Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
1st September 2006, 01:41 PM
From Paul Belford:
Quote:quote:However the conflict of interest in this case seems to me to be no greater than a similar conflict between two divisions of a consultancy where one arm is designing the new road and the other is producing the EIA.
The comparison with design and EIA consultants does not stand up. For a start, neither of them is a regulator, and both are commercial operations appointed by the developer. It is highly desirable that the scheme design and EIA processes are as closely integrated as possible, because this maximises the influence of the EIA team on the eventual design.
It is much easier to influence a designer's decision before it is made than it is to get them to change it afterwards, when they have put a lot of work put into it. But, you can only do that if you are working closely with the designers on a daily basis.
I have a lot of experience in EIA on both models (separate and integrated teams), and I can assure you that the integrated model works much better for the environment.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
1st September 2006, 01:47 PM
From Beamo:
Quote:quote:However I must say that as a consultant I have rarely seen any obvious instances of favouritism or deliberate hindrance by a County Mountie in a county where there is also a County Field Unit - I have put together programmes of work recently in Essex and always been impressed with the level of separation between the curators and the field unit
I don't think we are talking here about curators and units existing within a single County authority; that needn't be a problem in itself, although it can be.
The original question was about situations where the unit actually houses the curator, and I added a slightly different example where the curator is also the senior manager of the unit. In these circumstances, the curator has a clear interest in the commercial success of the unit, and I have in the past been aware of behaviour that appeared to be intended to favour the local unit over others.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2006
1st September 2006, 02:18 PM
I have come across conflict of interest type situations in Wales where there are 4 archaeological trusts who perform a County Archaeologist role but over a wider area. Some of these trusts also have commercial contracating units.
When competitively tendering for work against one particular unit run by a welsh trust I have had experience of SMR data and "grey" literature being made difficult to access and in one extreme case actually being withheld until after the tender closing date. Clearly there is a conflict of interest and a move to protect the commercial interests of contracting units.
This was my experience of one particular trust and in general I have found the welsh archaeological trusts excellent to work with.
Magpie
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
1st September 2006, 04:53 PM
Sorry, I failed to precisely grasp the initial question, which was about curators housed by commercial units (which I hadn't heard of before), rather than, as I assumed, commercial units working as part of County Councils or City Councils.
The latter arrangement is the case with the organisation I work for, and it is this situation which most people are talking about here, I think. We have found that archaeological consultants, who understand the relationship very well, invite us to tender for projects, and then recommend us to their clients to carry out the fieldwork.
Hal Dalwood
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
2nd September 2006, 11:27 AM
Isn't Mr Hosty a curator as well as a contractor :face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
3rd September 2006, 12:48 PM
Like Hal, I failed to precisely grasp the initial question.
I believe that there is some debate within the profession over the archaeological credibility of some consultancies and their closeness to developers, i refer to the last RESCUE open meeting.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
3rd September 2006, 12:56 PM
And indeed, the closeness of some consultancies to the local curator.Its not unusual for a curator to turn a blind eye to the antics of often-used consultancies in their catchment areas.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
3rd September 2006, 01:44 PM
I suspect that you are probably right troll, thoiugh do not have any direct experience of said myself. Do I take it you may be thinking about an example in the N of the largest English county? My experience has been that county archaeologists can be quite combatative, and are more inclined to be so, when they are dealing with (some)consultancies. One hears it at conferences and in the pub etc that the stock of many consultancies is actually quite low among the curatorial and contractual archaeological community. As to why that could be so, would be in the realms of libellous speculation I suspect.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
3rd September 2006, 07:00 PM
In one county where the development control team are based in a commercial unit I attended a meeting with the curator and my client and had to sit through the curatorial archaeologist marketing the services of the local unit to my client whilst sat right in front of me. I later wrote a complaint letter to the County Archaeologist about this and never even received a reply.
Practices of this type just should not happen it gives the entire profession a bad name. However I do think that there is a good and strong argument for maintaining units with a strong regional or county basis that are self-funding and may be managed as part of a local authority. Many of these organisations have staff that have worked in the county for many years and basically know the place and there is a strong argument for preserving this knowledge. The management, and financial base of these organisations, their locations and staff should be entirely separate and be seen to be entirely separate and probably should not even have a similar name.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
6th September 2006, 02:21 PM
Last year one of my clients entered into advance discussions with a planning authority regarding a potential planning application.
The client received a letter from the County Archaeologist recommending a pre-application evaluation, along with a short brief for the work. The letter stated that the work could be carried out by the county council-based archaeological unit, and the letter and brief were copied to the head of said unit.
The next day the client received a cost estimate for the evaluation from the county council unit.
At no point was the client advised that they were entitled to seek alternative quotations from other contractors - it just appeared as a complete stitch-up.
Beamo
