1st June 2012, 09:53 AM
Quote: It may have been confused because the council is ultimately the developer on this project, so the contractor would echnically be working for the Council, with Douglas Spiers being identified as being in charge because
he's the employer's own archaeologist, who has set the scope of the work, and is overseeing it for the Council.
So what wrong with the situation? As a competitive archaeologists all I see is another so called archaeologists get to do archaeology using somebody else to do the digging on whoever's land. They probably don't get enough salary of course . Whats great is that they dont have to do any writing up but get to play the great archaeologist. Must be wonderful
hay hosty just used google to spell check and coppied it back in, feel like I have invented something, wonder what that would do to the google algoritiom
if it was me the problem is how would you make more money out of the situation? but The most obvious conflict is that it could be imagined that this is the advisors land. A bit like a landowner deciding if they should do any archaeology or what archaeology on their land and to what extent. This conflict happens all the time in every council. Nobody ever says anything about it. Is there some policy.
Its interesting hosty that you mension
Quote:The Welsh Archaeological Trusts' Curators' Code of Practice ... ensure hat there is a clear separation between their advisory (curatorial) and contracting roles. So the same person is not advising, performing the work and then regulating the final product.
somewhere in here
www.scribd.com/doc/8773308/Digger-1-39-1998-2006
one of the welsh trusts in their not paying vat days took their council to court for non payment but that does not realy apply to the scottish case in question.
All that I can seethat wrong here is that the advisors should write up the site.
Reason: your past is my past