15th July 2008, 11:05 AM
Shadowy said
I [u]suppose</u> that there were other local competitors (CAU) [u]presumably</u> who did not take an interest or [u]possibly</u> did not share the same work ethic culture. One of those ethics I [u]suppose</u> was to go and work in other counties? I know that the unit has taken up working outside the county but I also know that there was a time when it did not and that it did not really like doing out of county work.
Why I find this worthy of note is the ethic of a county-based organisation turning into something larger and [u]presumably</u> enlarging geographically. From the charity pages Extract from the Central Register of Charities maintained by the Charity Commission for England and Wales for the OA (registration date 1982) says that its
and for Wessex archaeology limited (registered 1983) has a similar local grounding
I don#146;t think that this area of benefit means very much, it seems to be defined on the charity pages as
What exactly was the Cambridge unit as a legal definition. why I ask relates to how it could be taken over. My suspicion is that is purely dependent on the state of mind of the personnel and that if anybody had refused to move over, the council could not have done a think about it. But I am way out on my underlined limit. Presumably they are looking forward to working away from home. Externalisation, I suggest that it?s the internals that they are after
Quote:quote: OA weren't the largest organisation that expressed an interest in our externalisation. In terms of annual turnover and staffing levels, there was a substantially larger organisation - but the majority of staff, including myself, felt that OA were the only interested body that shared the same work ethic culture, commitment to open archaeology and whose standards were more akin to our own.
I [u]suppose</u> that there were other local competitors (CAU) [u]presumably</u> who did not take an interest or [u]possibly</u> did not share the same work ethic culture. One of those ethics I [u]suppose</u> was to go and work in other counties? I know that the unit has taken up working outside the county but I also know that there was a time when it did not and that it did not really like doing out of county work.
Why I find this worthy of note is the ethic of a county-based organisation turning into something larger and [u]presumably</u> enlarging geographically. From the charity pages Extract from the Central Register of Charities maintained by the Charity Commission for England and Wales for the OA (registration date 1982) says that its
Quote:quote: Area of Benefit THE CITY OF OXFORD AND THE SURROUNDING AREA (Area prescribed by Governing Document)
and for Wessex archaeology limited (registered 1983) has a similar local grounding
Quote:quote: Area of Benefit BERKSHIRE DORSET HAMPSHIRE ISLE OF WIGHT WILTSHIRE (Area prescribed by Governing Document)
I don#146;t think that this area of benefit means very much, it seems to be defined on the charity pages as
Quote:quote: Area of benefit: This is the area that the charity can operate in as set out in its governing document.and obviously Oxford Wessex have for a long time been working [u]presumably</u> for the benefit of other areas by doing work in other areas (like Cambridge) and/or is it that they have been taking the benefits back to their lairs.
What exactly was the Cambridge unit as a legal definition. why I ask relates to how it could be taken over. My suspicion is that is purely dependent on the state of mind of the personnel and that if anybody had refused to move over, the council could not have done a think about it. But I am way out on my underlined limit. Presumably they are looking forward to working away from home. Externalisation, I suggest that it?s the internals that they are after