19th January 2012, 11:19 AM
BAJR Wrote:Is there an increasing problem with unregulated non-IfA companies producing sub-standard work and then laughing in the face of authority, as nobody can stop them?
I was under the impression that this document was mainly designed to provide standards and guidance for people providing curatorial advice to Councils in terms of what they should be doing, and that the idea was that it could act as a stick to beat Councils who get rid of their archaeologist but say that this is OK because their conservation officer or planning technician will be providing advice on archaeology - by having standards and guidance for what a HER service should be doing, there's something to point to when making the case that having a conservation officer or planner attempt to fill this role is not acceptable.
I'd obviously disagree with the various statements quoted that would appear to suggest that curatorial bodies should only accept work done by ROs, and I'm not really sure why these have been included, other than that the IfA possibly believes that repeating their opinion often enough will eventually bludgeon people into accepting it, but I think that these are incidental to the main thrust and purpose of the document. If we want some form of curatorial framework to survive in a time when all Councils are trying to make cuts, I'd suggest that this document represents a good opportunity to set out what we'd want them to be doing.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum