Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
7th December 2005, 08:04 PM
good in theory, can't see how it can work in practice, unless we made it like jury service or something... 
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
7th December 2005, 09:23 PM
Perhaps voluntarily like the CBA does with their building recording people?
Sorry just caught up with the discussion on the other thread. Will try to keep up.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
8th December 2005, 12:01 AM
Who would these volunteers represent? What would their contractual status be and how would they fit in to the contractual relationships? What exactly are they monitoring - "standards" is a very vague term, and there is a difference between contractual disputes, i.e. one party failing, or being alleged to have failed, to fulfil its contractual obligations, and professional or ethical issues. The two will often coincide, or overlap, but not always. Would a monitor spot the failure to carry out post-ex properly, or to submit a satisfactory report on time? What if they disagreed with the curator, and indeed the consultant? What do they do if they spot something they don't like (other than Troll scratching himself ) - do the phone the curator, the IFA or the BAJR hotline? But then, why can't anyone else do that already?
Presumably in order to have the required knowledge and skills they are likely to be ex-professonals. Will anyone really work for nothing? Expenses?
To be honest I think this is a non-starter.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
8th December 2005, 09:57 AM
I agree Mr. Invisible. Aren't all archaeologists supposed to be responsible for monitoring the good conduct and work of themselves and others anyway? The BAJR Hotline is there for anyone to report dodgy practice, so in effect everyone now is a volunteer monitor. Speaking personally, my contact details are freely available, and my name is given in WSIs as being the monitor, so if anyone is working in my area and is particularly disgruntled about what's going on in their unit or on their site, they are welcome to ring me up or e-mail me about it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
8th December 2005, 11:14 AM
I am with invisible on this. This has too vague a remit for the 'monitors', and it seems to be adding another layer of interference for no particular purpose. As other posters have pointed out, external monitoring is already in place via Curatorial Archaeologists and internal policing through the commitment we all have to 'best practice' (ie. IFA S&G).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
8th December 2005, 01:59 PM
I agree with Troll about the theoretical value of such a scheme, but also with others that it might not be practicable. See my post from yesterday on the IFA thread about who could actually do such monitoring.
Two specific questions have been raised above:
1. Who would they represent?
They would have to represent and be overseen by the curators.
2. What would they monitor ('standards' being too vague)
If they represent the curator, then they would be monitoring proper implementation of the agreed WSI and/or the curator's brief. IFA (or any other) standards would only come into it so far as they are referred to or defined in the WSI/brief.
They would explicitly not be monitoring the contract. That is the role of the client themselves, potentially through their consultant.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
8th December 2005, 02:19 PM
Just to put a pennies worth in..
They could monitor simple Yes / No senarios...
Does the employer not do x, y, z (which would be in breach of Standards x, y or z)
"Most" of the standards settle into Yes or No...
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
8th December 2005, 02:19 PM
I am interested in the idea of this, but along with others I'm not sure how it would work. The nervous part of my mind worries about how WSI monitoring by another 'group' might affect the position of curators in the eyes of the governement (ie if we're effectively policing ourselves, there might be a temptation to squeeze an already small curatorial budget). I'm also not sure how this monitoring would work with a consultant involved. After all, when I write a WSI and a curator accepts it, I will monitor the contractor to make sure it's stuck to. I would see more mileage in the enforcement of the standing manuals which all units should use, and all employees should be familiar with. This would put the checks and balances ahead of any 'management speak' which occasionally creeps into WSIs, and focus on the actual archaeological fieldwork - after all anything in the WSI will flow from this anyway. The concept is a good one, and i would agree with CK to involve all rather than a small sub-set.
Haec olim meminisse iuvabit
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
8th December 2005, 07:08 PM
If they were to represent the curator, then they are essentially curators working for nothing. This, I would suggest, is not a Good Thing. The suggestion does reinforce the point that the only party who can monitor a contract is the curator.
Certainly the consultant also should, as the agent of the employer. However, and I don't mean to offend consultants or suggest that this occurs, but it could be inferred that, as the employer's interest is in getting the archaeology (be it fieldwork or post-ex, whatever) done as quickly and inexpensively as possible, then it is in the interest of a consultant, employed by the employer, to side with a less than diligent contractor.
Contrast the position of the consultant with an architect administering a construction project. The architect is employed by the employer and like the archaeological consutant has a contractually neutral position, i.e. as arbitor. Usually, although not always, in practice his/her position is to protect the employer's interest, for example seeing that standards are maintained, dodgy brickwork is knocked down and so on. Sometimes decisions on contractual matters are made in favour of the contractor (builder) over the employer, but if you follow my drift, the "natural" tendency is is to look the the client's interest (to the extent that most people think that is what an architect does).
On top of that you have the Building Inspector, well, inspecting the building as it's built to see that it complies with the Building Regulations. (Planning is a different thing).
To go full circle, this is why I see the curator as the only party who can realistically act as monitor: he/she is the only party who really, truly, accountably and demonstrably wanted the work done at all.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
8th December 2005, 07:24 PM
I agree with bits of what 'the Invisible Man' says - in particular that the curator is the right person to monitor in terms of standards, WSI etc.
On consultants, I think that while his comments sound superficially reasonable, they also sound inexperienced.
Once a spec has been agreed with the curator, and a price has been obtained for doing the specified work, the client's interest (and that of the consultant) is in making sure that the work is done to the standard specified. If it isn't, that just causes trouble with the curator; and if it done badly at evaluation stage, leading to missed/underestimated archaeology, that introduces risk of unexpected discoveries during actual construction.
If you have unexpected discoveries at that stage, during a watching brief, the client risks construction delay - and that costs lots more than doing the evaluation right in the first place.
Any consultant worth their salt will therefore monitor strongly - but they can and will only enforce what is in the spec/contract.
In my experience, curators' resources are so stretched that in many counties lots of projects get no curator monitoring at all, so the consultant is the only person actually doing it. While this is often me, I do think it is wrong - I often find myself badgering the curator to come out, often unsuccessfully. I wouldn't be doing that if I, as a consultant, wanted to hide anything from the curator.
On a related point - even where the curator does actively monitor, they will rarely be able to do so as intensively as the consultant.
Overall - there is a central role for the curator in monitoring, and a different/complementary one for consultants. Anyone thinking that a consultants' real interest lies in minimising the archaeology doesn't really understand the consultants viewpoint.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
|
