IFA Complaints Proceedure

[vulpes]

MLs approach to DBAs broadly equates with my own, but I nearly always write a brief for evaluations but rarely for excavations as the area for mitigation can usually be agreed on the basis of the evaluation and a WSI produced by the consultant/contractor - and then revised to our satisfaction. I feel that defining the appropriate level and method(s) of evaluation is the important bit. But each to their own.

The important thing is to have an agreed and sufficiently detailed project design/spec for each stage of works and this concurs with the IFA guidelines in that work should be 'quanitifiable, implemented and monitored'.

[BAJR Host]

But then one Curators 5% eval is anothers 20%.. and yet another would be happy with one of those Watching Thingies.. Each county has its own standards and guidance, some better some worse.. surely we can (as ALGAO) come up with a significant document detailing what every county will expect as minimum requirements for each type of work... ( I have just been sent one such document from ***** county) it details each form of activity and what is to be expect in each... and with reference to IFA and other stands documents. This way it don't matter if you work in Thurso or Maidstone... the same criteria and expectations are involved... amkes everyones life easier.. and forces Curatorial Archaeolgoists to adhere to a 'standard' that we all train for and achieve.

Fightin TAlk!}

Another day another WSI?

[vulpes]

Yes. I agree and I believe ALGAO are on to this? The precedent has already be set by the East Anglian guidelines. However, it is unlikely that any such document would set minimum percentages of trenching, and I would warn against this (as other have) as it could play into developers hands and make larger sample sizes difficult to argue for. A 'one size fits all' policy for evaluations just isn't sensible or desirable and approaches should be determined on a site by site basis. However, standards for recording, photography, surveying, archiving, reporting and so on, would be useful.

[drpeterwardle]

My point seems to have been missed. The quote came from the IFA web site and may or may not have orginated in ALOGAO Model briefs and specs.

I am pointing to one specific regulation that I think nobody conforms to - writing a project design for an assessment generic or not. If I am right then there are grounds for disciplinary action against every unit and consultancy.

I would therefore pose the question if nobody conforms to the regulation why have it at all? It is pointless. It is absurd.

So if we had a totally anonamous complaints procedure I could make a complaint against one or two of my rivals and cause them all sorts of grief when in fact they are working to an industry norm.

and I dare say they would do the same.

Peter Wardle

[vulpes]

No Peter you're just confusing guidelines with rules! Strange argument you're making though. hmmm...:face-huh:

[BAJR Host]

Just as a matter of interest - do we (as archaeolgoists) have any rules... or do we subsist on a set of guidelines that are not enforceable? :face-huh:}

Another day another WSI?

[Cautionary Tale]

I've had this conversation with various people with varying conclusions. In the end, whether the guidelines are enforcable or not depends on the basis of the commission or the condition which provokes the work. If a condition provides that the local authority approve a WSI etc, and as a condition of approval they require certain points be made in said WSI, the guidelines become enforcable via the planning process and acquire some nice pointy teeth } A consultant or curator having agreed the WSI are both in a position to require adherance to it by any sub-contractors.

Desiderate le fritture con quello?

[historic building]

However, it is not the curator who enforces the condition it is the planner. Some of the planners I work with are excellent and when I need to go into the trenches - literally in some cases - to fight against incompetent or incomplete work they will support me. In other cases they do not feel it fulfils council 'policy' to enforce conditions. Now most of the jobs I work on are concerned with listed buildings where it is a criminal offence not to complete conditions. If you have archaeological conditions on listed building applications which are concerned with underground archaeology as well you have rather more power when you can walk up to the applicant and inform them they could well go to jail.

[Cautionary Tale]

Indeed. A colleague experienced vast amounts of co-operation from previously unhelpful site managers when threatened with a stop notice by a very nice enforcement officer some years ago } Laugh? oh yes [:p]

Desiderate le fritture con quello?

[trowelfodder]

In responce to dr w in certain cases the ifa are the people to complain to - they are supposed to set industry standards and when a unit is registered with the ifa they are supposed to comply with these standards. The inclusion of the ifa logo on letter heads appears to people outside the industry as a mark of proffessionalism and if a company is not living up to this than the ifa has a duty to act.

And what happens in situations with council or excouncil units where the curatorial and commercial archaeology are part of the same unit - there is no impartiality in these instances