Who do you want to work for?

[simon johnson]

Dear Mr Connolly,

For many people in my position as a unit manager, BAJR offers a very useful service as a means of disseminating information and as a cost-effective recruitment platform.

The forum issues have never attracted my attention, however, until yesterday when I was informed that some very negative comments had been made on a number of organisations, including PCA (Lincoln), which led to a curator questioning our suitability to undertake a project within his area.

When I read the comments posted on BAJR, I was surprised, to say the least, that what I had always considered a reliable and professional web-based service appears to routinely publish completely unsubstantiated and wild accusations regarding the conduct of organisations and individuals alike.

This raises two issues: Firstly, the publication of what we consider to be libellous comments. Whilst we do not intend to take any action on this occasion, we will continue to monitor the situation and may do so in the future if you continue to allow BAJR to be used as a stage for defamation. In this respect, despite the courageous statements of ?taking responsibility? by the individuals, we would seek redress in the first instance from the publisher.

The second issue relates to grievances from temporary staff no longer in our employment. Although the comments posted are from individuals who were employed prior to my appointment in February 2005, I am obviously concerned if any previous employee feels they were poorly treated. If anyone wishes to write to me in a reasoned and civilised fashion I will do my best to redress any genuine grievance or at last ensure that similar circumstances do not occur again.

Without prejudice to the above, however, I would also make the following observations and comments regarding the specific postings casting PCA (Lincoln) in less than a favourable light.

?Muddy? (Allen Bullivant) We have no record of this person having ever worked for our organisation.

?Troll? (Simon Cleggett) Mr Cleggett worked for PCA (Lincoln) for approximately three months in 2004. During his period of employment, he did not raise any grievances with either his immediate line manager or the senior management, leaving on what we consider good terms. Later, after we had reviewed our accommodation provision, we received an e-mail from him saying that he was not prepared to work for us again as we were no longer providing free accommodation.

?Sniper? (un-named, but we believe this to be Katie Tucker) Mrs Tucker worked on two sites, broadly during the same time period as Mr Clegget, on which human remains were present. These were a site at Raymouth Lane, Worksop and Horkstow Road, South Feriby. As a qualified human bone specialist, we deferred to her judgement and expertise in the excavation and recording of the human remains that were identified. We are therefore very surprised at the accusation that we treat human remains badly.
It is also worth noting that both these sites were fully monitored by the relevant planning archaeologists and that Raymouth Lane has already been published in the Transactions of the Thoroton Society 2004, pp19-86. I would recommend readers take a look at this paper and judge for themselves whether we treated the human remains as ?filth?.

As a general point, having read through most of the postings on the current forum themes I am somewhat embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with a group that is so vitriolic in its disdain for almost every facet of commercial archaeology. Most of the postings are, to say the least, very negative and whilst many of them have a thin veneer of ethical consideration, the choice of language leaves much to be desired, such as references to female bicycle saddles, bringing the whole profession into disrepute. I suggest that some of your regular subscribers should stop carping about professionalism and start behaving as such; seek change through more appropriate means or else do us all a favour and leave commercial archaeology to join their local ammeter society: assuming, that is, that they would be welcome.

It is also worth adding that the opportunities for advancement within commercial archaeology have never been greater for anyone of ability and drive, with the only limiting factors being an individual?s attitude or lack of aptitude. Given that so many of the postings are from individuals claiming a reasonable level of experience but who have clearly achieved little, I wonder if it is their ability, outlook or both that has held them back.

Yours sincerely

Simon Johnson

Principal Archaeologist
Pre-Construct Archaeology (Lincoln)
Unit G
William Street Business Park
Saxilby
Lincoln LN1 2LP
Mail.pca@virgin.net

[drpeterwardle]

A number of people have been offended in by some of the comments made in this thread. I have been amazed by some them in terms of who is bad and who is good. It is almost exactly the opposite of what I thought they would be.

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and libel or offensive comments. A key purpose of BAJR board is communication in a frank manner but I would ask everybody to stay on the right side of that line and causing offence.

Change in archaeology will come via dialogue not mud throwing.

Peter

[mercenary]

Thank you Mr Johnson for so clearly demonstrating the kind of stance that so many of us are railing against on the BAJR messageboard.

