23rd February 2012, 11:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 24th February 2012, 12:04 AM by tmsarch.)
Martin Locock Wrote:at the risk of repeating myself, the need for a standard for curators has been recognised for a long time, by curators and those who deal with them. Although the timing is probably coincidental, the need is more pressing in the current financial climate where councils are looking at their services, and the absence of any externally-defined service standard makes it hard to justify the level of professional staffing.
Hi Martin, at the risk of repeating myself, the problem is that in my opinion the standard in its present for is not something that any curator could reasonably sign up to. It has a number of fundamental flaws in its wording that mean that parts of it are un-implementable and cannot be enforced. If a standard can't be complied with then it's of no use to anyone, whatever the need may (or may not) be. The standard uses words like must, should, ensure, and will without understanding their implications.
I also feel there is far to much of an IfA emphasis in it. I think this section of the standard is a good indication of why the whole tone of the document is wrong:
[FONT="]Archaeological advice must comply with the By-laws and Codes of Conduct of the If[FONT="]A, and take due account of prevailing policy, guidance and legislation[/FONT][/FONT]
To my mind this emphasis is entirely wrong and the whole sentence is the wrong way round. I must comply with policy, guidance and legislation, and should take due account of the by-laws and Codes of Conduct of the IfA!
Martin Locock Wrote:At presnet there is a wide variation in practice on contractors lists: some have a local list with varying criteria, some give no guidance at all, and some point to the IfA RO list. The guidance seems reasonably worded, since it just says that tcuartors may wish to say IfA RO only, which since some already is no more than the truth. But if anyone is concerned about this clause they should respond to the consultation and say so.
As mentioned in my last post (page 12) I feel the standard goes beyond what you are suggesting, not least by linking significance of an asset with the need for an IfA RO. It includes mention of the legal advice (paid for by the IfA) to suggest that requiring RO status to undertake fieldwork is an acceptable position, even though this has not been legally tested in court The standard also says that:
[FONT="]The competence of archaeological organisations is assessed through the IfA Registered Organisations Scheme[/FONT]
This is wrong - the competence of an archaeological organisation may be assessed through the RO scheme. Some contractors may chose not to be RO, but this does not mean there is no other way to measure their competence or that they are not competent.
You rightly say that if anyone is concerned about the standard they should respond to the consultation, which I will do, but this does not stop us discussing the standard here or highlighting its problems.