17th April 2009, 10:31 PM
Bit of a double-edged sword this one. On the one hand, we desperately need a system where competent practitioners can be differentiated from the incompetent. Sadly, contractors lists can be a bit of a joke.
It has to be said that Membership of a professional body in no way guarantees competence and professionalism.
It also has to be said that competition "laws" can hobble curators. There have been cases of clearly incompetent individuals/organisations who remain on contractors lists simply because the curator feels that by removing them-they would find themselves on the unpleasant end of litigation.
If a curator relied upon the judgement of a professional institute/body- surely the curator would be simply passing the buck and not recognising where real responsibility lays.After all, the curator is the only player in the game here who is ultimately answerable to local government within the flimsy terms of planning guidence. Contraventions committed by members of the contractors lists rarely result in "accounting" events. Even then, that will only happen if an individual/organisation is a Member of a professional institute or body.
Lets not forget, archaeological contractors are only required to do the "minimum", are not required to sign up to voluntary standards, nor are they required to voluntarily join professional institutes or bodies. Bit of a joke really. Just how is a curator supposed to fulfill his "legal" obligations to local government within this largely, minimalist and voluntary free for all?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
It has to be said that Membership of a professional body in no way guarantees competence and professionalism.
It also has to be said that competition "laws" can hobble curators. There have been cases of clearly incompetent individuals/organisations who remain on contractors lists simply because the curator feels that by removing them-they would find themselves on the unpleasant end of litigation.
If a curator relied upon the judgement of a professional institute/body- surely the curator would be simply passing the buck and not recognising where real responsibility lays.After all, the curator is the only player in the game here who is ultimately answerable to local government within the flimsy terms of planning guidence. Contraventions committed by members of the contractors lists rarely result in "accounting" events. Even then, that will only happen if an individual/organisation is a Member of a professional institute or body.
Lets not forget, archaeological contractors are only required to do the "minimum", are not required to sign up to voluntary standards, nor are they required to voluntarily join professional institutes or bodies. Bit of a joke really. Just how is a curator supposed to fulfill his "legal" obligations to local government within this largely, minimalist and voluntary free for all?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)