Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[Steven]

Not long-winded at all, think you put your points over just fine :face-approve:

Good to hear some curatorial objection, since after all its you guys that IFA is trying to directly foist this on, us contractors are just going to cop the indirect fall-out

Hi
I think the whole thing should be scrapped! Not needed, it's over prescriptive and worse it's a blatant attempt to increase IfA influence. Who needs a badly put together document with regurgitated PPS5 sentiments and incorrect (and sometimes possibly illegal) "standards" designed to exclude any organisation/person not willing to hand over ?190 per year to receive a cr*p magazine, a useless job sheet and to pay the (very high) wages of mostly non-archaeologist staff members?

[gwyl]

mostly non-archaeologist staff members?

look at the webpage: http://www.archaeologists.net/organisation/staff - mostly archaeologist staff members one way or another

[Steven]

look at the webpage: http://www.archaeologists.net/organisation/staff - mostly archaeologist staff members one way or another

Hi
Fair point, I withdraw my comment on IfA staff lack of archaeological background it was rash.B)

[Martin Locock]

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.

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.

[tmsarch]

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=&quot]Archaeological advice must comply with the By-laws and Codes of Conduct of the If[FONT=&quot]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!

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=&quot]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.

[kevin wooldridge]

The consultation period is now over, although if the standard is adopted at the EGM it will be 'under probation' so to speak, for 12 months and I guess this will allow further amendment if necessary.....

I have to say the more that I hear of the IfA legal opinion on whether archaeological provision can be 'restricted' to RAO or IfA members only, the more I worry. I note already that this proposal has thrown in a line adding 'equivalent EU standards' to the list of professional competence. I presume because some legal bod has pointed out that they may be breaking EU law if the guidance appears to restrict competition solely to UK 'licensed' practitioners. That suggests to me that that whole basis for this legal advice is on unsteady foundation, because as all of us archaeologists who work outside of the UK and Ireland know, there is no EU 'competence' assessment scheme that could possibly be used to assess whether individuals or organisations are capable both ethically and technically of undertaking archaeological work. To my mind section 10 of this proposal is flawed being based on a false premise and should be dropped, at least as it is currently formulated.

[ken_whittaker]

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 I have fully set out elsewhere in this discussion, on the issue of monitoring contractors the guidance is not reasonable, it is plainly duplicitous.

Your contribution has been consistent and I appreciate you feel a personal commitment to the IfA's ambitions, but advocacy on this particular aspect of the guidance is not helped by simply banging out the same old lines and ignoring the argument, based on policy and the benefits of open and improved business practice, against proposals that will further damage a fragile commercial sector. We would all prefer not to have to repeat ourselves.....

[Unitof1]

repeat myself is all I ever do. I still dont undertsand is if a standard for advising, with what ever garbage written in it and it will be garabage, comes in then in the uk if anybody wants to do archaeology they must consult something called an HER and they must agree a written scheme with the said advisor?

[gwyl]

repeat myself is all I ever do. I still dont undertsand is if a standard for advising, with what ever garbage written in it and it will be garabage, comes in then in the uk if anybody wants to do archaeology they must consult something called an HER and they must agree a written scheme with the said advisor?

yes you do

but i think you'll find that if you wish to assist aged and wealthy old ladies in most (all Northern) European (i just don't know for the southern) countries comply with an archaeological condition for planning (& the Uk isnot unique in this) when they wish to dig an extension or whatever, then an HER-type search, and some form of monitoring also, is mandatory, i believe

i like curators having standards that are transparent and defined. then i know what they want of me when i am carrying out the work i have been contracted to do, and should they fail to provide a service to me the customer (albeit as agent for my client) - now that many, if not all, are charging for site visits - then i have grounds for complaint

monitoring guarantees YOUR work, at the end of the day.

[kevin wooldridge]

i like curators having standards that are transparent and defined. then i know what they want of me when i am carrying out the work i have been contracted to do... ....monitoring guarantees YOUR work, at the end of the day.

I don't have any problem with that Gwyl and I am sure you are perfectly competent to do what you do. The problem I (and several other people) have with this proposal is that YOU might be excluded from doing work for which you are qualified and competent on the basis of whether or not you or your employer pays a subscription fee. Not from any fair test of competence or qualification.