Gwynedd Archaeological Trust changes...

[BAJR]

Do people know about the proposed changes to the structure of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust and the provision of the regional historic environment service for north-west Wales. It seems this would potentially involve the removal of the Principal Archaeologist post, which has responsibility for these services, and it coming under the direct management of the Trust Director.


The GAT Director was the head of the contracting arm and retains responsibility for this at the same time.



What are peoples thoughts on this? Is it wise to have the HER/Planning Archaeologist and Contracting Company as one in the same? In effect approving their own work?


There turns out to be a Trustees Meeting on 9th March and comments are welcome... In this particular discussion, can we refrain from any flippant or unhelpful remarks... and stay focussed on this issue.

[Dinosaur]

Not the first time curator/contractor have operated out of the same building (although not usually the same person!)

[barkingdigger]

So, a GAT report is accepted as satisfactory to meet a Planning condition because the authors at GAT said it is? Sounds like they've removed all independent quality assessment from the system - which is distinctly good news for GAT!

And when recommending or choosing an archaelogical contractor, the curator (at GAT) can show preference to GAT? How convenient!

Nothing like robust accountability...

[kevin wooldridge]

Surely all the Welsh Trusts are both contractors and curators? Is this thread suggesting the whole system is wrong. Or just GAT?

[GnomeKing]

There might not be problem, if there is strong third-party monitoring, + clear professional and public accountability.

A bigger problem is whether in fact we have that in England and Wales, and how effective such monitoring really is....