+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Monitor scheme (/showthread.php?tid=59)
Monitor scheme - the invisible man - 8th December 2005
Fair enough 1man.
But that is really my point - it is the curator in principle who is monitoring.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Monitor scheme - monitor lizard - 9th December 2005
I'm willing to go with a complementary role, as I think the two are looking for slightly different things....I'm looking mainly to see that the WSI is being upheld, whereas in my opinion the consultant is looking to see that the site is being carried out properly but in the most efficient manner - his/her client (the developer) is receiving best value. Get that condition discharged as easily (and efficiently - different than cheaply) as possible.
I would expect consultants to visit sites - that is what they are paid for, after all - but I would not accept a consultant's report as a substitue for my own visit. In fact, around here, the consultant ringing to tell me there's nothing there and to not bother visiting is usually enough to have me reaching for my boots!
But then again, I'm suspicious by nature. Happy Friday (off to the pub!)
ML
Monitor scheme - 1man1desk - 9th December 2005
I would agree with Monitor Lizard. Curators and consultants both monitor, but for different purposes. Contrary to popular opinion, though, it is in consultants' interests just as much as the curators' that the work is done properly.
I don't think that I have ever (in 12 years) called a curator to say "there's nothing there and to not bother visiting"; in those circumstances I'm much more likely to say "please come out so that I can show you that there's nothing there".
Quite apart from 'good practice' issues, there is a very simple 'client's interest' reason for trying hard to get the curator out. If a consultant can look at the archaeology (or lack of it) on site together with the curator and discuss it there, they are much more likely to be able to reach an amicable agreement satisfactory to both parties over what to do next than if the curator has only seen a report, but not the actual site.
Also, given the degree of suspicion prevalent about consultants, we are much more likely to be able to convince a curator that we are not trying to pull the wool over their eyes if we actively encourage them to visit and go round the site with them.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Monitor scheme - troll - 17th December 2005
Thanks to all for their input on here.I think that we agree that curators are hideously underfunded/resourced and undervalued.This in itself is an open admission that monitoring of standards has been, and still is, virtually impossible to carry out nationwide to an acceptable standard. How do we change this? Can we expect large-scale agreements where curators maintain an open line of communication with coal-face workers across the industry? If no-why not? What do we do about this? The Curators work on behalf of the public.If they are not allowed to do their job properly, the public might just get the idea that all this is just a government pantomime...
Monitor scheme - mercenary - 17th December 2005
The NHS also works on behalf of the public and is not allowed to do its job properly. I think this probably applies to all public institutions. Even I, a heritage worker, find it difficult to argue for increased curatorial resources while the really important public institutions are run into the ground.
Monitor scheme - troll - 19th December 2005
Agreed sir.Not much I can say to that. Wat Tyler anyone?
Monitor scheme - the invisible man - 20th December 2005
Isn't that a consumer magazine dedicated to the selection of appropriate roofers?
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Monitor scheme - troll - 20th December 2005
Monitor scheme - troll - 26th December 2005
Ok- so just what do we do? Accept the status quo (Oh the hideousness) and concede defeat? At least the NHS voices its opinions to the public and-are accountable. We say nothing to the public of our plight and, are only accountable when the IFA feels like it. Come on then- ideas?
Monitor scheme - the invisible man - 26th December 2005
I'm not totally convinced that the NHS is accountable. Isn't it run by Trusts with non-elected quango type management boards? And how do they voice their opinions to the public, other than the very occassional whistle blower?
Of course the medical professions all have professional institutions - except the managers who run it...
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.