Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
4th January 2007, 02:23 PM
Agree entirely Beamo.Problem is......
If the Curators are fairly toothless and, the optional IFA with no legal standing are easily passified with "I promise it won`t happen again" then really, whats the point? I`ve been bangin on for years (much to the chagrin of others) about having the nations heritage placed on solid legal footings.No optional standards...a professional Institute and clear, unambiguous law.At the moment, it seems that anyone can do as they please and further, escape criticism by and large because no-one can or is willing to introduce an effective quality control system.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
4th January 2007, 02:35 PM
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:No optional standards...a professional Institute and clear, unambiguous law
I don't think that either I or anyone in the IFA is likely to disagree with those objectives. Any professional institution can be a much more effective regulator if membership (and therefore adherence to its published standards) is universal/compulsory.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
4th January 2007, 02:46 PM
Hi Folks- I think that you will find that the IFA has nothing to do with monitoring at all
The IFA decided right from the outset in its âStandardsâ to put the onus on the curators (who*) to undertake the monitoring of the âBriefâ, the IFA even suggested that the curators arrange their charges for doing the monitoring (not that the curators seem to take this up that often which I find intriguing-have they nothing to charge for because they are not doing any monitoring?). I would suggest the intentions out lined in the âStandardsâ negates any purpose for the IFA in maintaining standards for compulsory archaeology that result from planning laws.
* the IFA recommends the national conservation agency (I havenât a clue who they are- tried google), planning archaeologist and commissioning body, or their nominated representatives. All a bit fuzzy- presumably the commissioning body is the client?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
4th January 2007, 02:48 PM
Good day 1man-hope you are well.
It remains then to ask how (collectively) do we move forwards with an apparently agreed objective? I really have no issue with the IFA other than it simply does`nt work in a commercial environment...and I want it to.I also have to ask, if the IFA and its members are indeed unlikely to disagree with such objectives-why has`nt it done anything tangible in at least the last ten years to move us forward? Not meant as a criticism-merely attempting to understand why the desparately needed steps have`nt been taken.
I would wager that an IFA seen to be doing just that would suddenly receive a flood of membership applications too!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad):face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
4th January 2007, 02:59 PM
Troll,
You and I have debated 'till the cows came home on other threads about whether or not the IFA is doing as it should, and we aren't likely to agree - so I'm not going to go into it again.
All I can say is that I do believe that the IFA is doing all it can within its limited powers and within its remit. It can't suddenly decide to be universal or to give itself legal powers or Chartered status - those are government decisions. Also, it can't solve all the problems in British archaeology single-handed; that requires a united effort of all public heritage institutions, working with government support. It also requires agreement on what the problems and solutions are.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
4th January 2007, 03:15 PM
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quote:quote:The IFA decided right from the outset in its âStandardsâ to put the onus on the curators (who*) to undertake the monitoring of the âBriefâ, the IFA even suggested that the curators arrange their charges for doing the monitoring (not that the curators seem to take this up that often which I find intriguing-have they nothing to charge for because they are not doing any monitoring?). I would suggest the intentions out lined in the âStandardsâ negates any purpose for the IFA in maintaining standards for compulsory archaeology that result from planning laws.
* the IFA recommends the national conservation agency (I havenât a clue who they are- tried google), planning archaeologist and commissioning body, or their nominated representatives. All a bit fuzzy- presumably the commissioning body is the client?
The IFA didn't recommend these things - it just recognised that they are the position set by law and by government planning policy, which the IFA couldn't change even if they wanted to.
The IFA don't say they are involved in monitoring (that is one of Troll's key complaints). What they will do is investigate complaints made to them about the actions of their members or RAOs, and if the complaint is upheld they will take action.
The 'national conservation agency' means English Heritage or their equivalents in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The 'commissioning body' is whoever is paying for the work - who would not always see themselves as 'clients'.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
4th January 2007, 03:47 PM
âThe IFA didn't recommend these things - it just recognised that they are the position set by law and by government planning policy, which the IFA couldn't change even if they wanted to.â
The IFA standards clearly direct that everyone but the IFA does monitoring. I find it hard to believe that there is any law about archaeological monitoring.
Maybe the IFA needs a monitoring guidance so that the monitoring can be monitored as well âthey suggest someone with field experience. As I have asked before (I tried to fish it out of Hosty) has any curator charged for âmonitoringâ.....how much did they charge and what did they do with the results....(no I havenât asked that before)
It seems to me that a positive monitoring should be published as well as negative being passed onto the IFA and that ANY monitoring should be registered in full 3d transparency, the bureaucrats should love it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th January 2007, 03:54 PM
I would love to see the Curators marking out of 10... every piece of work...
) (we do secretly already!!) and this gives an 'accurate' picture of who is doing what and how well.
I suspect that monitoring does not cost, as we are paid to do it by our council... tough I would guess that another problem comes when a curator/DC has to somehow know everything and everything... (so one person might notice a 'bad' building record while another might not..or one might see through the use of an innapropriate piece of geophysic kit while another (myself included) would not know ......) As Uo1 says, we need a monitoring guide that can monitor those that monitor that which the monitor has been unable to monitor becasue the monitoring is being monitored by a monitor that themselves should be monitored by a monitor..
Positive monitoring is definately a better way... as you say...
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
4th January 2007, 04:35 PM
Any monitoring would be nice.Or should we just leave the industry as an unwanted child of the 70s hack and slash mentality?
Tiz the 21st Century troops......bit bored with asking the grown-ups to do something, is it time we did something solid?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
4th January 2007, 04:49 PM
Unitof 1: I seem to recall a number of regions in the south having the option of charging for a site monitoring visit (c£50 a few years ago) - I get the impression that charging was there in those areas in case any particular project requires unusually high input from the curator (for whatever reason). Sorry I can't be more specific.
à venuto dal deposito
