+- 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: Conflicts of Interest in commercial archaeology (/showthread.php?tid=829)
Conflicts of Interest in commercial archaeology - Sparky - 19th February 2008
Seems like a good reason to keep local people employed in the Trusts and in Wales, and one that suggests why the Trusts don't often win the big jobs.
Perhaps though, there should be more competition between the Trusts, or is there?
Conflicts of Interest in commercial archaeology - Gog - 19th February 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Mole
Finally, I do struggle to see where their is a problem with this as if you employ a plumber and they do a good job you are more likely to contact the same plumber again if you need more work, they same thinking applies.
Fair comment - wish we could charge plumbers rates though.
Conflicts of Interest in commercial archaeology - Noddy - 19th February 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Gog
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Mole
Finally, I do struggle to see where their is a problem with this as if you employ a plumber and they do a good job you are more likely to contact the same plumber again if you need more work, they same thinking applies.
Fair comment - wish we could charge plumbers rates though.
True but it can also be seen as like when your dodgy landlord employs his dodgy mate to fix the plumbing - you don't necessarily get the best job. And it should also be pointed out that its not just about the welsh trusts - it can be county councils and their units or even consultants employing their 'favourites'. Potential conflicts of interest can arise anywhere and have to be correctly monitored and policed, ideally by a strong IFA, and where a line is crossed action should be taken.
Conflicts of Interest in commercial archaeology - trowelfodder - 19th February 2008
I have no idea where the notion has come form that there is very little development in Wales. There have been several large and high profile excavations undertaken by th eWelsh trusts in Wales including the Newport ship, Cardiff Castle and a huge development undertaken by GAT on HOlyhead - it is more often that the case that it is the couty council units in England that are smaller and do little more the=an watching briefs.
Wales is at the moment benefiting from huge cash injections as parts of it are european objective 1 funding areas, and when you couple this with the rise in the percievied importance of industrial archaeology then there is a fair old number of jobs about.
And while it is true that the Trusts generally concentrate on jobs within thier area they do work outside, and at least two of the units work in England on occassion.
So please do not fall into the trap of thinking that the welsh trusts work in some rural idal and place them in their appropriate context, the work carried out is no different than elsewhere in the UK and there is no real reason for a different system.
Conflicts of Interest in commercial archaeology - Mole - 20th February 2008
Cannot comment on welsh trusts as I have not worked there, and I agree that their needs to be good monitoring and action taken when lines are crossed(this is true right across the board and not when just concerning 'favored' units).
However, although I don't nessesarilly think that everything in the garden is rosy I do think that this discussion is in danger of becoming to pessimistic and assuming that alot of projects are awarded through the old trowel network. I have already outlined my opinions on 'favored' status between developers/ consultants and Units (council/ trust or private)but I think that their is a misconception of how councils award contracts - a curator has no power to award a contract to any unit - they are their to monitor standards and to look after the archaeology - by rights they should have no involvement in the actual contract side (I know this is idealised and fully expect a barage of yeh..buts). In fact from experience even 'in-house' council projects use external consultants to award the contracts (and boy was our tender scrutinised to the nth degree - probably as it should be). Most councils are audited regularly and have to be seen to be aiming to provide best value (a term to strike terror into any council employies heart) to the taxpayer. Basically this means having to justify every thing and being seen to be upholding the standards. Although, in know way do I think that this is always how it works, I do think that things do work like this most of the time. It was mentioned earlier that Councils monitoring their own units used to be regarded as lax but I don't think that this is predominantly the case anymore - generally the powers that be are a little more savy to this now and dont want to be open to accusations of nepitisim (sp?) etc and possible lawsuits.