Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Audit Trails and cIFA Codes.
Advice Sought:
I am seeking advice on cIFA codes relevant to County Archaeologists, and audit trails relating to the monitoring of projects done in pursuance of Planning Regulations;
It seems that County Archaeologists would fall under these;…/…/CIfAS&GCommissioning_1.pdf
In regard of audits trails, i see this;
"Monitoring and managing the quality of archaeological work
6.1 .b.
undertake monitoring of all relevant stages of archaeological work in accordance with stated policies or contractual agreement, and document and share the results of monitoring with appropriate parties in order to provide a ROBUST AUDIT TRAIL for planning, legal and quality management purposes"
Am I correct in thinking that this applies to monitoring of commercial projects by County Archaeologists????
Do any County Archs out there have a specific approach to this?
Do they keep 'robust audit trails' ?
Indeed what does the archaeological community think of this provision in relation to County Councils?
ALGAO seem to agree with ROBUST AUDIT TRAILS also ,

1.41.4 "All communications must be adequately documented to provide a robust audit trail for legal and quality management purpose"
1.69.3 "Monitoring should be carried out in accordance with stated policy, and the results of monitoring should be documented and shared to provide a robust audit trail for planning, legal and quality management purposes.
#3 that rewally seems pretty clear then. which case, 2nd Question;

What do people think should be the approach and next steps when a Freedom of Information request reveals that a council holds "no documents" relating to monitoring of a project (conducted within the last 10 years), but that never-the-less "the monitoring was done" ???

Should this be regarded as serious? Or is it a common, just a quaint quirk of English County Council Archaeologists ?
If the monitoring was done (or supposed to be done) by a member of CIfA then this could be pursued though the complaints procedure If not then options are probably very limited.

Is it serious - yes. There should be a record of the monitoring process - agreed visits, decisions etc.

Even a negative watching brief should produce a report and an archive - and surely submission of the report to the county is required to sign-off whatever planning condition the work was being done under?
Thank You WiseHeadsOfBAJR (i thought as much :/)
but back in the real world ........... surely the point is the curator is acting on behalf of the planning authority and it is they that are acting on behalf of their electorate
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
That's still no excuse for "no documents"
What do you mean by County Archaeologist. Does it imply that they are not employed by the local planning authority?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  cIFA does it again (or rather does nothing) GnomeKing 4 10,562 14th November 2017, 09:14 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  CIfA Client guide published BAJR 44 19,966 6th July 2015, 11:44 AM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  CIfA Graphics Group AGM and discussion Day ecmgardner 1 2,075 12th February 2015, 12:08 PM
Last Post: ecmgardner
  Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords] (28 Oct 2013) GnomeKing 1 1,504 7th December 2013, 02:42 AM
Last Post: GnomeKing

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)