I respectfully disagree that "only the tribes seem to feel" that this
incident is a terrible loss of cultural heritage. The article clearly quotes
Todd Pitezel, Arizona's archaeologist over repatriation, burial agreements and
permitting, as being sympathetic to the tribes and working to mitigate the
loss:
"In my opinion, they're not being treated with dignity and respect [in this situation]," he says. "This is a spiritual matter for [the tribes]. It's pretty disturbing. And we're just sitting here."
His comment about "just sitting here" refers to the fact that according to
the law, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to respond to
the requests of the tribes, and it appears that they have yet to fulfill this
portion of the process to the satisfaction of the entities involved. People
care, but at times their hands are tied by policy. I feel that the real need is
policy reform including stricter sanctions and expedited timelines.
We should be careful not to overgeneralize when characterizing those within
federal and state agencies.
-----
Point taken, and after all, it appears that a state employee at Game and Fish
was the one who took steps to finally halt the construction. I don’t mean to
imply that no one but the tribes care about heritage resources. In this case,
however, it appears that the people who were responsible for ensuring that the
work site was properly inspected by a qualified archaeologists before
construction started apparently didn’t care enough or didn’t see the need to
perform the due diligence that a nearby prehistoric village site would seem to
demand.
-----
Sure, the article quotes an archaeologist, but otherwise there's a depressingly familiar lack of acknowledgment here that it was an extremely egregious error, one that extends beyond mere institutional responsibility. It's analogous to what's been going on with the LA Plaza, where disturbance of historic burials is regularly characterized as a simple "mistake" rather than a really horrible violation of propriety. The fact that we continue to make such "mistakes" is continued evidence that we've set up a bureaucratic process to address such issues as they come up rather than to address deeper cultural misperceptions of indigenous heritage.
In other words, until high school kids realize on their own that they shouldn't be digging up a Native American graveyard with heavy equipment, we haven't done our job.
--------
Several people posted the archaeology article from the Phoenix New Times on NMAC
and AAC listservs.
Again, I'd like to note another recent article http://triblive.com/business/businessbriefs/2793469-74/hanna-company-health-howard-bank-michigan-billion-cemetery-general-pipeline#axzz2Dj7gmRzR
in which it is stated "... Gas drillers who plowed through a cemetery for a
historically black coal camp community in 2004 were ordered to pay $200,000 in
punitive damages on Wednesday, on top of the $700,000 in compensatory damages a
Logan County, W.Va., jury had awarded a day earlier... ". The
lawsuit took about six years.
Iin the Arizona case, dignity and respect
is a fine argument to make, but it seems unevenly distributed across the
landscape, and unfortunately, dignity & respect will not assure much
long-term preservation without additional tools like law and process and courts
and the redress of wrongs.
I might point out that this is the very same
amoral government landscape where the Arizona State Land Department under Fife
Symington gave the Casa Malpais property to the City of Springerville to serve
as an erstwhile run-down tourist trap in the name of economic development (not
preservation), and, where James R. Cunkle's Talking Pots Raven Site ruins field
school scam quickly played out a few years back http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/08-17-95/outthere.htm
http://www.swanet.org/zarchives/gotcaliche/alldailyeditions/97jul/263.html.
(There are more examples from the region).
I call the NM-AZ borderlands
an amoral government landscape because the area is rural with spotty, poorly
developed fragile economy, many federal government agencies have little daily
presence there except on an occasional project basis, they pass laws they will
not enforce, and the State power centers of Phoenix and Santa Fe are far away
("The sky is big and the emperor is far
away" syndrome).
There should be a lawsuit brought by the Tribes
(with a class-action lawsuit by archaeological organizations?) against AZ Game
& Fish AND USFWS and any additional agencies or individuals who were
involved or who contributed their professional negligence to violation of the
law in this case.
The lawsuit in W VA took about six years and there is a
$900,000 bill to pay. A lawsuit in the Arizona matter (filed by individuals with
standing in the case) would send a signal and be a reminder that proper
management and professional archaeological work up front is much cheaper than
the alternatives.
-------
"Dear Sir or Madam,
"We regret to inform you that certain remains of your ancestors have been disturbed in the process of building a fishing pond.
"Please accept our profound condolences in this inadvertent episode. Rest assured that appropriate mitigation will be in progress shortly: see attached memorandum (a) concerning applicable federal and state policies, and schedule (b) identifying a series of meetings at which remediation measures will be discussed. Your prompt attendance to these matters will ensure rapid compliance.
