AAAC scheme public consultation.... The summary report.

[Andy Clark]

Paul,

 

Just a quick question.......

 

Considering the AAs strict rules on use of the terminology of membership status and that you are the moderator on the AA dedicated forum area, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask....... are you in fact "Paul Smith" - Arboricultural Association Technical Officer, Author of the report in question and Scheme manager of the AAAC?

[tommer9]

Thats going to be great, the AA is basically saying that 98% of the industry is unprofessional, i hope they have a resident legal team as that is surely just going to lead to huge amounts of lawsuits for what can only be described as slander.

 

This makes me so angry, who do they think they are saying that if you dont pay us money to register in our scheme we will say you are not professional......

 

I honestly belive that the industry will never move forward as long as the AA in its current form is our speaking body

 

Brilliant point mate. Is it any wonder that there are so few AA members (no AAAC in cornwall anymore AT ALL) when they waste their time and effort on stupid questionnaires to which only a minimal %age of industry members reply, and then try to encourage more of us to part with (extremely) hard earned cash to join a scheme that means sweet FA to most of the public. Get off you rpedestal AA and start actually promoting us, the guys on the ground, in the eyes of the public, and a few more of us might start considering jumping through the hoops and paying the fees, instead of essentially branding a large proportion of the industry as unproffessional by default.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

ALL, thank you for your comments. I wasn’t sure how best to reply (in terms of layout etc.) hence I’ve gone for this collective approach....hope it works okay, let me know if not (HOPE this doesn’t crash the site Steve!)

 

Q. - Considering the AAs strict rules on use of the terminology of membership status and that you are the moderator on the AA dedicated forum area, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask....... are you in fact "Paul Smith" - Arboricultural Association Technical Officer, Author of the report in question and Scheme manager of the AAAC?

 

PS - Yes, I am that person.

 

Q. - Comment from the AA: Overall approx. 80% of respondents agreed to this proposal. Some comments

address several questions (which is not untypical of the comments in general, I think some respondents just made comments as they came into their minds)

Well that says it all really doesnt it ............

Whats the point of asking when you have a mind set like that........

 

PS - In context the point I was making here, after reading all of 1,145 of them, was that many respondents clearly made comments as the came into their minds as they weren’t necessarily related to the question being asked (BUT this is/was absolutely fine AND we took on board ALL comments made).

Not sure I can offer any further comment here...sorry!

 

 

Q. - 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.

the use of tax payers money to support a private venture NAUGHTY

 

PS – LA TOs are charged with managing ‘amenity’ trees in the urban environment (or similar) are they not? This includes private trees both TPO’d/CA and those that are not. Hence surely it is entirely within their remit.

The LAs, the largest respondent group, were keen to see more ‘policing’ of the scheme and hence discussions with NATO promoted an approach of engaging with them nationally for the benefit of ‘amenity trees’ and the industry as they are very well placed so to do.

Whilst technically we may fit the description of a ‘private venture’ (I’m really not sure?!) we are a registered charity and an industry body available to all.

 

Q. - 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”

Who will that include THEN ?????????? AAACs only if so are others not professional ? .... Yet more them & us

 

PS – I respond here to several comments to this effect.

I’m really sorry you feel this way “...more them & us” as this is absolutely not the case (and believe me it frustrates the heck out of me, as clearly it does you, albeit looking in at opposite ends.)

We/I/the AA fully recognise there are many ‘Professionals’ out there, indeed the majority are still ‘out there’ as has been pointed out, BUT we don’t know about you, we haven’t met you and we haven’t assessed your firms / operations against a recognised industry benchmark (HSE recognised) and hence we cannot directly promote you (as mentioned previously, we have however produced the ‘Choose Your Arborist’ (CYA) leaflet which aims to capture ALL reputable & professional firms and educates the clients what questions to ask.)

We are obliged to promote ACs & RCs to the best of our ability, afterall that’s part of the reason they achieve the status, and hence the wording on the new website. IF you were an AAAC/AARC you would (quite rightly) expect this too...surely?!

 

Q. - Thats going to be great, the AA is basically saying that 98% of the industry is unprofessional, i hope they have a resident legal team as that is surely just going to lead to huge amounts of lawsuits for what can only be described as slander.

This makes me so angry, who do they think they are saying that if you dont pay us money to register in our scheme we will say you are not professional......

