13th April 2007, 03:28 PM
Well resources would help in some ways. I have just got through a 3-week period where I had six sites running at the same time. My performance notes state I should monitor each site twice a week. Together with travelling time that about half the week gone and leaves very little time for all the other work we are meant to cover.
The opportunities for a curator to directly enforce standards are:
initial response to planning application/ pre-determination consultation
writing the brief
checking the WSI
monitoring visits to the site
checking the report
discharging the archaeological condition and confirming funds are in place for archive/ publication
If work is being undertaken pre-determination then this does limit the opportunities to maintain standards. Previously I have refused to 'see' an evaluation report as I could not find any records of a WSI being agreed in my predecessor's paperwork and the unit in question was unable to supply any written evidence. I was only able to do this with the support of the planner and I was able to make the developer, with a new unit, reopen the trenches under condition.
The question of maintaining standards through a list of contractors is one that has come up a number of times. For the vast majority of significant sites in my county the developer comes along with a unit or consultant already attached to the project. Having an approved list would only impact on the smaller schemes. The RAO scheme does mean that you can explain what it means to developers and if they come along with an organisation that has been unable to maintain their registration you can explain to the developer what this means.
If you want to improve standards as a means to increasing the professionalism of the archaeological world and this then impacting upon pay then the IFA really is the only game in town. The RAO scheme, and organisations being removed from it enables curators to be able to say âorganisation X is not up to the job because they cannot maintain their RAO registrationâ.
The opportunities for a curator to directly enforce standards are:
initial response to planning application/ pre-determination consultation
writing the brief
checking the WSI
monitoring visits to the site
checking the report
discharging the archaeological condition and confirming funds are in place for archive/ publication
If work is being undertaken pre-determination then this does limit the opportunities to maintain standards. Previously I have refused to 'see' an evaluation report as I could not find any records of a WSI being agreed in my predecessor's paperwork and the unit in question was unable to supply any written evidence. I was only able to do this with the support of the planner and I was able to make the developer, with a new unit, reopen the trenches under condition.
The question of maintaining standards through a list of contractors is one that has come up a number of times. For the vast majority of significant sites in my county the developer comes along with a unit or consultant already attached to the project. Having an approved list would only impact on the smaller schemes. The RAO scheme does mean that you can explain what it means to developers and if they come along with an organisation that has been unable to maintain their registration you can explain to the developer what this means.
If you want to improve standards as a means to increasing the professionalism of the archaeological world and this then impacting upon pay then the IFA really is the only game in town. The RAO scheme, and organisations being removed from it enables curators to be able to say âorganisation X is not up to the job because they cannot maintain their RAO registrationâ.