What next?

[Troll]

Ok.The last year has made a few things patently clear.The IFA are not responsible for or, capable of policing optional standards and, Curators simply don`t have the resources to do so. Is this what we call a professional approach to the nations heritage? As a cynic, one could see this pathetic situation as a deliberately moulded environment in which corporate lobbyists maintain their profit margins. Here`s the serious question and, I think it`s time that we started looking at serious answers to it....
What do we do about it?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[1man1desk]

There are several parts to the answer, involving clearer definition of roles/powers/responsibilities and extra resources. Its a bit of a wish-list, but this is how I would see things going:

1. IFA to define standards, and undertake disciplinary investigation and action when transgressions by members are reported to them (they can't police the standards - but they can enforce them on members if information is laid before them);

2. Make IFA membership compulsory for certain defined roles (PM and PO as a minimum?) in developer-led archaeological projects, so that the IFA are able to take disciplinary action if necessary (RAO status for the unit could also be required);

3. All archaeologists responsible for reporting any transgressions they see to the IFA - privately if they have reason to fear employment consequences;

4. All curators to specify that all work is done to IFA standards (they don't all do this at present), to monitor work properly, and to report transgressions to the IFA - County/Local authorities to provide necessary resources;

5. A new PPS to replace PPG16 (and 15?), specifying stronger policy guidance which would give more power to the elbows of curators, and including reference to IFA standards;

6. Statutory status for SMRs/HERs.

Go out and lobby!



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

Good positive response IMHO. Using the same numeration:

1. Standards in the general sense are of course provied by the IFA. Are you referring to a more specicic set of standards? (hold this end of trowel...) and how universal, i.e non-site specific, could they be?

2. I understand that this would be illegal in Europe?

3. I would consider myself duty bound to report transgessions anyway, as an IFA member and as my professional duty, if I was one. (CV available on request).

4. I find this remarkable, frankly. What standards are referred to then? Are they higher than IFA's? Monitoring and resourcing by the curtaors is the key, I would opine.

5 and 6 - yep.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.