Consultants sought for Curatorial Standards and guidance project

[GnomeKing]

your past is my past

[Marcus Brody]

In reply to Unit, I work in Scotland, so PPS5 has no relevance to me, but I think that tendering for work is probably a reality of everyday life, even for archaeologists who are unfortunate enough to have to work in England! In reply to Oxbeast, I also find it incredibly off-putting that every thread seems to descend into the same tedious and repetitive obsessions. In reply to P Prentice, all I can say is God Have Mercy On Us All, should that ever come to pass!

Seriously, however, I go back to my earlier statement that I don't see why having standards for HERs would be a bad thing. I suppose it's possible to quibble over whether a consultant is the right sort of person to write these standards or about the cost, but the general proposal seems sound to me.

[Sith]

Why dont we get our woggles out and do one for them here at bajr.

I wish you'd 'do one'.

[GnomeKing]

I suppose it's possible to quibble over whether a consultant is the right sort of person to write these standards

INDEED

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]so PPS5 has no relevance to me, but I think that tendering for work is probably a reality of everyday life.

[/SIZE]Sorry I didn?t realise that you were north of the boarder -why is scottish heritage ?supporting? this whatever it is consultation using one consultant.

I was trying to get the consultant position in the new pps5 world which presumably is to prepare the specification for the developer to find an archaeologists to provide information to inform the planning application. How did your specification that you tendered for come about. At which point in the planning cycle? Have you got any guesses sith.

Currently I am involved in a tendering thing being run by an architect with a brief set by a curator who has basically written that the work should be carried out according to pps5?it is post determination and they still want predetermination information and that any quote that I put in has to cover evaluation all the way through to any eventuality and without any payment for background research or an...evaluation. This quote requires the full implications for the development timetable. its a farce.

As for the conspiracy thing you have to understand that we work in an environment where you have to be a class 2 exempt charity and run dubious compertions so that you can give bottles of champagne to something called eh. Theres only about 2000 archaeologists out there but it is remarkable how they can hide behind the ifa, algao, eh sh and all the rest of the letters of the alphabet. I think that somewhere in the gumpth around the purpose of this consultation I read the purpose was to make it transparent. And all I have learnt so far is that it is no more transparant to you as it is to me but you dont think interms of conspiracies.

[Marcus Brody]

Currently I am involved in a tendering thing being run by an architect with a brief set by a curator who has basically written that the work should be carried out according to pps5?

How does this square with your previous statement that tendering for work does not happen in archaeology?

[GnomeKing]

Got something to say Brody? (other than yet ANOTHER ad hominem ?)

[Sith]

At which point in the planning cycle? Have you got any guesses sith.

Sorry, I've no idea, but I do know (Marcus and GnomeKing) that there are some consultants out there who have been (or may still be) curators.

…it is post determination and they still want predetermination information. ..its a farce.

I agree Unit, it is a farce. It sounds like the curator has taken the line of least resistance within the system (probably to avoid being marked as a troublemaking barrier to growth) by not rejecting the application on archaeological grounds because it fails to meet the requirements of Policy HE6 of PPS5.

[Marcus Brody]

Got something to say Brody? (other than yet ANOTHER ad hominem ?)

My Classical education may be sadly lacking, but I don't understand how my previous statement can be considered to be argumentum ad hominem. Unit responded to my post by saying that tendering for work never happens in archaeology, then the next day says that he's been involved in tendering for work. I didn't state that this inconsistency invalidated all his other arguments, I merely pointed out that this one statement was a flat-out contradiction of what he said yesterday. I appreciate that everyone is entitled to change their views over time, but as I said, the statement that tendering never happens in archaeology is demonstrably not true, as Unit himself has indicated. This doesn't speak to the validity or otherwise of other statements he has made, and I did not attempt to use any of this personal beliefs or characteristics to suggest that his premise was incorrect, I just pointed out that in this one instance, he'd made my argument for me by confirming that tendering does indeed happen in archaeology.

To get back on topic, I would say again that I simply belief that having a standards and guidance document that sets out what HERs should do is no bad thing.

[GnomeKing]

Wow! - great clarification!
I love your passion for standards and guidance!