2nd June 2015, 08:56 PM
Sith Wrote:Was a statement of an incorrect level of accreditation the only thing wrong with the report ?
'Only' ?
Isn't that enough ?
Where someone cites false accreditation, can the assumption be made that their documentation presents a fair reflection of the facts ? - especially since the levels of accreditation are based on competence ? Doesn't this 'devalue' the worth of the accreditation for those members who are at that level ?
And what about the client ?; if I were to employ someone to carry out a particular task (whether archaeological or not) I might well decide to take them on, based on their accreditation to the governing body - that's what I'd be paying them for.