I'm responding to Alisdair Brooks' comments (Thursday, Aug. 14) about the
relevance of ROPA to international members of SHA:
 
The primary goal of ROPA is to create a large group of archaeologists who
have met basic requirements of training and experience, and who have
publicly agreed to be held accountable for upholding  a code of
professional ethics and a set of reasonable standards for research
performance.  The accountability is ensured by their agreement to
participate in a grievance process if there is a credible challenge to
their ethical or research performance.  One does not have to be an RPA to
lodge a complaint with the ROPA grievance coordinator, but only RPAs can be
sanctioned through the grievance process.   In theory, a complaint could be
filed against an RPA on the basis of his or her activities anywhere in the
world.   If an RPA is working outside North America, and is also a member
of a national or regional organization that has a similar complaint
evaluation and sanctioning ability, it does seem likely that this person
would be held accountable by the organization based in the country or
region where the presumed offense occurred.  But I am not sure that there
are very many organizations of professional archaeologists anywhere in the
world with the mechanisms in place to evaluate complaints about
professional ethics or behavior, and to sanction members who have violated
basic professional standards.  ROPA would inherit from SOPA such
mechanisms, which have been developed and tested in practice for over 20
years.
 
I do think, however, that the most important outcome of a successful ROPA
would be the creation of a large, broad-based group of archaeologists who
have declared themselves accountable to a reasonable code of professional
ethics and to standards of research performance.  Public accountability is
the critical issue.  Such a group could lead both by example and by
educational outreach in promoting appropriate training, ethics, and
performance standards for professional archaeologists.  I think this would
be to archaeology's advantage anywhere, not just in North America.
 
With regard to the costs of ROPA to SHA members, it must be kept in mind
that SHA sponsorship of ROPA does not mean that SHA members would be
required to become RPAs, although they presumably would be encouraged to do
so.  Becoming an RPA would remain an individual choice.  The great bulk of
the cost of ROPA would be borne by the RPAs themselves, as part of their
commitment to promoting professionalism.  As a sponsor of ROPA, SHA would
contribute $5000 per year to the ROPA budget.  I think that SHA has about
2300 members.  So ROPA sponsorship would cost SHA members about $2.17
apiece per year.   In the first year after ROPA was approved, SHA would
also make a one-time "start-up" payment of $5000, for an additional $2.17
per member for that first year.
 
Bill Lipe
 
==============
 
 
>
>Earlier comments by Alisdair Brooks:
>
>I'm afraid that it appears to me that the above paragraph fails to take into
>consideration the existence of professional organisations in the rest of the
>world.  In Britain, for example, many archaeology positions require membership
>of the IFA by applicants.   Has there been an attempt by SOPA or proto-ROPA
>to contact other nations' professional organisations in an attempt to
>offer some
>sort of cross-national recognition?  If so, what are the results?Surely there
>shouldn't be a need for an Australian, Canadian, South African or British
>archaeologist  to belong to, or help pay for, ROPA if they were already a
>member of their own nations' professional organisations?
>
>Once again, the goals behind ROPA are commendable, but I have read nothing
>in the above paragraph to suggest that it is relevant to most non-American
>SHA members, or that we should help pay for it.
>
>I can see that ROPA might potentially have a role in ending a
>dispute involving an American archaeologist working in a Third World nation
>without some sort of grievance procedure, but I fail to see why it should apply
>to, say, an Australian working on Norfolk Island or a Briton working in
>Iceland,
> etc...
>
>And which nation's grievance procedure should be followed if only one of
>the archaeologists is an American?  The post to which I'm responding implies
>(and it is no more than an implication, and perhaps an unintentional one)
>that i
>t
>would be ROPA's.  Frankly, this smacks of the sort of attitude that leads
>to suc
>h
>unfortunate incidents as Helms-Burton.
>
>By all means form ROPA.  By all means help to fund it through a (hopefully
>modes
>t)
>increase in SHA fees.  But offer an exemption to SHA members who are not
>primarily employed in the United States
>
>Alasdair Brooks