THEME 4
Dispute Resolution. Many members expressed worries over how legitimate disputes, primarily between the Ministry and licensees, will be resolved under the S&G. The concern is that dispute resolution would simply continue past practices of Ministry staff preference articulated in issued letters, rather than a more open discussion with the licensee, or with a representative peer group. There was also concern that resolution in such cases would be more about reifying a standard, than a fair consideration of what the intent or the outcome of the standard should be, however alternatively and viably achieved. Finally, there continues to be a strong suspicion among members that, while they are forced to deal with minor disputes raised by Ministry staff, other licensees get away with a range of more significant inappropriate practices that compromise the resource, and that the Ministry is reluctant to deal with.
Recommendation: We would encourage the Ministry to articulate a number of vehicles for achieving dispute resolution, recognising that there are a range of contexts within which disputes will arise from (e.g., project specific lack of adherence to particular standards; differences of opinion between Ministry staff and licensees; questions of archaeological methodologies, theories, priorities value and innovative approaches to practice; etc.). In order to be successful and the process respected, all strategies should be transparent, beyond the fiat of individuals in positions of power, and, certainly for broader and more complex issues, should take advantage of the fact that there is a large, experienced, and mature peer group of archaeological professionals in the province, with collective expert experience for every aspect of archaeological practice and the material record. This community can and should be tapped by the Ministry to facilitate open resolution processes. The OAS is certainly willing to work with the Ministry to explore ways in which mechanisms can be developed to achieve an effective and efficient dispute resolution process through peer group consultation. Finally, we also recommend that the transparency of this process extend to consequences for clearly inappropriate and substantiated instances of poor practice. A great deal of buy in, validation of the intent of standards, and support for Ministry enforcement of standards would be achieved if there was a sense that clear and egregious actions by a licensee, should such an event ever occur, led to expected and predictable consequences.