DISCO 2014
http://www.discoveringarchaeologists.eu/
9th September 2014
0930 - 1630
Partner Meeting 6
Taşkişla Building, Taşkişla Caddesi
[İtü Taşkışla Kampüsü, Harbiye Mh., 34367
Şişli]
Istanbul
Meeting called by:
Gavin MacGregor (YAT)
Facilitator:
Kenneth Aitchison (YAT)
Type of meeting:
End Project – Review and Finalisation
Attendees:
Present:
David Jennings, York Archaeological Trust for Excavation & Research Ltd UK
Gavin MacGregor, York Archaeological Trust for Excavation & Research Ltd UK
Anna Stewart, York Archaeological Trust for Excavation & Research Ltd UK
Kenneth Aitchison, Landward Research Ltd and York Archaeological Trust for Excavation &
Research Ltd UK
Ray Karl, Internationales Österreichisches Archäologie Forum AT
Katharina Moeller, Österreichisches Archäologie Forum AT
Vera Ameels, Agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed BE
Michaela Macalova, Institute of Archaeology Acad of Science Czech Rep Prague CZ
Evangelos Kyriakides, Initiative for Heritage Consultancy EL
Georgios Alexopolous, Initiative for Heritage Consultancy EL
Rocio Varela Pouso, Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit) ES
Felipe Criado Boado, Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit) ES
Kerri Cleary, Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland IE
Alessandro Pintucci, Confederazione Italiana Archeologi IT
Elisa Cella, Confederazione Italiana Archeologi IT
Andris Sne, Latvijas Universitate LV
Ingrid Ulst, MTÜ Arheopolis EE
Nele Kangert, MTÜ Arheopolis EE,
Viire Kobrusepp, MTÜ Arheopolis EE,
Doris Pavlov, MTÜ Arheopolis EE
Tine Schenck, Norwegian associations of researchers NO
Arek Marciniak, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu PL
Cidalia Duarte, Associação Profissional de Arqueólogos PT
Corina Bors, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României RO
Irena Lazar, Univerza na Primorskem, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče SI
Eduard Krekovič, Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Philosophy SK
Danica Staššíková - Štukovská, Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Philosophy SK
Monique van den Dries, European Association of Archaeologists CZ
Andrew Lawler, Cultural Heritage without Borders BA
Halid Lepan, Cultural Heritage without Borders BA
Heleen van London, University of Amsterdam NL
Nathalie Vossen, Nederlandse Veriningen van Archeologen, NL
Marjo Schlaman, University of Amsterdam NL
Karin Scharringhausen, University of Amsterdam NL
Rachel Edwards, Arboretum Archaeological Consultancy UK
1.
Welcome
Dr MacGregor (GMcG) of York Archaeological Trust welcomed the conference delegates to Istanbul for the final project
meeting of DISCO 2014. He stated it would be a very intense meeting as it was only one day instead of two with a lot of
business to catch up on. Dr MacGregor stated that being towards the end of the project there are things to reflect on and
learn from and several elements to celebrate and go on to influence policy making in the future.
2.
Introductions & Apologies
Dr Aitchison (KA) introduced Rachel Edwards (RE) as External Evaluator and explained her role.
David Jennings (DJ) welcomed delegates on behalf of York Archaeological Trust.
Apologies were given from Co-Beneficiaries from Jan Frolik (Czech Republic), Martin Bentz (Germany), Elena Prokopiou
(Cyprus), Doug Rocks-Macqueen (Landward Research).
KA read out a letter from the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus, (copy attached) which explained why
they were unable to attend the meeting in Turkey.
All Co-Beneficiaries in attendance were asked to introduce themselves, who they were and where they were from
3.
Partnership & Roles
GMcG explained York Archaeological Trust’s role as Coordinator was to ensure that all partners produced specific project
outputs, including National Reports and the key output Transnational Report.
KA – at the start of the project there were 21 organisations, but we have now been joined by the Dutch and the Danish
Associates.
GMcG stated when putting this project together we did not realise how unusual it was (due to the size of the partnership)
but the European Commission had faith in what we had said we would do. The project had a series of methodologies but
due to certain changes it didn’t always go to plan, however the experience gained by all partners should reflect and go
forward to undertake a potential repetition of the project in 2019.
4.
Reporting
KA explained to partners the process and the reasoning of the Agency in rejecting the first Interim Report (on activities in
the first 12 months of the project) and the rationale for the suspension and the way this was resolved. (Representatives of
the EACEA [Education, Culture and Audiovisual Executive Agency of the European Commission) came to York, meeting
with YAT and explaining procedures and implementation of the recording process in much more detail.
GMcG went on to explain the process for the evaluation reporting which involves a third party, an external assessor, who
looks at the project outputs and processes and makes recommendations to the EACEA. Reports need to be presented as
evidence based with explanations to allow the Assessor to make certain assumptions. We are now better informed and able
to go forward with preparing the Final Report.
