Northants

[BAJR Host]

I might add that bit to the bottom ofthe letter!

Another day another WSI?

[drpeterwardle]

Apologies if I break the AUP with this message. I have been away from my desk for a few days and I am catching up. Imanandhisdesk said

"We can tell a developer what would represent good practice and what would be advisable to do. However, we would have to make clear any difference between that and what the have to do. If we tell a developer that they have to do something that is not required by law and has not been requested by any regulatory authority (=local authority)".

I think this is a very Colcuttian argument that a consultant is the representative at the enemy's court. The basic gist of the argument is that the consultant in his suit and nice car persuades the client that out of the goodness of their heart they persuade the client to spend there money (or their share holders') doing what is right. This was the case before Nov 1990 and the introduction of PPG 16 - that is this was the argument that consultants deployed twenty years ago. I would suggest that this idea is archaic.

If SAMs or AAI are not involved what is the statutory basis? I think it is inpudent to tell a client that they have do something which cannot be legally enforced. Ask them, yes - tell them, no. Telling them they must do something will normally just make them say no as a point of principle. Explain the important, yes - find out if they are closet time team watchers or amateur archaeologists, yes and appeal to their better nature, yes. But tell them?

Dr Peter Wardle

[historic building]

I am always amazed by council cuts. For example the heritage group i work in costs 28 pence per head of population within the county. I council tax payers are about 1 in three of the population then that is still less than £1 per person.

[mercenary]

1man1desk wrote:

quote:It would be similar to a garage telling you that your car engine was knackered and needs replacing when all you needed was an oil change.

If this is the most fitting analogy a consultant can come up with to explain why developers should do a minimum that is generally acknowledged to be inadequate - I despair.

I suspect you may have undone much good rhetoric about the good work consultants do.

Do you actually feel good about your role?

[the invisible man]

That is not what 1man said. He merely pointed out that as a professional he is duty bound to advise his client on the legal position. If the current legislation is inadequate, or if the requirements of the planning authority are inadequate, then that is not his or any consultant's fault.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[mercenary]

Which bit have I misunderstood then? It is quite clear that the analogy was meant to illustrate Why consultants are duty bound to advise on the minimum legal requirement, and nothing else.

If the legislation is inadequate, and I think most archaeologist would agree that it is, then of course it is not any consultant's fault, but they probably benefit from it. I suspect that tighter planning regulation and more clear cut guidance with regard to archaeological remains would remove some of the grey areas that consultants so successfully exploit.

What I'm curious about is the ethical dilemma facing a consultant who knows what best practice is in a certain situation, but can then recommend something else to a client because the law is not good enough? Is it like being a defence lawyer for someone who is clearly guilty? (Maybe that's a terrible analogy as well?)

As a contractor I face similar situations but very seldom have to do anything I'm ethically not happy with. But then we are not trying to build an empire that exploits lax regulation.

[Real Job]

I understood 1man to mean something essentially uncontroversial and obvious: that a consultants role is to advise their clients on what is the minimum they can get away with doing. Dress it up however you like, but that is their role and it can't be any other.
Whats refreshing is to hear a consultant acknowledge that, rather than talk about how consultants are the guardians of archaeology etc.
Note that I am not saying that consultants don't - as indivduals - care about archaeology, some do. I guess it must hurt sometimes when they are constrained by their role to argue for less rather than more, and to represent their clients interests in minimizing costs to the appropriate authority.

[mercenary]

RJ,
It is obvious, and like you I am surprised to hear it spoken of openly. There is far too much positive spin and collusion in that side of the industry to my liking. Which, to get back to the thread, is why dismantling curatorial departments is a disaster.

[BAJR Host]

Strangely... on Tuesday I don my Consultant aht, and act on behalf of a group that intends to build 1500 houses.( in a different county from my own I hasten to add)

In this capacity I will be acting in the best interests of my client... with my Curator hat i would have to be convinced that the scheme I came up with met the criteria for a full archaeological mitigation and investigation strategy... I would require tha backing of my planning officers of course as I have no statutory powers.

As a contractor.. I would of course act upon what was required and to compete, have to produce a tender that met the requirements but no more.. or I would not win the contract.

So to return back to the thread... without proper advice... a planning officer could not place adequate conditions, as a contractor I will be making sure that the archaeology is taken seriously, and integrated into a scheme, or mitigated to preserve the resource... as a contractor I need the development control archaeologist to ensure that what I do is to a standard.... minimum standards are just that... but no contractor that wants to win a contract wil go too much above it...

My life is complicated

Rest Assured though... as a consultant... I see my job as protecting the archaeology... but also making sure my client does not have to pay out more than they have to... as a curator.. I see that as my job too...

Letters go out Monday.... though for Nothants it may already be too late... I wil report back.

Another day another WSI?

[drpeterwardle]

I have to say my take on the consultants role is very different to those being mentioned here. I suggest that simple statements such as acting in the best interests of the client, saving them money or looking after the archaeology are just too simplistic for what is a very complex dynamic which varies from client to client and job to job.

I donot accept however that we have an inadequate system - far from perfect yes - but inadequate no. I would suggest that we actually have a system on paper at least that is not only draconian but is almost a "zero tolerance" regime. For example do SMRs inform the owners of land that their land is now a site of archaeological interest?

The worst example I can think of is an evaluation undertaken without the land owners consent and I acting on behalf of the land owner was refused permission to copy the report on grounds of copyright.

Peter Wardle