Monitor scheme

[troll]

Rightyho.Seems to me that apart from council-run units, Curators are the only other genre that are actually paid by the tax-payer.In this case/context-they are the species that are technically/professionally and morally accountable.So, what do we do next? Inform the public that Curators are rendered impotent through national/local policy or, openly blame them for everything? Perhaps the NHS analogy was a little iffy but- they are high profile and in the firing line when appropriate. I`m a tax-payer too. If central or local government is taking the pi** with curators charged with the care of our heritage-I want to know about it. If this is indeed the crux of the matter, why have`nt I heard curators shouting about it from the roof tops? With an inneffective "institute" and rampant commercialism tearing holes in our heritage-we need armed() curators!

[1man1desk]

Are Council-run units paid for by the taxpayer? My impression is that it is actually the other way round. The units are expected to be self-funding through their commercial takings, and that the Councils take a cut from the profits.

Some units probably have 'outreach' and educational type activities, which may benefit from Council subsidy (or may not), but it would be interesting to know whether the subsidy for these activities matches the rake-off from commercial profits.

Any Council unit managers out there with more info on this?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Point taken but, what about the Curators? As a species that are paid directly through national/local Government, surely public accountability lays here?

[1man1desk]

No argument there. National/regional/county/local curatorial organisations are all publicly funded and therefore publicly accountable (through their elected political masters). Trouble is, the elected political masters often have other priorities that sometimes conflict with the interests of archaeological preservation, so the public accountability sometimes (not always) pushes in the opposite direction that we would want it to, especially when it comes to planning decisions on Council-proposed developments.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

what I would like to see in the future is RAO Curators, RAO Contractors, RAO Educational Institutions. Standards and accountability.



Another day another WSI?

[1man1desk]

I'm with you all the way there Mr Host. The IFA is the only currently available route to go to establish accountability on the basis of archaeological priorities rather than political ones.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Agreed.One obvious caveat however-policing.If RAOs are not policed, this would be as pointless as the current state of play.

[1man1desk]

Well, we've had quite a bit of discussion in the past about how to make the current IFA policing more effective without creating a vast IFA burocracy that they can't pay for. Basically - join in! be active! report anything that you see that you think is a breach of the Code or the S&Gs to them!

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Been active for years sir.As I said before, when the IFA and/or curators stand up-so will we.My point here is a simple one-accolades such as "RAO" are pointless without adequate policing.Although I do admit, the more organisations that join the IFA infers greater accountability. Unfortunately, being accountable requires a pro-active stance from the IFA and or curators. Not something that has been apparent thus far.......

[deepdigger]

Take care! I wholeheartedly agree, be active but, someone i know well took quite a beating last year off some metal detectors.
If you are going to "blow the whistle" do it carefully!
And
If you are going to report the comany you work for, don't expect to work for them afterwards.

deep