"Allow us to note that this unfortunate incident in no way reflects the high regard in which we hold you and members of your community. Looking forward to conducting these proceedings in a positive and productive manner.
"Sincerely...."
-------
What my fellow archaeologists don't understand is that by not getting the
archaeological councils and other professionals into a class action lawsuit,
there are no teeth. Then my fellow archaeologists can sit and spin cynical webs
of dark humor and continue to accept GS-7 temporary assignments and
diminished-pay contract jobs, with Masters degrees and RPA credentials, all the
while federal agencies with dignity & respect hire high school students to
learn how to run heavy equipment over your favorite sites preserved for just
this type of occasion.
This really requires a big honking-ass class
action lawsuit by archaeologists, archaeological councils, SHPO in conjunction
with a lawsuit by affected tribes. Even if it takes six years. Otherwise take
your trowels and go home, because the USFWS & AZG&F have just punked
your colleagues and your regulations, and they can do it any time they
want.
-------
This is a very strange case. As I understand it, the Arizona Game and Fish
Dept, with funding from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, proposed to put in a
public fishing area right next to Amity Pueblo, a known, recorded historic
property of known cultural significance to Zuni Pueblo people and others.
Instead of initiating 106 consultation about the project, again as I understand
it, the state agency somehow got an archaeologist from NRCS to survey the site,
and somebody (I'm not clear as to who it was) filed a "no historic properties
subject to effect" finding with the SHPO, who for unclear reasons concurred. So
the project went forward and bulldozed a big chunk of the site, including at
least ten grave sites. Hard to say who was most responsible for the screwup,
but it seems to illustrate one of the problems with not doing what the Section
106 regulations say to do: FIRST initiate consultation, BEFORE you go out and
have archaeologists wander around and pronounce about what's there or not. Had
somebody talked with the Zuni, the significance of the site and the need to be
careful surely would have come out.
--------
There have been several multi-million dollar disasters of this sort in Washington State. The major ones known to me are the Port Angeles Graving Dock project and the Blaine Sewage Treatment Plant project. Darby Stapp and Julie Longenecker have a book out titled "Avoiding Archaeological Disasters"
(Left Coast Press, 2009) that covers these cases, among others. Here's a review http://archaeology.about.com/od/culturalresource/fr/stapp2009.htm
Here's a summary of the Port Angeles Graving Dock situation:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=7344
Also a book about it in 2009 from the U. of Washington Press:
http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/MAPBRE.html
The state of Washington spent $58 million on the graving dock project (which was to construct concrete pontoons for use in a floating bridge) before it was abandoned and the work moved elsewhere. Hundreds of graves had been encountered (and disturbed) during the early phases of construction, and this was the reason that the project was abandoned and moved. After the project was cancelled, I think quite a lot of additional money was spent to recover and study archaeological material (including human remains) recovered from the construction backdirt. The Washington Department of Transportation spent only $7000 on the initial archaeological survey of the project location, which found no evidence of archaeological resources, but did note that a large Klallam village site and cemetery was historically known to be located in the general vicinity of the proposed project.
The Blaine Project had a similar history--lots of burials encountered and disturbed after construction started. The cultural resources consulting firm that was involved in the mitigation and monitoring eventually paid the Lummi Tribe $4.25 million as a settlement.
http://www.nathpo.org/News/NAGPRA/News-NAGPRA49.html
The Register of Professonial Archaeologists also took action in this case:
http://www.rpanet.org/associations/8360/files/resources/members_tucker_repor
t.html
Archaeologists and the agencies they sometimes work for need to be aware of these cases. Big money can sometimes be involved, in addition to the loss of irreplaceable cultural heritage.
--------
Obscene is my most favorable reaction. A whole bunch of people-governmental
entities really screwed up - looks like many are candidates for
prosecution/firing, whatever needs to be done to make sure that this never
happens again. There should be lawsuites (and hopefully firings of culpable
individuals, formal and heavy sanctions of culpable governmental entities). The
affected Native American community (ies) concerns need to be redressed, and
although it is late, some good can still come of this, hopefully, in that such a
compendium of mistakes/incompetence may never again affect another archeological
site. Is this the way things are going, or is this just an isolated screw-up?.
This matter cannot be put aside and "lets move on". Too many mistakes,
misjudgements, maljudgements, purposful miscreance, and plain old incompetence.
But mostly, there is no real way to redress the physical loss of much of the
site, and the mental toll which this incident is taking on the tribal members.
On and on!!
-------
Very sad....
It is a shame that people are still systemically refusing to do
archaeology.