At the end of this process the Agency may not release the entire budget; this will be dependent on the quality of the outputs
and on our financial records what we have from them so far is an advance to enable the work to be carried out. To ensure
we get assessed as positively as possible (eg we have the best score possible) we have the next three weeks to put
everything in place; we need to shine in front of the EACEA and their external assessor.
An ongoing discussion ensued about the quality of the Interim Report, the final output and series of milestones. It was
made clear to partners how important it is that all supporting documentation should be uploaded and recorded in relation to
their spends. Partners were made aware that their work has an impact on the other co-beneficiaries if not applied correctly;
failures by one partner could affect the overall score received by the project and so this would affect the amount of funds
released to all partners.
DJ explained the meeting with the Agency (EACEA); they accepted that the project had difficulties but from their
perspective they have a set of regulations that have to be applied absolutely, and so we must conform to their specifications
and they will then apply their regulations as to how the money can be distributed. Our ability to be flexible is removed by
the contract we have with the European Commission which will have an impact on all of us, we are in a system that is
extremely tight and very strict.
KA identified that there are cultural differences in the way of getting things done, and we have all experienced this in
different ways, the Agency and the Commission have a way of doing things which is very specific, it is the Commission
requirements. Everything we have done since that meeting has been about fixing procedures and taking remedial action to
explain why tasks were not done. Because the report was not specifically what they had requested, that to them was an
issue. We need to present a suite of technical reports the assessor can look at, and one significant issue is the valorisation
we have gone through to ensure that the results are being used.
KA reminded the meeting that the project was in trouble and as we did not know it was in difficulties until we had the
analysis of the Interim Report. There are still two ways that the funding that will be released by the Commission upon
conclusion of the project could be reduced:
1.
2.
if Partners had not spent the money as agreed, the right amount of money on the right things - partners
must not over-spend or under-spend, and this is by separate budget headings, not just the total Partner
budgets. And Partners were reminded yet again that their budgets are made up of the Commission’s
contribution plus national contributions, and they must spend the total budget amount, not just the amount
provided by the Commission. Any underspend will result in a direct reduction of that Partner’s final grant
allocation.
if overall the project gets a low score for the product and admin then the Commission could reduce the final
payment, and that reduction could be by such a large amount that it exceeds the planned final payment –
and so they would then seek to recover money that they have already released to YAT, and thus to the
Partners.
In reporting, there is a need to provide as much information as possible; Partners, discussed budgeting in relation to their
spend, which must be coherent and precise.
There is still a lot to do in the next month (the formal end of the project is on 30 th September) and in the two months after
that until the end of November (the deadline for the provision of the Final Report to the Commission. We must cover every
explanation they have asked for, as there will be no grounds for appeal.
Alessandro Pintucci (AP) explained that he went to his National Agency to discuss LLP programme eligibility of his spend.
Cannot take the risk that some receipts may be discounted. It was explained that while the views of National Agencies are
valuable, they are not official advice, as this project is being managed centrally by the Executive Agency (EACEA) in
Brussels.
GMcG told the meeting that we can overcome that by being very professional, all Partners’ receipts must precisely justify
your total spend, and if in doubt you must check in the Admin & Financial Handbook and contract between the Partner and
YAT. Documentation will have to be very precise, if (for example) an element of the project was supposed to take 20 days
but took 22 days then show that. Make sure time sheets are up to date and records of expenditure, including this meeting’s
expenses, travel and subsistence.
4.a National Reports
KA stated that the Partnership has to deliver 68 products which included the draft and final national reports and ultimately a
transnational report and went on to apologise for the velocity of emails to each co-beneficiary in bringing the finished
National Reports in the right shape – it was important that all reports should be comparable with each other.
KA advised and reminded all Partners that deliverables were not met on time with 10 partners having finished their
National Reports (P2, P3, P6, P10, P11, P13, P16, P18, P19 and P23).
Several partners reported that they were waiting on the ISBN number from their institutions which were taking longer than
usual.
4.b Transnational Report
GMcG stressed to co-beneficiaries the importance of having all National Reports finalised and approved by KA no later
than Monday 15th September.
KA gave a summary of the provisional results of the Transnational Report, 21 countries, 24,740 archaeologists, only in 9
countries were archaeologists being paid more than the national average for all occupations.
5.
Valorisation - (how to reach policy makers)
GMcG reminded partners of the fundamental valorisation strategy which is designed to address two key objectives:
1.
Promotion of the project’s activities to potential users and making key stakeholders aware allowing
feedback to ensure that their specific needs are being addressed.
2.
Disseminating by ensuring promotion of developed results by the designing of clear, separate and
individual partner dissemination plans.
Partners were also reminded of the importance of ensuring that the results of the project should be presented to ‘decision
makers’ at all levels, both within archaeology and at political levels.
YAT’s approach was presented to the meeting where all partners were encouraged to use this as the template for their own.
