Bill Lipe makes the following three points in support of ROPA:
1. sufficent problems exist in the field to warrant SOPA's existence, and its
transformation into ROPA--just talk with SOPA's past grievance coordinators;
2. high, nationally applied standards will help compliance archaeologists justif
y the
costs of conducting individual projects; and
3. SOPA's existence already has influenced the creation of higher ethical and,
presumably, technical standards.
I address each of these points.
 
First, as a scientist, I value anecdotal data; but I prefer hard numbers. As per
 my
original posting of 15 August, I still want to know how widespread the problem o
f
unethical behaviour has become and its effects on public attitudes and the gener
al
prosecution of compliance archaeology. Surely SOPA has compiled some sort of dat
a to
justify the time, money, and effort devoted to the development and enforcement o
f
ethical standards.
 
While the ability to point to an ethical code to justify a certain level of
archaeological study might be convenient, I think there are more effective, less
 
abstract means at hand. Specifically, standards and guidelines promulgated by th
e
National Park Service and SHPOs across the country. Representatives of lead agen
cies in
the review process are familiar with the archaeology of their jurisdictions and
can make
a very good case, backed by hard data, for a particular level of study in connec
tion
with a project. Reviewers also can, and do, reject reports that describe levels
of
effort inadequate to meet the terms of state and federal laws and regulations. I
f the
problems remain unaddressed, the contractor may lose all or part of the contract
 price.
Moreover, clients who experience undue delays or frustrations arising from the
incompetence or unethical behavior of their contractors are unlikely to engage t
hose
contractors in the future. I suspect, also, that 'problem' contractors with poor
 track
records are subject to more stringent reviews by lead agencies. In short, the ma
rket
weeds out incompetence--whether technical or in the realm of business. We might
better
devote our resources to the support of SHPOS and the Advisory Council.
 
Finally, I don't doubt that SOPA has played an important role in the development
 of
archaeological ethics. Nor do I doubt that SOPA can have a better spokesman than
 Bill
Lipe. I am not nearly as confident, however, of SOPA's/ROPA's indispensibility.
The
development of ethical standards will continue without this organization, occurr
ing
within SHA, SAA, AIA, the various regional, and state organizations. The academy
 also
maintains ethical codes, sustained through the tenure process and through the
institutions' administrative offices. Museum anthropologists are subject to the
ethical
standards of the American Association of Museums. I assume the national organiza
tion for
SHPOs has its own ethical code, or is developing one, governing SHPOs and their
staffs.
 
SOPA never attracted a majority of the working archaeologists in the USA; in fac
t, only
a small fraction. Why? Disinterest? Apathy? Neither, I think. I propose instead
that
most of our colleagues are very well satisfied with the efforts made on their be
half by
SHA, SAA, AIA, and the various other professional organizations that we support
through
dues and participation. I think many of us are disinclined to subject ourselves
to the
application process. Afterall, those with M.A.s face more difficult tests and th
ose with
Ph.D.s like to think that they passed the ultimate test: their doctoral disserta
tion
defense. (Of the latter, the more senior and productive might wonder who precise
ly would
pass judgment on their applications.) And, impressionistically, I think that man
y of us
are a little intimidated by the idea of subjecting ourselves and our actions to
the
scrutiny of a judicial board, particular one that entertains grievances from
non-members. In a field where personal integrity and reputation are our principa
l
assets, few will be inclined to trust their careers to a system where both can b
e easily
tarnished, particularly by non-members who are not subject to the same code. Bil
l Lipe
suggested that list members inquire of past grievance coordinators about the fre
quency
and severity of unethical behavior. Fine. I also suggest that you find individua
ls who
have been falsely accused and subsequently cleared by grand juries or by the cou
rts. Do
their reputations survive intact? I think not.
 
Ballotting will occur soon. The ROPA committee must present hard numbers detaili
ng the
scope of the ethical problem and its effects on archaeology, as well as estimate
s as to
how much ROPA will cost in terms of increased SHA dues, increased SAA dues, and
individual application fees and annual dues for those who choose to be registere
d. As to
the latter, ballpark estimates based on income categories will suffice. Without
such
information, I vote no. I am unsure about tying the knot, I really don't want to
 rent
the rope.
 
Jim Gibb
Annapolis, Maryland