For 10 years I was the "review and compliance archeologist" for the
SHPO in Arkansas, I attended NCSHPO meetings, and in my innocence I was
convenienced that the review process was the BEST way to maintain quality
control in contract archeology.  Since the process involved two reviews,
SOPA and agengy, it should weed out bad archeology, bad reports.  But in
point of fact, of course, is doesn't do that ALL THE TIME.  SHPOs are
political appointees, and they and their staffs are subject to political
pressures about projects and about costs.  Agency archeologists generally
have even less sympathetic supervisors about costs and amount of work
done.  SHPO rejecting an awful report does not mean the agency will, as I
know from experience.  So, the system does not always work as we would
like it to acorss the country.  Should we worry about that?  Should we try
to find some other way to attack a quality control issue?
 
The specifics on costs must come from someone on the Task Force; but as I
understand it, sources of funding are from registration fees and from
yearly financial support from each participating society, i.e., each
society is putting its $$ where its mouth is to support the IDEA of
registration of professional archeologists, and the IDEA of some kind of
teeth in ethics and standards.
 
 Listen to Linda: if you aren't at the bargaining table you can't
change the world, much less make it any better.
 
No, ROPA (nor SOPA) will not "monitor credentials on a project by project
basis" - but ROPA (SOPA) members can do that, and blow a whistle on a
registered archeologist; or if an SHPO archeologist's hands are tied, that
person can point out the problem to ROPA.
 
Nothing's fair, no system is perfect, nothing's free.
 
hester davis