i do want to do though is start cutting through the "spin", and start getting down to the bare bones "grass roots" matters at hand........

 

To start, let's take Point 3 - "The object". The objective of the AA is to "advance the science of arboriculture for the public benefit."

 

Perhaps Paul, you could explain a few of the following......

1) How are the public "benefiting", from having an "industry" that remains unregulated and unstandardised? An ongoing problem which the AAAC actually contributes to, as opposed to doing everything withinin its powers to rectify?

 

2) Cross referencing to the statement from the AAAC report - '8c- The issue of LA TOs etc. ‘policing’ the standards locally again came up with a suggestion for simplified complaints/notification procedure to be agreed between the AA & NATO members for reporting of incidents.'.

 

When considering that 41.8% of the consultation responses came from LA TOs, how is implying, nay condoneing the use of public funded civil servants, in the public benefit?

 

Considering point 4.23 of the AAs MaAoA, and that LAs now have to excersise "best value", is this use of public funded staff to "police" the assets of an independant charity, not tantamount to breach of the point 4.23?

[Andy Clark]

3) Again, cross referencing the AAAC consultation report - Comment from the AA: The AA recognises that better marketing of the AA & AAAC/RC schemes are

required along with promotion of the standards. The AA’s new website will be launched in April 2010 and this will prominently lead browsers to “Find a Professional”,

 

When considering the approx 30,000 people (LANTA figures) that work in trees and timber, and the quoted approx 2000 of which are AA members, is implying that those contractors not AAAC approved are NOT proffesional, not also tantamount to slander and therefore poses a further possible breach to 4.23?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Paul

 

How does this work as Chas is an Annually renewed & assessed criteria

from my understanding aaac is not annually inspected

 

 

Hello 'Yorkshireman',

 

CHAS has 2 levels of membership, for the want of a better term, 1. Registered (renewed every 2 years) & 2. Accreditted (renewed annually).

You're quite right that AAAC is not inspected anually BUT one of the 'key' proposals for the scheme from 2011 is that it will involve an inspection every 2 years to synchronise with CHAS Registration & subsequent renewals.

 

IF, as most contractors do, AAACs become accreditted then the proposal is that it will be alternate assessments by the AA & then CHAS.

 

Hope this helps (and more importantly makes sense...aghhh!)

 

Cheers..

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Below is an extract from the AA Memorandum and Association of Articles.......

 

 

3. OBJECTS

The object of the Charity is to advance the science of arboriculture for the

public benefit (‘the Object’)

4. POWERS

The Charity has the following powers, which may be exercised only in promoting the Object:

4.1 To advance the study of arboriculture, including the management, care, cultivation and improvement of trees and woodlands grown for amenity

4.2 To raise the standards of the practice of arboriculture

4.3 To promote or carry out research

4.4 To provide advice

4.5 To publish or distribute information and hold seminars and conferences

4.6 To co-operate with other bodies

.......

.......

4.23 To do anything else within the law which promotes or helps to promote the Object

 

5. BENEFITS TO MEMBERS AND TRUSTEES

5.1 The property and funds of the Charity must be used only for promoting the Object and do not belong to the members of the Charity but

5.1.1 members who are not Trustees may be employed by or enter into contracts with the Charity and receive reasonable payment for goods or services supplied

5.1.2 members (including Trustees) may be paid interest at a reasonable rate on money lent to the Charity

5.1.3 members (including Trustees) may be paid a reasonable rent or hiring fee for property let or hired to the Charity

5.1.4 individual members who are not Trustees but who are beneficiaries may receive charitable benefits in that capacity

 

 

 

I've removed some of the points, however for those that wish to view the full text, it can be seen at http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/memandart.pdf Please feel free to pick up on anything that I have missed or have maybe taken out of context.

 

 

Now i've read this thread with much interest - especially in light of the now published response to the AAAC scheme consultation, and i don't want to go repeating questions and responses already posted, but what i do want to do though is start cutting through the "spin", and start getting down to the bare bones "grass roots" matters at hand........

 

To start, let's take Point 3 - "The object". The objective of the AA is to "advance the science of arboriculture for the public benefit."

 

Perhaps Paul, you could explain a few of the following......

1) How are the public "benefiting", from having an "industry" that remains unregulated and unstandardised? An ongoing problem which the AAAC actually contributes to, as opposed to doing everything withinin its powers to rectify?

 

2) Cross referencing to the statement from the AAAC report - '8c- The issue of LA TOs etc. ‘policing’ the standards locally again came up with a suggestion for simplified complaints/notification procedure to be agreed between the AA & NATO members for reporting of incidents.'.

 

When considering that 41.8% of the consultation responses came from LA TOs, how is implying, nay condoneing the use of public funded civil servants, in the public benefit?

 

Considering point 4.23 of the AAs MaAoA, and that LAs now have to excersise "best value", is this use of public funded staff to "police" the assets of an independant charity, not tantamount to breach of the point 4.23?

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

Wow, you've been busy...I'm afraid I need to "phone a friend" here (therein lies my first problem!) and enlist input from the 'big guns' in order to give you a full and proper response as this one's a little out of my league.

 

Trouble is I'm unlikely to be able to do so until Thursday I'm afraid as Nick's currently unavailable and I'm delivering a training course tomorrow...sorry!

 

Cheers..

Paul

[nailer]

Below is an extract...

 

 

Andy, if the AA is an independant charity, funded mostly by members' contributions can it not just do whatever it feels is right. Is it any business of anyone else how they go about things?

[Andy Clark]

Andy, if the AA is an independant charity, funded mostly by members' contributions can it not just do whatever it feels is right. Is it any business of anyone else how they go about things?

 

I would've said that all depends Nailer, on how that particular "independant charity" conducts it affairs and how those affairs affect others.

 

For example, as in "independant charity", is it fair/just/right for said charity to publicly denounce that those within this industry whom choose not to be members are non proffesional?

 

I would've said that once that line has been crossed, then yes, it certainly does become others buisness as to how they conduct their affairs.

 

Wouldn't you??

[nailer]

Andy, publishing a list of professional tree firms doesn't really mean that everyone not on the list is unprofessional. I just don't see the problem.

[Andy Clark]

Nailer, just to re-iterate the AA standpoint .......

 

'Comment from the AA: The AA recognises that better marketing of the AA & AAAC/RC schemes are required along with promotion of the standards. The AA’s new website will be launched in April 2010 and this will prominently lead browsers to “Find a Professional.” '

 

Now, if those last three words read "Find an Arboririculturalist" or "Find an Approved Contractor", then yes, i would certainly agree with you.......

 

 

But "Find a Proffesional"??? Belive me, this subject has been a long running issue with the AA for many years now.