kevin wooldridge
Unregistered
13th January 2006, 12:19 AM
Spending part of today in a local authority records office left me a tad depressed after staff confided their fears that this year's financial settlement could see cutbacks in opening hours and potential job losses. This followed the news about the problems with local authority funded archaeology in Northants and rumours abounding about threats to other local authority units.
A brief trawl of the CBA 'Breaking News' website showed that just today closures have been threatened at museums in Fleetwood, Redditch and Smethwick and councillors in Trowbridge have 'demanded' the closure of a local museum to save a piffling sum off the Council Tax charge.
Is it just my impression or is this the worst year yet for cuts to heritage funding?. Other examples of potential threats would be much appreciated. I am working on an idea of trying to get e-mail addresses to send personal messages of support to beleaguered heritage sector workers to demonstrate they are not alone. If our Host has no objection, perhaps BAJR could become a conduit for advertising local action campaigns against closure or cutbacks.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
13th January 2006, 10:18 AM
Speaking personally as a real-life beleaguered heritage sector worker, I appreciate the support. unfortunately e-mailing each other doesn't help that much, as when these messages are passed on by staff under threat of redundancy, they can be dismissed by management simply as attempts by the staff to save their jobs at any cost - no matter how cogent the arguments put forward are. Remember that Local Authority managers are experts at dressing up cuts in jobs and resources as being necessary to "increase efficiency" or provide a "better service" (!!!!), and they will also fob off people who complain to them with responses that say things like "no decisions have been taken" or "the situation is currently under review", rather than provide any answers or take concerns on board. Of course, once they've "taken a decision", it's then too late. 
What can often help, is blitzing the relevant authority contact points with letters and complaints when these proposals are made. National bodies like EH carry some real clout here - if they get their comments right, and get them to the right people. Councillors also really don't like their voters complaining to them about anything - especially if the local press get hold of a few choice facts, so galvanising the local societies and general community is vitally important too.
Rescue has a lot of experience in these areas, and is good at targeting responses to the right people, but needs the support of increased membership. The CBA, IFA and ALGAO really need to be more visible in voicing concerns and raising awareness of these situations as well.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th January 2006, 03:12 PM
I agree that BAJR ... although a voice and perhaps a place to pass information... does not have the clout or the contacts to deal with this.
However, on saying that... I have put the wind up a couple of councils, by putting on a posh voice and expressing concern directly to the Cheif Exec...
Rescue is the best place... but I agree that the biggies, could be 'seen' to be doing more, even if they are actually doing something, they should make it more public that they are.
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
13th January 2006, 03:34 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I agree that BAJR ... although a voice and perhaps a place to pass information... does not have the clout or the contacts to deal with this.
Rescue is the best place... but I agree that the biggies, could be 'seen' to be doing more, even if they are actually doing something, they should make it more public that they are.
When topics like this are given publicity and 'the public' actually made aware it is surprising how many are willing to 'blitz the relevant authority contact points with letters and complaints'. 
Unfortunately it is not often we are told what is happening in enough detail and in enough time to make a difference.
Too often something comes 'under review' and the public know nothing until the deed is done.
I agree, the biggies need to be 'seen' to be doing something.
As usual something like this means hard work and commitment, getting out there and telling people. [:p]
E
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th January 2006, 07:51 PM
I have to say that the current system of local (district) planning authourities contracting out archaeology to county councils is far from satisfactory in many respects.
Given the changes in the planning system and the proposed unified system of designation that are on the way the place for archaeologists in the conservation section of the planning departments in City, District and Unitary authourities.
The cuts in budgets are due to changes in the amount of money they recieve from central government. (Who did you vote for?) What voters in the south at least want in the main is that their council tax bills do not go up. The tendancy is therefore going to be to cut the things that there is no statuory requirement to do.
The view will be therefore is why should a county council provide a free service to district authourities? By cutting the service in effect the district authourities are force into having their own HER and DC archaeologists.
Similarly if the County Council runs a loss making archaeological contracting business there is absolutely no reason to keep on supporting them.
Expecting to be in a minority of one on this.
In any event not very nice for the individuals involved.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
14th January 2006, 06:15 PM
Not disagreeing, but doesn't the same argument (problem) of being a prime target for cost cutting to keep the Council Tax down apply to District authorities?
There are more District Authorities than county councils so more jobs!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
15th January 2006, 10:43 AM
Having been responsible several times for the annual 'what shall we cut?' game in local authorities, I am sure you know that the trick when asked for savings is to offer choices which you know will be politically difficult, rather than something they can take easily. That is why you always see the headline stuff like ' old people's homes to close', 'welfare services to be slashed', rather than 'stationery budget to be halved' or 'fewer new computers to be bought this year'.
By the way, why should council tax payers subsidise developers by providing support (in cash and kind like support services which aren't billed at real cost)to local authority contracting units? Surely they (the units) are an anachronism? I'm with the Doc on this one.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
15th January 2006, 03:37 PM
"if the County Council runs a loss making archaeological contracting business" Peter Wardle.
"why should council tax payers subsidise developers...services which aren't billed at real cost" voice of reason.
I can well understand there being subsidised units at county level for the use of small businesses and homeowners but not for (multinational/national) developers to use, unfair maybe but they should pay full price. At least the sm. b's and homeowners, in the main, are always there to pay the taxes for the area.
Developers, IMO, seem to think they can do what they like, just because they happen to have a few quid.
E
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
15th January 2006, 08:40 PM
Archaeological said
"I can well understand there being subsidised units at county level for the use of small businesses and homeowners but not for (multinational/national) developers to use, unfair maybe but they should pay full price"
Why the distinction? A home owner developer say knocking down his house and building a bigger one or converting a chapel can easility make UKP100 000 or more.
To quote an example from Today Sunday Times Home section page 3.
Chapel 160 k
Build cost 80k
Total 240k
Value 275-300k progit 35-60k
This example comes from their Is it worth it section ie illustating a not very viable scheme.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
16th January 2006, 10:03 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
I have to say that the current system of local (district) planning authourities contracting out archaeology to county councils is far from satisfactory in many respects.
Given the changes in the planning system and the proposed unified system of designation that are on the way the place for archaeologists in the conservation section of the planning departments in City, District and Unitary authourities.
Not sure I agree here. Certainly where I work, if you actually begin to focus in on the archaeology of a particular district, you can get very skewed archaeological and/or historical viewpoints developing. As the knowledge base is limited, you really need to stand back and take a much wider perspective. Fair enough, a lot of modern County boundaries are arbitrary, but district divisions are little better (they change very frequently too) and at least most of the rural counties have been established for a long time, so the general areas have some historical validity. I think you'd find as well that in a lot of cases, the amount of work per district wouldn't be enough to justify employing a full-time archaeologist. One of the big worries I have about the unified designation system, is that districts will do precisely as you say, and place the archaeological work in their areas into the conservation department, but not feel able to justify employing a specialist archaeologist to do it. I know of a number of archaeological decisions taken at district level by non-archaeologist Conservation or Planning Officers, and they're often so far off the mark as to be difficult to implement or enforce properly.
I seem to remember references in the Heritage Protection Review consultation to creating networked sub-regional teams, which would effectively shift the archaeological work further away from the often very narrow local perspective of single districts. There wasn't much information given, but moves which fully recognise the importance and neccessity of taking account of the broader picture, whilst at the same time recognising issues like local distinctiveness, would seem to be sensible.
|