------
Pursuit of redress under full force of ARPA/NAGPRA is the best thing that could
happen to focus the Agencies' AND the local's attention. Filing suit has worked
previously. It does require persistence that stretches the members and officers
of an organization to near breaking, BUT it needs to be done in this
case..
--------
Put a statement or letter together to these agencies and to our state and
our Federal elected representatives
and allow those who wish to sign it or send it on their own to these
entities do so.
A very good exmple of how this can be done online is shown here for the
recent Fox Mountain wolf bounty incident
in New Mexico:
A link at the bottom of page allows readers to online sign and submit/send
prewritten message to both NM US Senators.
-------
A petition? That's charming hehehe (LOL).
State and our Federal elected
representatives are currently fighting over smaller government and
less regulation. They are not going to listen to archaeologists and their
petitions. AAC should consult with the Tribes and join
in filing a class action lawsuit against USFWS & AZ Game & Fish and any additional agencies or individuals
who were involved or who contributed their professional negligence to violation
of the law in this case at Amity. Why? Because the USFWS & AZG&F have just
punked your colleagues and your regulations, and they've re-discovered they can
do it any time they want. And, Bonus Points, they now will do it again.
----------
There is Federal Agency involvement, all Fed laws apply.
The Agency IG and
the FBI should receive letters about this illegal activity.
There is State
Agency involvement, all state laws apply.
The State Attorney General should
receive letters about this desecration.
Since archaeological site protection
laws have been in effect, from over a century to only a 'few' decades, neither
agency can claim any sort of unawareness.
Even kids in that area know what
prehistoric remains look like...
These are knowing offenses. Knowing
offenses are FELONIES.
----------
I think you nailed all of the
salient points. I am not sure how much direct input I will be able to give
without jeapordizing any future depositions etc. As for working for AGFD, XXX has pretty much determined that it would be extremely unlikely at
best. I can however state exactly what we observed since the report has become/
is becoming public record. As you said, I think the better avenue would be to
avoid assigning fault, but to address what AAC CAN do. Perhaps a simple lending
of support to Zuni, Acoma, Hopi, and Navajo in any future actions- I also know
that California tribes currently in negotiations with BOR, USFWS are watching
this closely as are SRPMIC and others.
I also think that one of the other issues can be
addressed is the issue of using qualified
archaeologists for this kind of work. Not only AGFD but other state and federal
agencies are apt to use "para-archaeologists" or unqualified archys (vis-a-vis
Miles) to cut corners on projects and by doing so we get the 26 Bar screw up. A
statement from the AAC illustrating the risks of cutting corners and going for
the cheapest solution rather than the right solution may be in order as well. If
AGFD would have spent the 5,000 odd dollars to survey their property correctly,
they would have avoided the potential 2 million dollar hit they now have. I do
not think this point could be stressed enough.
------
I would strongly suggest that a letter be drafted to the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation as they are the ultimate authority (quite literally) on
these cases. I had good luck with this as part of a neighborhood group that went
after a cell tower company for not doing due-diligence (they wanted to put
a cell tower in front of the entrance to our neighborhood, which is listed on
the NRHP). If they weighed in on our much-less-important matter, I'm sure that
they would weigh in on something as serious as this.
-------
Interesting email chatter about
this situation in east-central Arizona. Unbelievable to me is the fact that we
are just now discussing this event near the end of 2012 when it actually
happened in spring 2011. It also seems clear to me that this is a legal issue,
although it would certainly be appropriate for the Arizona Archaeological
Council to get involved.
...But as we all know, the lead
federal agency has a legal obligation under section 106 of the NHPA to take into
account the effect of their actions (funding, licensing, permitting) on cultural
resources. It seems to me that the two federal agencies involved, USFWS and
NRCS, and the two state agencies involved, AGFD and SHPO, cannot be considered
blameless.
As someone mentioned in this
email chain, aside from the poor execution of the laws by the agencies, it is
the cultural resources and Tribes who are suffering.
I hope that the state and
national archaeological organizations can hold discussions to craft appropriate
responses to the agencies.
---------
According to the PNT article, if the quotes are correct, everyone is waiting for
someone else to do something... So the appropriate response was provided by XXX "It also seems clear to me that this is a
legal issue, although it would certainly be appropriate for the Arizona
Archaeological Council to get involved."
Yes, XXX, it is a legal
issue. Two years have passed and everyone is still sitting on their hands. This
is a real reason why AAC needs to get with the Tribes if they will be filing a
lawsuit. AAC needs to be a part of that legal issue in solidarity with the
tribes.