GMcG explained who YAT were reaching (e.g. FAME: Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers) and to see
if the information can reach the construction industry.
GMcG reiterated the need for all Partners to work closely to ensure transnational report was completed within the
timeframe.
6. Administration, Project documentation and internal evaluation
6.a Financial Management
GMcG stressed the importance of good financial documentation and that it should be consistent and coherent, and to be
aware that it will be checked by YAT and ultimately the Agency. All Co-Beneficiaries should familiarise themselves
thoroughly with the Financial Toolkit.
GMcG said there will be workshops following the meeting with AS for anyone who had questions or issues about the
financial and administrative aspects.
KA reminded everyone the Project is financed from different sources of funding. One part is from the Agency and one part
is from National Partners. All Partners are required to prove they have spent all of their budgets. For example, if a Partner
receives €60,000 from the Agency and €40,000 from National sources then they have to spend €100,000, not €60,000. If a
Partner cannot show they have spent 100,000 and instead show they have spent only €60,000 then the Agency will reduce
their payment by €40,000 – and so their grant will be for €20,000 not €60,000. This is a full budget that must all be spent.
If a Partner spends too little then they do not get all of the money. If a Partner spends too much then they don’t get any
extra. Every Partner is responsible for the management of their own budget and if any Partner goes wrong on their budget
then they are primarily responsible, but there may be a knock-on effect on the Project as a whole.
6.a.i. Claims
KA reminded that all claims must be made as separate claims (eg not combining two amounts for claim #3 and claim#4
into one single document).
AS talked briefly about the LLP tool. Initially YAT had stated that all Partners must record their travel and subsistence
costs one by one line by line, but the Agency had since stated that it the total amounts for each meeting or other travel event
should be combined into a single line. AS said it was vital that all receipts were uploaded so it could be checked how much
had actually been spent.
AS stated that 9 partners still needed to make a claim for Payment 4. 10 Partners have already been paid. One Partner still
needed to claim for Payments 2 and 3. Partners need to claim for Payment 5 once KA has approved their Final Report.
6.a.i.i Paperwork - proof of spending
AS stated the paper trail should be uploaded to each Partner’s individual Dropbox folder, and the LLP tool spreadsheet
should be completed accordingly.
A discussion ensued from the Partners in relation to their understanding of the paperwork that was required by the Agency
to verify who was an employee or a sub contractor.
A discussion ensued about how to correctly document that a Partner had chosen the most cost effective mode of travel.
AS advised co-beneficiaries that she would be available after the meeting to hold workshops
for any partner that may have further queries regarding paperwork and documentation issues.
AS explained that YAT will pay currently outstanding claims once YAT’s finance director returns from annual leave.
6.b The Final Report to the European Commission
KA: The final report to the Commission is a report on what we said we would do and what we did. The Public part is
structured around work packages and 68 products. It is effectively a checklist e.g. “did you do this, when did you do this,
why was it early, where can it be found?” etc. The Public part will be published on the Agency’s website.
The Private part, which is mostly financial matters, is the final record of all expenditure. All LLP tools (which are a record
of everyone’s spend on travel and subsistence and so on) will be combined by YAT into one spreadsheet showing a record
of all expenditure. This will then be examined very closely by the Agency. This is when every single line of expenditure,
whether staffing travel and subsistence, ‘other’, or subcontracting will have to be proved along with the corresponding
paper trail.
6.b.i Report on Activities
KA stated that Co-Beneficiaries will be issued with a deadline some time after 1st October for when all of their
administrative paper trail must be sent to YAT.
GMcG reiterated the need for explanatory notes in the paper trail explaining why too little or too much had been spent on
particular budget items. Explanations do not have to be lengthy.
6.b.i.i Financial Report
KA stated that Payment #6 will be made after the end of the project. When all documentation and information has been
supplied and checked by YAT then Partners can issue their claims for payment #6. Payment #6 will represent the balance
of what the partners have eligibly spent minus the amounts they have received in Payments #1-5; it may not be the full
amount originally envisaged at the start of the project. YAT will then send the Final Report to the Commission. Only when
the Commission has given their approval for the Final Report and made their final release of funds to YAT will YAT then
be able to pay Payment #6.
GMcG stated that the financial paperwork each Co-Beneficiary submits is key. This will allow YAT to have confidence
(along with the LLP Tool) that the figures presented in the LLP Tool are accurate and coherent with activities they relate to.
KA stated that the Project’s paperwork will be kept for 7 years and can be audited again at any time during this period.
7 – Communication (including planning for future co-operation)
GMcG talked about the need for all Co-Beneficiaries to stay in communication with each other.
KA talked about previous DISCO Project and that there may be potential for a 2017-19 project, as there is great value in
time-series data-sets. KA said there is a lot we could learn in a future project from what we have achieved and from
mistakes made during this project.
8 - AOB
DJ concluded the meeting by thanking everyone for their hard work and hoped they will continue will their valorisation to
make the project the success it should be.