Report of the Register of Professional Archaeologists Grievance Coordinator for the period from January 1 to August 15, 2014, submitted by Jim Bruseth, RPA Grievance Coordinator.
Four grievance cases have been received during the period of this report. I briefly summarize the cases below.
Two of the cases were complaints that individuals, not currently registered as RPAs, were using “RPA” on their e-mails and other communications. Checking the RPA records verified that these individuals were not current registrants. Failure to pay the fee is a voluntary termination of registration, according to RPA Bylaws. Both individuals were contacted and told that they could not use “RPA” with their name. Both agreed to stop doing this, and subsequently one renewed his/her registration through payment of fees. The submitters of the original complaints were notified about the outcome of their inquiries. One of these cases is the completion of a grievance inquiry reported as incomplete in my last Grievance Report.
The other two cases were complaints about RPA ethical violations by archaeologists. In both cases, well presented grievance complaints were submitted. However, in checking the RPA records, both individuals were found not to be registrants at the time of the proposed ethical violations. The grievance inquiries could not move forward, as grievances can only be taken against RPAs that were registrants at the time of the alleged ethical violations. The submitters of the original complaints were notified about the outcome of the inquiries.
Report of the Register of Professional Archaeologists Grievance Coordinator for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2013, submitted by Jim Bruseth, RPA Grievance Coordinator.
Three grievances have been received during the period of this report.
The first case happened in April of this year and concerned an anonymous letter received and forwarded to me by our business office. Aside from non-RPA related accusations beyond the scope of RPA’s Code of Conduct and the Standards of Research Performance, the RPA issue was that the person was going to request that an archaeological field school be certified by RPA and the accused was not qualified to do the field school. Since the person identified in the letter was not an RPA, the field school could not be certified by RPA and the case was closed.
The second case happened in August and concerned a complaint that several individuals were not currently registered RPAs and were using RPA on their author lines for reports. Other accusations were made about the quality of the work these individuals had undertaken. Checking the RPA records showed that these individuals were not current registrants. Failure to pay the fee is a voluntary termination of registration, according to RPA by-laws. All individuals were contacted and renewed their registrations through payment of their fees. Allegations about past conduct could not be investigated since the accused were not actually registered RPAs at the time of the conduct.
The third case also concerns a person using “RPA” with their name on printed documents who is not a current registrant. The person was contacted and subsequently reinstated their registration by paying their fee.
Code of Conduct
Standards of Research Performance
Grievance Complaint Initiation Form
Disciplinary Procedures of the Register of Professional Archaeologists
Manual for Grievance Coordinators
The Day-to-Day Duties of the Grievance Coordinator by R. Berle Clay – Reprinted with permission from The SAA Archaeological Record, volume 6, number 2.