Letter Bombs
GIVE THE IFA
HARD EVIDENCE
I was the IFA Vice Chair for Standards
for 6 years, and some of that time was extremely frustrating
because we knew there were bad apples in the barrel
but had insufficient proof to do anything about it.
RAO inspections flushed out some bad practice and huge
efforts were made to improve the standards of those
who were falling below those of the Code of Conduct.
But because the inspections, help and advice are strictly
confidential, the wider world erroneously assumes that
nothing is being done! Far from it - one particular
organisation cost the IFA dearly in staff time and money
(despite Council Members only receiving travelling expenses)
and there has been a noticeable all round improvement
in this and other cases. The IFA has no jurisdiction
over non-members. The more members we get and the more
RAOs the better the standards will become.
Site visits are made so that the archaeology and not
just the admin and records are scrutinised, and efforts
are made to talk to site staff out of management earshot.
If a number of offences are made over time this is also
recorded and may lead to disciplinary investigation
or non- registration. We are encouraging more participation
from archaeological planning officers who have a crucial
role - they write the briefs, inspect sites and sign
them off. This should deal with non-IFA cowboys - the
minority who undercut by cutting corners.
We get lots of hearsay evidence - but until those who
actually witness from first hand stand up to be counted,
there is little that the IFA can do. Give the IFA hard
(not malicious) evidence and these cowboys can be removed
from the RAO register and if proven guilty at a Disciplinary
Hearing, chucked out of the IFA. If 'curators' and clients
insisted on RAO or MIFA status or proven equivalent
for site directors, this would hit the cowboys hard.
Similarly, if a client finds that his shoddy archaeological
work is not signed off by the 'curator' he won't use
them again, and it could cost the unit a pretty penny.
At the end of the day, if dud archaeologists are still
RAOs it is because you, the diggers, won't use your
communal strength to cry foul and get them out; it need
not be one brave soul going it alone. All archaeologists
have a duty to protect our heritage, and if you are
party to a site being ruthlessly ******d, then that
is on your conscience too. - Evelyn Baker
NETWORK RESPONSE
Network Archaeology is committed to an appropriate
level of publication for all its projects. To this end,
Network has recently appointed a Publications Manager
and three dedicated Reports Officers.
With regard to the two projects referred to in the
last issue of The Digger, full and open dialogue is
being maintained throughout with all relevant parties,
and dates for report submission have now been agreed
with Buckinghamshire County Council Archaeological Service
and the IFA. The IFA has not previously, and nor is
it currently investigating Network.
All archaeological organisations face the challenge
of bringing their work to publication within the commercial
and political pressures of the business world. Timescales
for post-excavation programmes can range from weeks
to years dependent upon issues such as size of project,
commission delays, specialist sub- contract works, client
confidentiality issues, internal commercial pressures
etc.
We support The Digger in tackling this issue, but would
point out that there are existing mechanisms in place
for dealing with organisations which struggle or fail
to meet their professional obligations or planning requirements.
Bodies such as LPAs, English Heritage and the IFA generally
show an enlightened approach to dealing with such issues
by working with archaeological organisations.
We hope that The Digger will refrain from singling
out individual cases and companies and instead encourage
support of those numerous organisations that have worked
hard to tackle this important issue in recent years
and thereby bring the whole profession to a much improved
position.
- David Bonner on behalf of the directors
February
2005
