Committee members are wanted for the Treasure Valuation Committee. Details here. closing date 25th April 2014.
Whilst they seek someone to represent the views of finders, especially metal detectorists they don't want you to use a metal detector whilst a Committee member. This is discussed on the Metal Detecting Forum here where I read the news first.
Nearly all Treasure finds are found by members of the public using metal detectors so it seem strange that they cannot have a metal detectorist as the Finders Rep on the TVC. You are either a metal detector user and hence be called a detectorist or you do not use a detector and are called a member of the public. So why the prohibition on a detectorist who is appointed as the TVC Finders rep, using a detector whilst in that postions ? I presume thay are seeking to exclude all detectorists and appoint an individual who may have a bit of knowledge on the subject, but have little actual credibility with finders. Perhaps finders requirements and wishes now count for nothing on the TVC.
ReplyDeleteCould we be seeing some sort of political interferance in this appointment with a desire to put a "placeman" in the post to toe the party line ?
Thanks Steve. Yes not well thought out. If as they mention a conflict of interest are they just scared one of their members will find some treasure which can't be valued. If that is a case far better the prospective member just signs a waiver to any treasure reward.
ReplyDeleteRight so let me get this straight, they want a metal detectorist who does not use a metal detector? That really makes no sense at all.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note your new blog layout looks great. Keep up the good work
Andy
Thanks and yes. The conflict of interest excuse does seem a bit feeble.
ReplyDeleteLike the new layout. One would have thought a conflict of interest such as when their own Treasure find is being discussed or that the Finders rep has knowledge of Treasure finds made by others, they could not be involved in that particular valuation or discussion. Seems a bit illogical to place a no detecting clause on the successful candidate when there exists a means to avoid any charge of conflcit of interest. Unless those charged with drawing up the post description know something different. I am sure the truth will come out.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime they have reduced the pool of applicants to a very few individuals which begs the question is the recruitment process a done deal for a preselected "placeman". I have heard that there were only one or two applicants the last time the post was advertised.
Thanks Steve, well it will be interesting to see who they pick,
ReplyDeleteI somehow doubt that they will have too many applicants as i am told has been the case in the past. The no detecting clause placed on applicants would suggest that they already have a person in mind who has agreed to this. As you say it will interesting to see who they pick.
ReplyDelete