Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
both well put points and that is perhaps what I have been moving towards. Uncannily like the IFA... its exactky right... talk to the original members, and indeed tts the thing they started... nuff said.
curators... dc archeologists.. again exactly the problem... we are fragmented and defensive... but instead of collaborating, we do seem to be acting more and more in small groups... (myself included) unity? wake me up when it happens.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
hmmmm. True about the original members, but they also created some of the problems with things like self-certified membership and self-certified areas of competence! (Many many moons ago I actually worked fof the IFA for a couple of months - part time- when they were still based in Birmingham). I can honestly say (because it's true) that I didn't join THAT IFA for many of the sort of reasons that people give for not joining now. The present IFA is more responsive, more professional and represents the whole profession far better than when it was first set up.
And personally I'm all for collaboration, especially if there's beer involved.......
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Slightly tangential, and correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that ALGAO membership was by the Local Authority as a corporate body? The local authority then nominates a person to represent them at ALGAO meetings. This was a deliberate mechanism to avoid some of the issues of representation (or non-representation).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Yup ALGAO the local authority is a member and usually it is the most senior archaeologist who is the nominated rep.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
There are a few that are not in ALGAO... but percentage wise... it does seem to represent most of Curators/Local Authorities.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Oldgirl,
The discussion moved had already moved on. How is a supposed ?Offarch? meant to regulate everybody if not everyone is in the IFA? Sounds to me like a broad church.
S
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Sparky
Oldgirl,
The discussion moved had already moved on. How is a supposed ?Offarch? meant to regulate everybody if not everyone is in the IFA? Sounds to me like a broad church.
S
Precisely my point! My issue with the original proposal was that it was a proposal to have a regulatory body for the IFA and ONLY for the IFA, ignoring completely those who were not members.
To others - thanks for the clarification on the membership of ALGAO. So the archaeological representative is nominated by the local authority.... who presumably are not archaeologists?
So, that would meet the impartiality criteria suggested. However, it doesn't answer the point about what happens if the complaint is about an ALGAO member, how do you ensure impartiality then? Plus, the powers that 'curatorial archaeologists' have are related to the planning system, and they are only advisory. And the planning system is changing anyway. And I'm not sure the members of ALGAO or their employers would feel that they have the time/money to police the archaeological profession.....
:face-thinks: I think my brain hurts. [xx(]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
The ALGAO rep would be the most senior archaeologist in the organisation, who works as an archaeologist. Usually, where there is one, it would be the County Mounty. As we all know curatorial organisations are not the same over the country and vary widely.
Many development control officers and county mounties help out with RAO inspections in their patches if they know the organisation well or feel they can help out.
I am totally unaware if ALGAO has any mechanism for dealing with complaints. I would say it would be entirely outside their remit if you look at the information on their web page
http://www.algao.org.uk/Cttees/OurWork.htm. If you wish to complain about your local gunfighter then you would probably have to complain to their council, employer or authority that they are advising or go to the local government ombudsman. Unless, of course, the curatorial organisation in question is an RAO or is under some other form of quality control...