With respect to what you regard as libellous comments I think that those of us who have recently made intemperate comments about your company and others will respect the desire of our host to desist.

Clearly you feel that the profession is healthy and not in need of radical change. This desire to maintain the status quo exhibited by many managers is exactly why many of us are vitriolic. Not much appears to have changed for the better since PPG 16 was instituted. We are negative exactly because we love the profession and would like to see it changed for the better. Comments about the sites being fully monitored and published would be a defence only in a well regulated industry. It is a theme on the messageboard that many of us feel this is not the case.

I think you will find that most messageboards contain the odd slightly juvenile comment similar to your example, but in no way could this be said to bring the profession into disrepute.

Finally, It's not clear how exactly you are judging the achievements of individuals, but I suspect you are proponent of the "if you are not a supervisor/manager after x years you're no good" school of thought. I suggest you read some of the older posts on this topic to gain an insight into what some of your staff may actually want to achieve.

I am glad that you have now entered the discussion, and hope that you will continue to contribute. I for one feel that postings by more project managers would help balance the debate somewhat.

[achingknees]

Mr Johnson wrote:

I would recommend readers take a look at this paper and judge for themselves whether we treated the human remains as ?filth?.

I wasn't there, dunno.

But, looking at the excavation report there is a very substantial RB enclosure with burials within the ditch. The proportion excavated is rather small at c. 8%. While I am certainly not one of those to propose excavation of everything I am concerned that 92% of the feature, with clear evidence for burial, was left behind. And this was with an unusual excavation team comprising PCA staff, volunteers and students.
I wonder how many burials were left to the JCBs of Barratt Homes?

[1man1desk]

Achingknees,

I hold no brief for PCA, but in their defence I doubt that they set the percentage sample size. That would have been something set in the specification against which they tendered.

If they unilaterally increased the sample size to be sure of getting all the burials, they would not get paid and would shortly be out of business (meaning no post-ex or publication). Such an increase could only be funded by the use of contingency money and would require strong intervention by the curator.

I am also aware of another recent project in which work to which PCA (Lincoln) made very large contributions was described by English Heritage as "a model of good practice".

Worth noting, by the way, that PCA (Lincoln) is an entirely separate company in separate ownership from PCA in London and Durham.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[drpeterwardle]

Given that PCA Lincoln are threatening legal action and that David is away - can people stop posting about PCA Lincoln.

Peter

[1man1desk]

Sorry Dr Pete - just thought it worthwile to put something positive about them on the site.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[drpeterwardle]

1man1desk no apology needed. It just seems to me that this subject is best left alone till David can take a view. I think something that everybody can agree on is that David has done an amazing job with BAJR and the last thing any of us would want is for David to have a costly legal case.

This thread started with "We keep hearing about the bad units and bad practice here. So, for a change and in the interests of following on from the Digger's fantasy unit league, who would you recommend as a good employer and why?"

Silence can be a very powerful thing.

Peter

[troll]

Thankyou to everyone for your thoughts. Am still thinking hard about my suggestion.One of the issues that concerns me is that I may in fact undermine the BAJR hotline-a feature of this site that has really made a good few sit up and take notice. Still thinking long and hard...I agree however, BAJR has achieved more than anyone else and should receive our fullest support and efforts. Good grief, calming our own extremism? Nice to see but, my inner demon refuses to put the bat down......will try harder.

[troll]

Had`nt seen post from Mr Johnson prior to my last.I am in the process of responding to him in detail off BAJR. Whilst I thank him for his approach in some respects and, welcome him to the dialogue, I would like to remind him that the BAJR host, in his absence, made his views very clear to us all. We had overstepped the mark and strayed far from the subject of the thread. In no uncertain terms,the BAJR host tore strips off us. Again, as the BAJR host is out of the country, responsibility fell to me to rectify the issue. As I have done so before, I should have removed by editing, the posts to which the BAJR host referred. I failed in my duty to do so. In this respect, I openly apologise to Mr Johnson and the BAJR host and, have removed the offending posts. I will be writing to Mr Johnson by way of formal,personal apology for posting the comments however, I will also provide him with full details of my concerns.