I honestly belive that the industry will never move forward as long as the AA in its current form is our speaking body

 

PS – Again I’m sorry you feel so angry at us. Your interpretation of what we are saying is absolutely not the case at all. We only know of 2%(?) of the industry as ‘Professionals’ as those are the companies who have chosen to present themselves for AC assessment.

We get several calls/enquiries from people looking for a ‘professional’ in their area and the nearest AC is 50miles away. Hence we replying by saying there will be other reputable & professional companies closer that we don’t know of, and suggest they speak to their LA TO (who increasing often then refer them back as they’re reluctant to recommend anyone because of fears of come backs). This is when we send them a copy of the ‘CYA’ leaflet and suggest they speak to neighbours with trees for any recommendations....what else could we do?

PLEASE tell us/me what you want/expect from an industry body as I fully acknowledge we aren’t as well engaged as we need to be (an under-statement some may say?!) and we do want to ‘speak’ with one (BIG) voice for you.

 

Q. - I like the "very Positive Response" statment.

Going off what i hear,

AA do you not realise that the majority of the industry havent responded to this consultation, they are too busy with the real world and trying to earn a living in tough times.!

If you went to every company in the industry you would more than likely get very differnt responses

 

PS – This statement was said in the context of those responses received and, whilst I fully acknowledge it’s a very small percentage of the industry, it was ‘positive’ (I don’ t do ‘spin’, I’m not clever enough, I just said it as I saw it!)

I also acknowledge this is not necessarily representative of the whole industry but, sorry, there’s no way we could go to every company, even by direct email, as we don’t have the resources to do so and then collate & analyse the responses. The ‘survey monkey’ thing was seen as the best option and we did post in several different places (inc. here thanks to Steve) to alert people to it.

I know it’s not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’, on-line n websites n the like, so I’m more than happy to listen to any and all ideas at the Trade Fair (‘Arb Show’) in June OR call me 01242 522152.

 

Q. - Brilliant point mate. Is it any wonder that there are so few AA members (no AAAC in cornwall anymore AT ALL) when they waste their time and effort on stupid questionnaires to which only a minimal %age of industry members reply, and then try to encourage more of us to part with (extremely) hard earned cash to join a scheme that means sweet FA to most of the public. Get off you rpedestal AA and start actually promoting us, the guys on the ground, in the eyes of the public, and a few more of us might start considering jumping through the hoops and paying the fees, instead of essentially branding a large proportion of the industry as unproffessional by default.

 

PS – Again I’m sorry you feel we are ‘branding you as unprofessional by default’, nothing could be further from the truth!!! As I’ve mentioned above we know about a minority of companies who have demonstrated their professionalism to us via the AAAC assessment process and hence we promote them.

You invite us/the AA to “...start actually promoting us, the guys on the ground, in the eyes of the public” ...how?, as much as we’d like to, we don’t know you, haven’t seen your work standards, haven’t observed your working practices etc. Again we do hope to promote you ‘indirectly’ via the CYA leaflet with the clients asking the pertinent questions.

 

I think that’s it, for the moment, but doubtless I’ll be back later.

 

Thanks all.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Yorkshireman]

PS – LA TOs are charged with managing ‘amenity’ trees in the urban environment (or similar) are they not? This includes private trees both TPO’d/CA and those that are not. Hence surely it is entirely within their remit.

The LAs, the largest respondent group, were keen to see more ‘policing’ of the scheme and hence discussions with NATO promoted an approach of engaging with them nationally for the benefit of ‘amenity trees’ and the industry as they are very well placed so to do.

Whilst technically we may fit the description of a ‘private venture’ (I’m really not sure?!) we are a registered charity and an industry body available to all

 

 

 

 

Paul

 

so the suggestion is that TO's paid from the public purse would only report incidents of poor practice on amentity trees

 

I see that will work then ..........Not

 

& the AA are solely a charity!!!! & not a private venture .

 

my mistake. I thought you had a commercial profit making arm too

Edited March 2, 2010 by Yorkshireman

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

PS – LA TOs are charged with managing ‘amenity’ trees in the urban environment (or similar) are they not? This includes private trees both TPO’d/CA and those that are not. Hence surely it is entirely within their remit.

The LAs, the largest respondent group, were keen to see more ‘policing’ of the scheme and hence discussions with NATO promoted an approach of engaging with them nationally for the benefit of ‘amenity trees’ and the industry as they are very well placed so to do.

