1st July 2008, 12:50 PM
Hi All
Isn't this all a bit navel gazing and over reacting here? First we start with an idea that the IFA isn't a full regulator and now we're calling for an Offarch!
So a Site Assistant digging a ditch will be overseen by, the site supervisor, the site PO, the Project Manager, who is in turn monitored by the curator (and by extension the IFA and ALGAO), the curator is managed/employed by democratically elected members, and all of these will be overseen by OFFArch, a quango similar to EH but involved in "normal DC cases", and it is OFFArch that has the final say in terms of standards and conditions.
So will OFFArch be able to sanction proceedings against the local elected members or the curator themselves? If the latter, then curators are going to find themselves prosecuted for decisions made by members. If OFFArch also presides over members then there is an unelected, unrepresentative body (which might end up being three recent graduates on power trips) making decision concerning arcane practices which most members of the public will not care about or understand.
How many regulating powers does that Site Assistant need to properly excavate and record that ditch? None, they just need proper training, experience and a company that tenders correctly that has qualified, experienced staff and a curator with similar qual/train/ex.
The issues in archaeology will not be solved by adding more regulatory bodies with overreaching powers, that's just mad! The problems we have are not concerned with businesses overcharging customers, or raising costs within a monopolistic industry to pay shareholders. The problems are internal and are to do with the approach taken by individuals who "cheat" by relaxing (or abandoning) proper standards.
Steven
Isn't this all a bit navel gazing and over reacting here? First we start with an idea that the IFA isn't a full regulator and now we're calling for an Offarch!
So a Site Assistant digging a ditch will be overseen by, the site supervisor, the site PO, the Project Manager, who is in turn monitored by the curator (and by extension the IFA and ALGAO), the curator is managed/employed by democratically elected members, and all of these will be overseen by OFFArch, a quango similar to EH but involved in "normal DC cases", and it is OFFArch that has the final say in terms of standards and conditions.
So will OFFArch be able to sanction proceedings against the local elected members or the curator themselves? If the latter, then curators are going to find themselves prosecuted for decisions made by members. If OFFArch also presides over members then there is an unelected, unrepresentative body (which might end up being three recent graduates on power trips) making decision concerning arcane practices which most members of the public will not care about or understand.
How many regulating powers does that Site Assistant need to properly excavate and record that ditch? None, they just need proper training, experience and a company that tenders correctly that has qualified, experienced staff and a curator with similar qual/train/ex.
The issues in archaeology will not be solved by adding more regulatory bodies with overreaching powers, that's just mad! The problems we have are not concerned with businesses overcharging customers, or raising costs within a monopolistic industry to pay shareholders. The problems are internal and are to do with the approach taken by individuals who "cheat" by relaxing (or abandoning) proper standards.
Steven