Also, professional archaeologists in the SW have been harmed by
this event, too! Thus, AAC should independently seek standing and file a second
lawsuit -- a class action lawsuit -- on behalf of all SW archaeologists and
tribes and preservationists. The professional practice of archaeology has been
diminished and harmed over the past two years by the improper actions of the
agencies to do the work cheaply without proper established procedures, and then
to delay resolution hoping the problems will just go away...
------------
The intent of the people in charge versus the lack of lower agency action on
the Amity Pueblo burials desecration makes for an interesting study in
contrast.
Handed to the Tribes today at their meeting with President Obama, a
Memorandum of Understanding by DoD, DOI, DOE, USDA and ACHP "to improve the
protection of and tribal access to Indian sacred sites through enhanced and
improved interdepartmental coordination and collaboration."
------------
The Goldwater Institute hates regulation, but they hate really bad government
more than they hate regulation. They often take on cases ...
Swallow
hard. Gulp. You can come up with additional examples if you don't like the
Goldwater Institute -- AZ Center For Law In The Public Interest http://aclpi.org/ More ??
Have you contacted anyone and asked for help with a class action lawsuit
to address this issue of poor performance, damage, and lack of redress and
accountability ?
The case described below is really bad government in
really bad government action.
In this case, the FEDS ignored
compliance with their own rules of procedure and redress. The goal was to build
a noble, well intentioned fishing pond for the public -- on government property
-- then they completely fouled up. And now, they continue to sit on their hands
hoping the issue will just go away. Not only has bad government created an
amoral landscape in a small community and harmed the town's reputation, bad
government also has harmed the Tribe's cultural patrimony, and harmed the many
people (YOU) who work professionally in the public and private sectors to
provide history and preservation and mitigation services to other governments
businesses and the public.
-----------
I think another point that is being lost with all the talk of lawsuits and is
perhaps more in the purview of the AAC is how this thing happened in the first
place. Yes there were failings throughout the process however it all started
when an agency and an archaeologist failed to "realize" that digging a pond
immediately adjacent to a 60 room pueblo just MAY be a bad idea. Then when the
agencies with oversight are hamstrung by state law and lack of funding these
kind of things unfortunately take place and we get the tragedy that everybody,
but particularly Zuni, Acoma, Hopi and the Navajo Nation are dealing
with.
To hearken back to what XXX mentioned, the AAC has a stated
purpose in the bylaws to "To educate the public about the goals and methods of
archaeology". This public includes agencies that try to cut corners by not
retaining permitted and qualified archaeologists to do their cultural resource
compliance prior to any bulldozers desecrating a sacred Zuni place (in this
case). If anything this case shows how by trying to save a couple of thousand
dollars by not using a permitted/ qualified CRM firm it is going to cost the
state and the agencies many more times that amount (and rightly
so).
Rather than asking the AAC about filing lawsuits, perhaps we can
begin a dialogue on crafting an open letter to our state agencies reminding them
of their responsibilities as the administrators of our State lands and the
importance of not always looking for the cheapest route possible during
archaeological compliance. Rather than using unsupervised "para-archaeologists"
or people "whose brother is an archaeologist" these agencies need to start
looking for qualified archaeologists that have the capabilities and necessary
permits to do the job.
The ACHP is involved in the Amity Pueblo
discussion and will work out issues of fault and redress, I'm not sure an AAC
lawsuit if even feasible will accomplish much. However, if the AAC works to
remind agencies that the days of "cowboy archaeology" are over and that there
are procedures that they HAVE to follow while advocating for us- the
professional archaeological community- I think we will all be better served.
More importantly perhaps Native American groups will no longer experience what
Zuni, Acoma, Hopi and Navajo is experiencing right now and we will no longer
have to discuss the destruction of sites like what has happened in this
case.
------
Isn't this approach something like what the SHPO does anyway -- sending letters
out to all the parties so the letters can be promptly ignored? Why would we want
to replicate that? The SHPO already does that. The clock is at two years and
ticking and everyone is sitting on their hands. I do appreciate how open letters
to our state agencies -- sending kind little reminders -- will make some feel
good, even while the responsible agencies continue to give you what you've
always gotten. That is what they are doing right now -- waiting you out --
while you cave in -- because you think it takes too much time, too much effort,
too much solidarity, or too much money, to hold them accountable for their bad
behavior. Why can't you go to the Tribes? Why can't you go to the ACHP? Why
can't you go to the AZ Center for Law in the Public Interest to actively seek a
partnership that will sue their pants off.
