6th April 2011, 10:54 AM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:Conflict of interest? This was some gobbledygook invented during the 80s. There were plenty of local authority units around in the 70s and 80s, prior to the 'liberalisation' of archaeology by the Thatcherites, who were able to provide a top quality service without the question of conflict of interest ever raising its ugly head.
Yes, but they were operating in an entirely different environment, one in which the field arm was not in a position to undercut its competitors through its close relationship with the regulatory body because there were no commercial companies bidding for the same work. You could argue that the system of area-based Council-run units is preferable to today's commercial free-for-all (and if you were to argue that, I'd definitely agree with you!), but that's not the position we're in at the moment. In the current set-up, whether you agree with it or not, I don't see how it's possible to have the same body curating an area while also competing for work against other companies. It surely must give the fieldwork arm an advantage over its competitors. I'd be interested to hear how those members working for commercial contractors would feel if one of their competitors won the contract to provide curatorial advice to a Council - would you be happy for that company to continue to compete against you for fieldwork, to see all your tenders and to pass judgement on the competency or otherwise of your fieldwork?
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum