Whats in their briefs?

[Dinosaur]

That's actually quite a nice clear one, I actually understood it (!), well summarised from both sides, kind of thing that should be inflicted on archaeology students (if they aren't already, didn't have that kind of stuff back in the Cretaceous)

[P Prentice]

clearly finds are not the issue for the inspector or the decision. still cant force you to deposit finds

[Marc Berger]

unfortunately Prentice it would appear that in Lincolnshire they can

Hosty would it be alright if I up load my hot off the press local government ombudsman's decision about briefs

[BAJR]

If it is legal for you to do so...

[Marc Berger]

I don't know, maybe in the mean time we could look at the one example that is published of an archaeologist going to the ombudswoman that I can find

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/other-ca...13-021-401

After what I have experienced you have to read a lot between the lines. They are a law unto themselves although they don't seem to have jurisdiction and almost no right of appeal. They quote the 1974 local government act a lot and they have a frankly odd mantra which they like to kick off a lot of their so called decisions with

2.The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these.

The strange thing is that service failure does not seem to appear in the 1974 Act and nor does the word fault so why don't they just use the word maladministration. I think why they don't like to use the word maladministration is then they would possibly have to say maladministration of what and that's probably the weakness of this archaeologist case just what law or act of parliament does the publishing of lists with archaeologists names come under. If it did say which Act then ombudswoman would probably then say that they should take it to court. With LPAs and planning matters its likely to be a planning inspector that the Ombudswoman would expect you to go to you but you have to be an applicant or the authority to do that by appeal. So us poor old archaeologists are basically exiles to Justice.

The Ombudsman here says that there was fault and the council have admitted to it but not of what that I can workout, is it that they forgot to put the person on or did they have an unfair criteria that kept them off under what Act?
Personally I am against councils producing lists unless I am the only one on it. I think that Mr B would have been better of going down the data protection route, putting in a freedom of information request to find out how much it cost to maintain the list and under what service agreement did the list come about and what were the rules based on. The ombudsman appears to say that some years the list was alphabetical and on others random.

The best bit though is the

The fact the Council now has one list, not showing location within or outside the county, is not evidence the previous structure was flawed or caused injustice to Mr B.

giving with one hand taking with the other or if its not evidence why did they change it then?

The other thing that this case has that I am familiar with is the use of "cannot say" "caused" "any" "a" "significant injustice". significant injustice is not a term that I can find in the 1974 Act, Presumably an insignificant injustice is a justice.

Basically its all pretty pointless but presumably random lists with anybody from around the world are now going to be popping up all over council web pages. Lincolnshire I think link to BAJR (not that you would find me on that list either as us independent archaeologists have principles you know)

No mention of town and country planning acts in the decision which is what the council is presumably trying to administer.

Just where does it say in the annuls of government that Councils should spend tax payers money to provide and administer lists of archaeologists?

has bajr come across this case before?

[Marc Berger]

I have recently had a Friday the thirteenth case where I tried to be sure that the client fully realised that they owned the objects on their land but failed miserably. This was the out come.

20th May 2016
Mr M. Berger
Beam End
Muckton
XXXXXX
XXXX

Dear Mr Berger
Please find attached cheque for £875.00 being the fee due for preparing a
specification and submitting to XXXXXXX District Council.
We are obviously unable to pay for the other two items on the invoice as you
did not do either service! We advised you in writing on Friday 13th May that we
no longer required your services, which you acknowledged, and as far as we
are concerned your involvement with our project ended then. You can hardly
think it acceptable to charge for work which you were available for so could
have done, but did not do!
You advised us to submit the invoice to the Council for them to pay which is
ludicrous.
As we have told you numerous times we took advice from the Historic
Environment Department at XXXXXXX County Council to ensure we worked
with an archaeologist who would attend to the whole process of the works
needed, in order for eventual discharge of the planning condition on our
planning permission. We were advised that there was an issue of outstanding
archive non-deposition with yourself and we therefore contracted the services
of another archaeologist whose specification has been approved with no issue.
If you have any issue regarding the above, we suggest you take the matter up
with the Council as we refuse to discuss the matter with you any further.
Yours sincerely,
tt4i t/* L i /t l/(lii''
Mr and Mrs XXXXXX

What "must" an archaeologist do to be sure that they have followed the Cifas guidance on ownership?

[P Prentice]

What "must" an archaeologist do be sure that they have followed the Cifas guidance on ownership?

stop shooting oneself in the foot?

[Marc Berger]

I have tried to edit that Prentice but when I go into hostys' post editor, advanced or not, the screen comes up blank so I cant get my missing "to" in. As for foot shooting what else are guns for?

In this particular instance I thought that I had thoroughly installed the CIFA principle of English and Welsh object ownership "must" reside in the clients mind with an added incentive that I reduced my price and from the very first hand shake when I said "Now then, you do realise that you own anything that I find on your land?".

I have now discovered that the public are not interested in any "grotty bits of pot" that I might find but are far more interested in "discharging" the condition as when they were informed that getting a specification agreed was only a partial discharge they took this to mean that unless they found an archaeologist that was willing to take the grotty pot without any hindrance of ownership, they would not get to build their dream home in which to raise their family.

[BAJR]

Have sorted your "to" but do tend to agree with Prentice. You seem to make your own rods with which to beat yourself.

creating issues where your need not, and making people irritated when you could smooth your path through life.

Blaming anyone but yourself.. is not going to help.

Take deep breaths and think...

Is this how you wish to be portrayed?

[video]https://youtu.be/6oJeD2kJpEY[/video]

I hope not. Start enjoying archaeology and stop looking for the niggling little legal niceties that you can grow into mountains and lost work... please

[Marc Berger]

Thanks for the "to" brutus.

Although I don't enjoy archaeology any more the niggling little legal niceties I cant see any other bigger picture. Here in England and wales the whole archaeology thing is predicated on "Copies of evidence should be deposited with the relevant Historic Environment Record, and any archives with a local museum or other public depository." where the public depository should have access to funds for the local authority who may provide and maintain museums and art galleries within its administrative area or elsewhere in England or Wales, and may do all such things as may be necessary or expedient for or in connection with the provision or maintenance thereof . A local authority may make a charge for admission to a museum or art gallery maintained by it under section 12 of this Act. In determining whether, and in what manner, to exercise its powers under this section in relation to a museum or gallery, a local authority shall take into account the need to secure that the museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area, and shall have particular regard to the interests of children and students.
A local authority maintaining [F23or proposing to provide] a museum or art gallery under section 12 of this Act may establish a fund to be used for the purchase of objects for exhibition in any museum or art gallery [F24which the authority maintains or proposes to provide under that section.]
Where at the time a fund is established by it under this section a local authority maintains under a local Act a fund which it is authorised to use for the purchase of such objects as aforesaid, [F25it may amalgamate the funds, but without prejudice to the effect of any condition attached to any particular gift received by the authority.] The provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply with respect to the management of a fund established by a local authority under this section.

Round my way it would be nice to have a museum that's all. And inside the museum I would have all my friends like the finds specialists to have curatorial pensions. Whats the little details like in tuition free Scotland hosty. Does your pot specialist have two part time jobs to just be able to survive and work out of their kitchen. Why should I a pay a non local museum to take my clients "donated" pottery when they don't have anybody there who knows what it is?

What the economics say is that I record the site, leave the objects on site and let the public depository pick them up and identify them if they want.