As professional archaeologists
you have been deeply harmed (financially & social status as professionals)
and you may not even recognize it, but you've also completely mistaken the issue
and twisted it. The days of cowboy archaeology certainly are over, but the
days of cowboy development clearly are not over. The unqualified
archaeologist in the matter is just a pawn. The responsible agencies continue to
give you what you've always gotten. The regulations and the reminder letters are
nothing but shredded bedding material for hamsters. The agencies are the
responsible parties. They cooked-up the cut-rate disaster. You must act
decisively to form a partnership to take them to court, and sue them and fine
them, and make them be accountable for following their own policies and laws.
Allow me to quote again: "... Disasters are almost by definition
about the failure of authority, in part because the powers that be are
supposed to protect us from them, in part also because the thousand dispersed
needs of a disaster overwhelm even the best governments, and because the
government version of governing often arrives at the point of a gun. But the
authorities don't usually fail so spectacularly. Failure at this level
requires sustained effort. The deepening of the divide between the haves and
have nots, the stripping away of social services, the defunding of the
infrastructure, mean that this disaster - not of weather but of
policy - has been more or less what was intended to happen, if not so starkly
in plain sight." http://www.harpers.org/ The Uses of Disaster:
Notes on bad weather and good government -- Rebecca Solnit September 8, 2005
(emphasis added).
-------
The
harm that Zuni, Acoma, Hopi, and Navajo feels is much greater than any that we
as archaeologists could possibly feel. I saw their faces when they were taken on
the site tour, and the pain expressed on all of their faces has left an
indelible mark on me that will remain forever.
As for us being "waited
out" I think I can speak for most when I say we are well aware of this tactic;
HOWEVER, the tribes ARE engaged and ACHP IS engaged. This will play out in arena
bigger than a potential lawsuit from the AAC, and I have no doubt this will
become a new case study in the ACHP Sec. 106 training. Don't get me wrong, but
honestly do you think the Washington players and other sundry parties give a
damned if the AAC files a lawsuit? This is much bigger than that. Instead of
shooting the budget for the next umpteen years filing an AAC lawsuit, an offer
of solidarity with the tribes (let them decide if they want any action by the
AAC since they have been done the most wrong)and public education seems like the
best bet. The agencies are in the process of being held accountable as we speak.
Perhaps I am being too pragmatic but I think the AAC will achieve more
through the education part of the bylaws, perhaps if there was a program that
gave those "kids on dozers" a cultural sensitivity/ awareness before they ever
started digging...who knows. I can appreciate your cynicism about the reminders,
I have been doing this long enough to see the disregard for the process time and
again, but we really need to assess exactly what we intend to do and what we
want to change before throwing the term lawsuit around. Additionally we need to
look at the current laws that hamstring those charged with oversight of these
projects and their lack of funding...
------
My statement was " Why can't you go to the Tribes? Why can't you go to the ACHP?
Why can't you go to the AZ Center for Law in the Public Interest to actively
seek a partnership that will sue their pants off." The operative words I
wrote there were "go actively seek a partnership. " Earlier in the
conversation I also wrote "Not only has bad government created an amoral
landscape in a small community and harmed the town's reputation, bad
government also has harmed the Tribe's cultural patrimony, and harmed
the many people (YOU) who work professionally in the public and private
sectors to provide history and preservation and mitigation services to other
governments businesses and the public.
Now you've written "Perhaps I
failed to clearly make my point.. I did the damage assessment out there and I
KNOW what was done, and who has been harmed- and quite frankly the harm that
Zuni, Acoma, Hopi, and Navajo feels is much greater than any that we as
archaeologists could possibly feel." You also wrote " ... an offer of
solidarity with the tribes (let them decide if they want any action by the AAC
... " You did not fail to make your point. You did make your point. But not to
diminish the Tribes involved in any way, there is a lot of harm to go around for
many.
We may be saying the same operative thing: The partnership could
decide the precise action to take.
But not to diminish the
archaeologists in any way, I will reiterate: "As professional archaeologists you
have been deeply harmed (financially & social status as professionals) and
YOU MAY NOT EVEN RECOGNIZE IT, but you've also completely mistaken the
issue and twisted it. *The days of cowboy archaeology certainly are over, but
the days of cowboy development clearly are not over."
In the end,
this is why the AAC must also take action to get involved & seek the
partnerships, make decisions to act in solidarity, and follow through with
taking action.
It does not matter what the Washington players think about
the AAC. The AAC must put it's organizational skin into the game. AAC, take
some action, dammit.
