"role is fulfilled by the IFA..."

[historic building]

Logically you would have thought that the IFA would seek an opinion from ALGAO

[Curator Kid]

ALGAO membership rules deliberately exclude a large number of Archaeological Development Control Officers across the country. Many of these would also be the people most qualified to offer an opinion on individual RAO status.

I'd suggest the following (or similar): When a unit submits for RAO status (regardless of whether they've had it before or not), the IFA should require submission of a list of all the projects that unit's done for the past (say) two years. They should then pick a couple of areas where the unit's worked the most, and write the local curator a letter that says something like "So-and-so unit has applied to become an RAO. As a monitoring official, are you satisfied that their recent work has been in accordance with such a status?" Maybe that would introduce some independant and longer term quality control practices into the system, and make sure standards were more uniformly and consistently upheld.

[monitor lizard]

I don't think that would be terribly difficult to carry out, and not too onerous a task on us, either. And then the IFA can have anonymous, recent, unbiased advice. In fact, they could draw up a standard Q&A form with space for comments to make it super easy. I think this is something that ALGAO could usefully put forwards.

And speaking of the IFA, ALGAO and RAOs - what do you think about the reoccuring idea about curatorial departments being made RAOs on par with the Units? Will wait for your thoughts before I wade in with mine....

ML

[Curator Kid]

I'd be more than happy with a bit of extra work if it meant that there were some real checks on RAOs before they got validated.

As for the scheme itself, I don't mind the idea of Curatorial departments joining in principle as it's all supposed to be about promoting high standards and upholding best practice, but it does seem geared towards outfits that do fieldwork. I'd maybe like to see some changes in the way that particular By-Law is worded, although to be honest I think if it's to be done properly, the Curatorial bodies and the Contracting bodies should be assessed completely differently, and therefore there should actually be two schemes.

[Tile man]

Sounds like a good idea - perhaps it would be useful to pass it on to the RAO committee? - C/O the ifa via http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...hp?page=19

I would have thought that as curatorial departments joined the application process would evolve, and may end up with different assessment systems, if that is the way the consensous went.

I think that a lot of the concerns of curatorial bodies could be served by the setting up of a suitable special interest group in the IFA e.g.
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...hp?page=24

[historic building]

I would be perfectly happy to undertake that kind of work as well.

If curatorial bodies are to be assessed then this would raise major issues. On a daily basis i have to make decisions on what to make recommendations on simply to keep my work load at a managable level. I have to work to a series of timetabled requirements not to mention all the glories of Best Value. Curating the resource is a continual series of compromises based on where we feel there are likely to be the most damaging impacts based on the two line description in the planning list and the grid reference (frequently wrong for one of my boroughs) showing the location of the site.

Without more staff and funding I think it would be quite difficult for a curatorial RAO system to be meaningful unless, from the start, it recognised the daily compromises which have to be made.

[Tile man]

Or it could be used as a device to get better support by pointing out what the standards benchmarked by your peers nationally require...

[historic building]

however the local authority would have to support such an application which, i would guess, they would be unlikely to if it was going to cost them any more money.

[Tile man]

Not neccessarily, asthey have been prepared to fork out money for ' best value', and will I suppose depend on the local councils strategic plan and long term thinking. Even if your particular council is willing to put itself at political risk by being seen to not allowing you work to an industry recognised standard, the existence of such standards would still be a useful benchmark to argue your case, for greater resources ( or against being closed down...)

The point about RAO beeing peer reveiwed, and similar for standards, is that they are not handed down from on high set in stone but the product of consultations and concencous e.g.
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/stewardship/
after all it is pointless having standards no one can acheive

[historic building]

My cynicism knows no bounds today?