+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Eating Cake (/showthread.php?tid=4734)
Eating Cake - Unitof1 - 4th February 2013
thanks for you comments tmsarch but I looking for possibilities or impossibilities of public servive curators working in ROs. Could your company be ROed?
We had this quote from akfoster http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?6350-IfA-Minima-Debate-THE-RESULT/page4
Quote:Currently an RO inspection is carried out at both new application stage, and when an organisation needs to re-register (every three years). Although the form which ROs complete is important, it is the inspection visit which makes recommendations, and the RO committee which considers the Inspection panel comments and then sets conditions and recommendations. The panel usually includes a local planning archaeologist, a member of staff and a member of the RO committee.
Just why should the panel include the local planning officer somehow seconded to the ifa to inspect ROs when presumably their experience of ROs is not possible. Is this supposed to be some example of independance? And what does that mean in terms of some of the big boys with lots of public service monies?
Eating Cake - Unitof1 - 4th February 2013
Sorry Martin, I did not see your reply
Quote:According to http://www.archaeologists.net/ro Cornwall, Gloucestershire and Norfolk are, plus joint curators/contractors the Welsh Archaeological Trusts and Worcestershire.
I have tried getting that wedpage to work selecting " stewardship" or "historic environment on behalf of....." I dont seem to get anybody. Are those ROs because of their services to stewardship?
Eating Cake - GnomeKing - 4th February 2013
tsmarch makes some key points about the CURRENT state of standards, as have others.
(i have a long list of my own)
It seems that there are indeed real issues with standards of some archaeological work, and indeed with the actual implementation of tendering processes.
I think can think of a range of others: (archives and receiving museums, ametuer societies - eg a metal detectorist i met recently shared my disbelief that large scale commercial excavations could proceed with no provision for the techniques of detecting as a highly useful investigative tool).
So, many complaints from many angles...
This is what the IFA must speak directly to, if indeed it does want to regain the confidence of a wide range of interested parties....
Eating Cake - Martin Locock - 4th February 2013
The latest standard included sections on tendering and ensuring project closure, so the ened has been recognised.
Eating Cake - GnomeKing - 5th February 2013
standards are already existing - bad work concurrently is existing .: disconnect
Eating Cake - Unitof1 - 5th February 2013
gnomeking I couldnt careless about the current standards- they were writen by managers. .: its impossible to spot concurrent bad work. Out of interest are there any ROs around your way who are doing curatorial work?
or
stop press
any curators doing RO work
Eating Cake - Martin Locock - 6th February 2013
On the question of tendering, it is easy to fall into the trap of archaeological exceptionalism. The sort of concerns I have heard about the running of tender competitions aren't professionally dubious, they are verging on fraud. At least one solicitors is now offering no-win no-fee help for people to challenge improeprly awarded tenders. But this doesn't make it archaeological, any more than people speeding or drunk-driving on the way to work is.
Eating Cake - Unitof1 - 6th February 2013
I would agree that archaeology is quite often exceptional particularly when it comes to ownership and copyright. What I do find sad is that anybody would think that tendering is not a fraud. To my mind tendering is no different than playing poker. It is bluff. You only have the moment and you want the job. Most importantly you are not in the position whilst tendering to judge that any other tender is more worthy. You are being asked to be the most fraudulent.....get over it. If your mob was ever sued you would not be in the game. That you stay in is because you are bluffing. You are amougst some of the biggest frauds there are.
Eating Cake - BAJR - 6th February 2013
Fraud and bluff... you decide. but although I fear that tendering does not suit archaeology I have a simple maxim. which does still win me work.
I offer an honest fair price... I won't be the cheapest, but I will offer the best I can. The service includes getting the development condition lifted and a document that you will actually feel you have paid for. and don't mind reading. ( one recent client read the document on teh way to a meeting in Wales and then actually admitted to reading it again on the way back... because they enjoyed it. )
I won't bluff. I lay my cards on teh table.
Eating Cake - Unitof1 - 6th February 2013
hes not bluffing, believe me. Any RO curators round your way?