Whilst technically we may fit the description of a ‘private venture’ (I’m really not sure?!) we are a registered charity and an industry body available to all

 

 

 

 

Paul

 

so the suggestion is that TO's paid from the public purse would only report incidents of poor practice on amentity trees

 

I see that will work then ..........Not

 

& the AA are solely a charity!!!! & not a private venture .

 

my mistake. I thought you had a commercial profit making arm too

 

Hi 'Yorkshireman', thanks for the post!

 

Sorry, not quite sure I understand your first point (perhaps a cross -Penine lingo confusion?) Shout if I'm down the wrong track but by 'amenity trees' I mean all trees within the LAs remit, not just the 'posh ones'.

 

No, the AA are principally a charity but because of our contact with the 'practising' industry' via the accreditation schemes AC & RC, which have a commercial basis, the charity commission got a little nervous and insisted we set up a separate company to administer them, hence 'AA Trading Limited' (we see/saw NO conflict at all but had to comply).

Believe me (or look on Companies House webiste OR members can request a copy but has to be in writing...sorry!...email?) there is no profit there, perhaps a marginal surplus, but I always consider this to be a 'not for profit' scheme simply a way of promoting industry standards.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[skyhuck]

We only know of 2%(?) of the industry as ‘Professionals’ as those are the companies who have chosen to present themselves for AC assessment.

Paul

 

This is one of the things about the AA that really get up my nose!!

 

The AA always talk as though any one can just ring the AA and say "please and watch us work for a day and see if we are up too the mark", this is so far from the truth, becoming AAAC is a commercial decision and require a large investment of hard earned cash.

 

You are trying put pressure on none AAAC to come on board for the wrong reasons.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Skyhuck,

You've lost me I'm afraid (I've been sat in front of this thing since early this morning so that's probably partly why...apologies from the 'numpty'!)

 

You're saying if it was as simple as coming watching you work for a day you'd consider it...if so that's progress, right? (probably 'wrong'!) So we're looking at different levels of accreditation? Would that not be confusing to the client?

 

You are right in that currently making the decision to become an AAAC is principally a commercial one, but is that not the same with most things you do?...dunno!

 

Sos, 'clutchin at straws' a bit and the M5 / M4 / M3 is beckoning...I'm going 'downnnnnn'!

 

Off now, and out all day tommorrow, so will catch up Thursday if okay.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[tommer9]

Thanks for taking the time to answer Paul.

I really feel that Skyhucks point is the crux of the stumbling point for most of us. Most of us are small firms of boss and one or two employees.The amount of time effort and money required puts AAAC out of realistic rach of the vast majority of arb busineses in this country, ESPECIALLY given how little the AA means to the kind of customers we attract- Mrs Miggins one tree in her garden, who when asked about the AA thinks it is an rehabilitation service or a road rescue service. Until AA accreditation is recognised and promoted in the same way as (eg) corgi for gas, then it will always be seen as a huge waste of time and effort for small firms. Coupled with that is the fact that there are firms who do not exactly excel in the quality they produce (trying to be tactful here) and yet are AAAC. They have the money and time to get on the scheme, we dont. simple as. (rant rant sorry

[Yorkshireman]

by Amentity

does this therefore equate to worthy of conservation through location or tpo through value added to its surrounding & enjoyment of those who view it or vistas it adds to or creates

 

those trees who fall outside of those perameters may not be by deinition of the T&C rev 2006 be worthy or be capable of preservation due to owbership or location , & if not should poor pratice be accepted ? Clearly not

 

but does that fall within the remit of nato TO's NO it doesnt , So lets not get free work done in managing a scheme run by a commercial company ,who have just spent £700K on a new home

 

dont think it has owt to do with cross peninne mis communication... Do YOU

[Amelanchier]

by Amentity

does this therefore equate to worthy of conservation through location or tpo through value added to its surrounding & enjoyment of those who view it or vistas it adds to or creates

 

those trees who fall outside of those perameters may not be by deinition of the T&C rev 2006 be worthy or be capable of preservation due to owbership or location , & if not should poor pratice be accepted ? Clearly not

 

but does that fall within the remit of nato TO's NO it doesnt , So lets not get free work done in managing a scheme run by a commercial company ,who have just spent £700K on a new home

 

dont think it has owt to do with cross peninne mis communication... Do YOU

 

Sorry but I don't have a clue what your point is either.

 

And as if it needed saying, the forum rules apply to this thread as much as any other - whilst this is a valid oppourtunity to discuss/criticise the document, confrontational language is unnecessary.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Amelanchier
blah