I won't be shy about it. It is perfectly acceptable
to throw around (introduce) the concept of lawsuit to the conversation if it
will spark partnership to create standing and and action. And, it is perfectly
acceptable to initiate a lawsuit proceeding if the partnership points in that
direction.
" There should be a lawsuit brought by the Tribes (with a
class-action lawsuit by archaeological organizations?) against AZ Game &
Fish AND USFWS and any additional agencies or individuals who were involved or
who contributed their professional negligence to violation of the law in this
case. The lawsuit in W VA took about six years and there is a $900,000 bill to
pay. A lawsuit in the Arizona matter (filed by individuals with standing in the
case) would send a signal and be a reminder that proper management and
professional archaeological work up front is much cheaper than the
alternatives. "
A partnership signifies a willingness to commit to a plan
of action. A threat of lawsuit -- or a real lawsuit -- can be a type of
education that Agencies will understand. They certainly don't seem to
understand the earlier letters and admonitions that were passed along in the
case.
(emphasis added)
I urge AAC to get some professional skin in
the game, or as Geertz said of Jeremy Bentham's concept, get some "Deep Play" in
the game
http://webhome.idirect.com/~boweevil/BaliCockGeertz.html
http://webhome.idirect.com/~boweevil/BaliCockGeertz2.html
" It is in large part because the marginal
disutility of loss is so great at the higher levels of betting that to engage in
such betting is to lay one's public self, allusively and metaphorically, through
the medium of one's cock, on the line. And though to a Benthamite this might
seem merely to increase the irrationality of the enterprise that much further,
to the Balinese what it mainly increases is the meaningfulness of it all. And as
(to follow Weber rather than Bentham) the imposition of meaning on life is
the major end and primary condition of human existence, that access of
significance more than compensates for the economic costs
involved. " (emphasis added).
-------
The "bigger player" argument fails because that level of policy already exists
in Law and CFR, yet local agency players continue to ignore or soft-pedal the
law and regs. Another fine Wash D.C. settlement, published, circulated,
announced to reinforce policy will get attenuated by distance as have the
existing Law and regs.
Don't underestimate the power of a "local" law
suit. When NMAC sued the Forest Service for dereliction in antiquities duties
the results helped create change at a much wider level than the one forest, one
site origins of the suit.
Also, do not overestimate the costs. As Brian
has repeatedly mentioned, there are many avenues of force multiplication; PIRGs,
pro bono legal sources, avocational groups, good governance groups, broader
spectrum environmental groups, that share at least part of our profession's
special interests. And, when you win, the malfeasant agency(ies) pay your costs
as part of the settlement.
But, the members must be prepared to step
outside their sinecures, and be willing to use outrage as leverage for a good
cause.
-------
It does sound as though this is now active on a high level, and that some parts
of this discussion would have been more appropriate if we'd heard about this a
year ago. However, I still think that it's important to let the folks in DC (and
I still think having more and more folks/organizations contact the ACHP is a
good idea. CONSTITUENCIES MATTER!)
BUT... That's not what I'm trying to say
in this email.
At the risk of making a fool of myself again (not hard to
do), I want to make a plea for unity and action.
I hear and share the
frusttration, and I share it. But let's use this situation to bring us together
and have those conversations about what we need to do, and how we can
accomplish those goals.
Having worked for an agencies, a
municipality, universities, museums, and private CRM firms, I can tell you that
ALL of us care deeply about what we do. We certainly don't do it for the money.
Agencies have stuck their necks out, (and sometimes my neck), with good and
disastrous results, and they continue to do so. Often behind the scenes. I've
been there with them(as an underling or bystander, usually) taking on some
pretty tough situations. Remember the disaster out in the Los Robles area with
all the blading of state land, mountain sheep going blind, dozens of sites
affected? Agencies stepped up on that one, big time. Other times, things go to
court and the perpetrators/looters/ get away with everything.
All of our
hands are tied to some extent, and most of us do the best we can within very
real limitations. All of us want to be able to do more.
This is the
most heart-felt discussion I've seen in a long time. Can we get together
somewhere and talk about how to reorganize ourselves to police ourselves better?
Form some sort of an alliance that can accomplish something? So far when I've
been part of these conversations, they always get to a point where it's decided
that we need to do something, but then we hit a brick wall. We decide it's too
difficult, that no one will agree, that there's nothing to do after all, that
it's Someone Else's Problem (and/or fault).
So: What do you think? Can
we make it our problem?
-----
