>
> This is not an actual case. It is exaggerated to excite comment on
> underlying principles.
>
> Let's just imagine you've just completed the first session on a really
> terrific site for a private investor who needs a federal permit.
> You're about three quarters through, and you aren't disguising your
> enthusiasm for the site.  The SHPO is equally enthusiastic.
>
> The client claims that enough information was recovered in the first
> session.
On what basis can such a claim be made? You have a signed MOA in place
dictating the course of events. Unless those have been fulfilled,
there's no validity to the argument.

>  The client takes the position that the archaeologist is taking
> advantage of the law to ride a personal hobby horse at his expense.
If one happens to be the most knowledgeable in the area, and is
demonstrably not going overboard (and that should go back to the terms
of the MOA), then that claim is also spurious.

> The client threatens legal action if the archaeologist talks to anyone
> in authority.
If a dispute arises in the conduct of the MOA, then there are
procedures under 36CFR800 to resolve them. Talking to the powers that
be is the legally mandated action.
>
> The client starts looking for a cheaper archaeologist who will declare
> the job done. Some low-ball consultants advise the client that he is
> being taken for a ride, and they can dispose of sites without so much
> as a determination of eligibility.
Again, unless the terms of the MOA are completed, there is no basis. It
all has to go through the SHPO. If the client then wishes to spend
months going through the SHPO and possibly the ACHP, then that's his
delay issue.
>
> In the meantime the field staff, who habitually shuttle between
> employers, are becoming restive.
time for new crew. This bunch should sign a confidentiality clause.
>
> Staff start talking to people from other firms about the "problems"
> they are having, all the while exaggerating situations they don't
> fully understand.  Naturally, the client starts hearing from sales
> reps from those other firms.  The vultures are circling.
Threaten legal action for libel. time for the Dutch Uncle talk.
>
> Meanwhile, the SHPO staff are having difficulty getting authoritative
> information.  Key people from other firms "drop" remarks at meetings.
> Relationships between the client and the PI deteriorate as suspicion
> increases. The client is being advised by lawyers, competing CRM
> firms, and his own business office, but the PI is being ignored
> because his motives are now considered suspect. The SHPO tries to stay
> neutral.
Neutral is where the SHPO should be in hearsay matters. They should be
weighing in on matters in their direct purview, and that would be the
terms of the MOA.
>
> Did I mention that all the CRM firms involved are headed by RPA people
> and are members of ACRA?
Then it's time RPA got a few good complaints. Are the folks complaining
as knowledgeable as the PI concerning the site materials? If not, then
it's time to read the RPA standards.
>
> So I tell this little fable to ask certain questions:
>
> 1. What is (or should be) the direct collaborative role of the SHPO in
> regard to the PI on a Phase III project?
Enforcement of the existing MOA.
>
> 2. Do field crew have an ethical obligation to anyone whatever?
Dance with the one that brung ya. IF they're not satisfied, then they
shouldn't be working for you. Put in confidentiality clauses as a
condition for continued work, yesterday, after the Dutch Uncle talk.
>
> 3. Does the code of ethics of either RPA or ACRA dictate business
> tactics when the archaeological contents of the project might be in
> the balance?
Business advocacy appears to have got in the way of archaeology. If
they go over the line and say something not true, then legal remedies
for libel and certainly with in RPA conduct codes would come into play.
If the claim is being made that too much work is being done, it needs
to be explicitly and in writing shown that too much is in fact being
done. It will have to be compared with the terms of the MOA and by
comparing the expertise of the PI against those who claim too much is
being done. Do these folks have expertise in what the site is
producing?
>
> 4. If the purpose of Phase III is to answer archaeological or
> historical questions, does it follow that the PI should be the final
> arbiter of what is correct procedures, subject to SHPO review?
The MOA should dictate what happens. It is an agreement reached through
consultation among the parties and is binding. End of discussion.
Therefore, no, the PI alone is not the final arbiter, but rather the
agreement that the PI and the SHPO reached concerning the conduct of
the Phase III.
>
> 5. Is the Phase III fieldwork and lab work part of the regulatory
> process, or is it a separate entity that is merely a condition
> required by the regulatory process?
It should all be in the MOA.
>
> 6. Should the client be required to fund the PI's researches into
> issues raised by the dig, or lab work on materials beyond some
> absolute bare minimum? Who decides what is the minimum? On what basis?
Again, it's the MOA that determines the minimums. If issues arise
during the project, then they should be brought back to the table.
These have to be substantive issues not foreseen at the beginning,
rather than personality issues.


Geoff Carver described a circular system in use in Germany and the UK
wherein the equivalent of the SHPO sets the terms of the MOA and keeps
an eye on the proceedings in the interim. Changes are often made to the
terms of the contract as new information comes into focus. It is a
negotiated decision.

Our system is too often linear, but the regs have rather unambiguous
language concerning the process of getting the MOA into place and
ensuring that it stays on course.

All in all, if the SHPO is not willing to stand up for what is in the
MOA, then the ACHP should be involved.

Lyle Browning