2nd December 2011, 07:09 PM
Steven Wrote:Hi
You’re saying self regulation (by the IfA) will work better than regulation by local government. Your idea is not enhancing regulation of standards it's simply replacing one accountable body with an unaccountable body in which the more powerful units will dominate. It's simply an archaeological version of the Press Complaints Comission, a model proven to fail.
Curators jobs are mainly about monitoring and ensuring sufficient information is given in applications (level/type of evaluation) at pre-determination, and monitoring to ensure the mitigation is carried out properly, anaylsis completed and that publication takes place. Simply replacing them with self-regulators will not deal with any issues.
It will threaten local services, at the moment any excuse is good enough for some councils to cut services. Offering them an opportunity to have someone else fund part of that service would be seen as an opportunity to cut. If you think otherwise you’re simply naive. I really don't think you understand the real threat curatorial services are under. We are a nails breadth from being cut completely from local government, which would be the end of commercial archaeology because there would be no-one requiring any work to be carried out as there would be no-one advising planning authorities. Hair brained schemes of PCC style self-regulation would be detrimental to smaller units with fewer members within the IfA and could lead to monopolistic practices.
How about a really simple solution that when archaeologist sees standards being flaunted they whistleblow to the curator! If archaeologists see rival/other units lowering standards they inform the curator so they can investigate. After all that’s what professional should do!
nope - i'm saying regulation by a qualified, experienced, independent police force funded by licenced contracting organisations
i'm saying its no use expecting the curator to enforce standards when they are currently under resourced to maintain their own, when, as we both know, many are ill-equiped and without the requisite experience to know when a given site is being adequately excavated or reported or published.
the costs would be transferred to the developers and no single organisation would stand to loose if all were subject to the same rigour
and as for whistle-blowing -who do we report rogue curators to?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers