CoSA home |
CoSA Site Map | COSHRC
Minutes
COUNCIL
OF STATE HISTORICAL RECORDS COORDINATORS
MINUTES
Columbia, South Carolina
Saturday, July 22, 2000
1. Chair of the Steering Committee Rocha (Nevada) called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. In response to the roll call of the states and territories, the following answered:
California (Walter P. Gray III)
Delaware (Howard P. Lowell)
Florida (Jim Berberich)
Indiana (F. Gerald Handfield, Jr.)
Kansas (Matthew Veatch)
Kentucky (Richard Belding)
Massachusetts (John Warner, Jr.)
Minnesota (Robert Horton)
Mississippi (H.T. Holmes)
Missouri (Jelain Chubb)
Nevada (Guy Louis Rocha)
New York (Kathleen Roe)
North Carolina (Catherine J. Morris)
Ohio (George Parkinson)
Oklahoma (Thomas W. Kremm)
Oregon (Roy C. Turnbaugh)
Rhode Island (R. Gwenn Stern)
South Carolina (Roy H. Tryon)
Virginia (Conley Edwards)
Wisconsin (Peter Gottlieb)The agenda was reviewed:
1. Call to Order, Roll Call of the States and Territories,
Review Agenda
2. Approve COSHRC Minutes from April 30, 2000,
Meeting in Decatur, Georgia
3. Report on Elections to Steering Committee
4. COSHRC Archives
5. COSHRC Self-Study
6. NARA Strategic Plan
7. NFACE Action Agenda
8. COSHRC Administrative Grant Proposal to NHPRC
9. NHPRC Report
10. Other Business
11. Call for Adjournment
2. Rocha (Nevada) called for adoption of the minutes. On motion of Horton (Minnesota), with second by Handfield (Indiana), the minutes were approved without objection.
3. Belding (Kentucky) presented the report on elections: Gray (California) and Holmes (Mississippi) were elected to three year terms to the Steering Committee.
4. Holmes (Mississippi) reported on the COSHRC archives. Negotiations are underway for the transfer of material in Vicki Walch’s possession to the State Historical Society of Iowa. Holmes indicated plans to survey previous steering committee members regarding the existence of COSHRC archives.
5. Gottlieb (Wisconsin) presented the COSHRC Self-Study Revised Mission/Vision Statement.
Mission Statement
COSHRC actively promotes the identification, preservation and dissemination of the essential historical documentation of the United States. COSHRC pursues this mission through the following activities.
- Advocating systematic planning for and development of programs of national scope with direct, practical, cost-effective application that benefit archival priorities identified by state programs;
- Developing strong, cooperative, public and private historical records programs in the states and territories of the U.S.
- Collaborating with the National Historical Publications and Records Commission and with other organizations that share COSHRC’s mission.
Vision Statement
COSHRC envisions a historical records landscape in the U.S. in 2005 characterized by:
- Formal structure of coordination between the federal archival program and the archival programs of individual states;
- Replacement of individual narrowly-based programs coordinated archival planning and program development for the nation, supported by a funded structure of state offices;
- An inclusive, ongoing planning process that reports to the President, the Congress, and the American people on the status of America’s historical records and on programs that preserve and provide access to those records;
- A process of working within each state or territory that effectively promotes internal archival cooperation and development and that represents state and territorial concerns in national archival planning;
- An organization within each state or territory that effectively promotes internal archival cooperation and development and that represents state and territorial concerns in national archival planning;
- NHPRC plans, priorities and policies that reflect the Council’s recommendations and concerns;
- Expanded resources for state grant programs and other programs supporting the Council’s mission;
- A substantial, measurable, documented increase in the number of historical records identified, preserved, or more accessible to interested researchers;
- An NHPRC with adequate resources for Council priorities;
- A completed agenda of those recommendations from NFACE that the Council has committed to undertake.
General discussion on the draft mission/vision statement ensued. Primary discussion points were:
How important is it to hire an executive director?
Does the final product have to address structural issues?
How viable is COSHRC’s direction?
What is COSHRC’s purpose? Out purpose determines our resource base.
“Formal structure” could include governance and executive director.
At this point, Gottlieb asked the secretary to read that portion of the minutes from the previous meeting dealing with the discussion of structure.
Discussion then moved to consideration of specific roles in the process. The question was raised as to the role of NHPRC. Ann Newhall, NHPRC executive director, stated that NHPRC, while wanting to be aware of the process, had no role to play in the self-study. She further stated that NHPRC should be driven by the COSHRC vision, and not the reverse. Peter Gottlieb, Steering Committee Vice-Chair, suggested the Council has three options for the future:
1. Continue as for the past five-six years, holding two meetings per year, providing a networking environment, and sponsoring significant projects such as NFACE;
2. Stop sponsoring significant projects and continue the networking environment by meeting once a year; or
3. Transform to an organization with a national program.
After some discussion, a straw poll of the group was taken. Number 1 received 1 vote, Number 2 received 3 votes, Number 3 received twenty-something votes, and 1 vote was registered for ”Other.” Gottlieb suggested that before the July 2000 NAGARA meeting Council members provide e-mail feedback on pages 3-4 of the draft and further suggested that the responses be electronically posted. Henderson, who serves as COSHRC’s electronic post-man, requested that responses be as brief as possible and that Council members try to adhere to the dates in the draft schedule. Henderson was requested to re-distribute the draft after modifications suggested in the discussion had been made.
Additional discussion ensued. Primary discussion points were:
What was meant by “national program”? A multi-faceted program addresses whole agenda of records related work.
A strong national program idea arose out of strong specific NFACE recommendations—education, advocacy.
Why COSHRC and not the other organizations? COSHRC is the only one to represent states.
The last discussion at the April meeting came on the tide of an incredibly successful, dynamic meeting of professional archivists, grass roots, and allied professions. COSHRC is the only one who cares about all three groups.
The straw poll can be interpreted the vote as coming out of intensive three days. The current ill-attended meeting presents an important check, but it must all be sorted out by January.
Winter meeting travel costs are underwritten, the summer meeting is not. NFACE enthusiasm made for robust motion. How can that energy and enthusiasm be sustained?
Would creating something else in partnership with NAGARA be better?
COSHRC does want to do better, but can we do better with a piggyback?
We do not need to create another organization?
We have had this discussion without answering “who are we?” COSHRC does not stand alone.
There is a fear that COSHRC may end up duplicating NASARA.
There is a real strong concern with structure being very expensive.
At the April meeting the flavor of the discussion about structure was more about continuing in context of sustaining NFACE.
The state boards broadly represent the membership-based organizations.
Gottlieb commented that just feedback was requested. He asked if the draft before the group line up with the straw poll? He then asked if the group was uncomfortable with the straw poll.
Further discussion ensued. Primary discussion points were:
The first sentence of the mission statement seems contrary to NHPRC/NARA language: “Historical documentation” excludes “legal evidence.” Change “adequate” in the next to last bulleted point “adequate” to “expanded” so that state coordinators would be better equipped to carry out coordination.
“Historical documentation” is too narrow . We need to expand for legal aspects.
NARA doesn’t use “essential evidence”—NHPRC does.
The “H” in NHPRC and COSHRC needs to stay. Any change would be a major change.
The second bulleted point under “Vision” refers to which narrowly-based programs?
In first sentence of “Mission Statement” replace “dissemination” with “access.”
Why stop at access? Beyond that are promotions like National History Day and other outreach.
Not all in the vision statement would be reflected in a priority action agenda.
The new challenge—emphasis—in the mission statement is the second bulleted point.
The suggested mission statement is less prescriptive.
How specific do we want the mission statement to be?”
The second bulleted point of the vision statement raises the question of the nature of “coordinated archival planning and program development.”
Any COSHRC involvement will take more Steering Committee time to do. Some other mechanism must be there. Coordinators cannot take up more of the slack. What options are there? The time involved discourages officers.
COSHRC is a good organization. Only COSHRC could replace but NHPRC has tried to do what is called for in the second bulleted point of the vision statement, “but it ain’t easy.” Why are there vibrant state boards in some states and not others? There is no easy answer. There are many factors: leadership is a key factor, also archival demographics. She has a gut feeling there is no quick fix. COSHRC won’t solve it all. COSHRC has done so much. COSHRC is special in representing each state backed by an unpaid board. NFACE relied on talent like Vicki Walch and Kathleen Roe. V2 reads like turning into NHPRC. If you become NHPRC, you don’t have NHPRC. NHPRC should be viewed as a venture capitalist in the archival world.
Some of the language may be coming out of the block grant discussion at the meeting in April. [The usual comments about historic preservation block grants.] The option needs to be added to the agenda.
We don’t want to replace NHPRC. We want 54 noble state programs doing what a handful do now. That will help hold our constituent base.
We must have the resources to support the governance.
COSHRC needs to be very careful about overextending good wishes that will flounder on shoals of self preservation and local situations. Everybody has to go here and deal with infrastructures not under out direct control. How do you deal with that? In trying to accommodate to a national program, it is easy to become delirious.
Rocha (Nevada) asked for a show of hands of anyone who is wedded to language of the second bulleted point in the vision statement. He then asked if the rest of the statement, except that second point, was okay.
Further discussion ensued. Primary discussion points were:
Fold the concepts of the second bulleted point in the vision statement into rest of language. It seems the sense of the group is to delete that point.
Regarding the first sentence of the vision statement, who envisions COSHRC on the landscape? The landscape involves many other groups.
We need to decide to whom the vision statement refers.
COSHRC is an instrument of NHPRC. The state boards are to carry out the NHPRC program. The question is “Which way does it flow?” It’s a hierarchical relationship, though some don’t want to view it that way.
It’s a two-way street. It should go both ways.
Gottlieb announced he would take these comments back to Henderson for revision. Perhaps several versions will need to be reviewed by January.
6. Rocha (Nevada) announced that, in his position as chairman of the COSHRC Steering Committee, he had responded to NARA’s request for comments on their proposed strategic plan. He had provided a copy of his response on the COSHRC listserv.
Ann Newhall (NHPRC) commented that NHPRC is essentially separate from NARA, although administered by NARA NHPRC is a separate line item. She is not unduly concerned about the strategic plan for NARA and its part regarding NHPRC. More incorporation into NARA would possible mean less money for NHPRC. NHPRC does have its own strategic plan. Pressing now for more NARA inclusion may be counter productive.
7. Gottlieb (Wisconsin) reported that the groundwork is being laid for a follow-up meeting of the “Big 4” sponsors of NFACE: COSHRC, AASLH, NAGARA, SAA. The meeting will center on the question of how to pursue NFACE recommendations at a national level. The meeting will be held October 21-22, 2000, in Chicago. Gottlieb and possibly another Steering Committee member will attend.
Gottlieb also gave a report on the NFACE budget. The grant which expires in February 2001, supports planning and an annual meeting. Of the approximately $156,000 remaining, $93,000 is obligated. He proposed dividing the remaining $63,000 to support three functions: 1) complete NFACE follow-up work; 2) identify collaborative efforts; 3) maintain and expand the NFACE web-site.
Roe (New York) announced that follow-up work includes seeing that those who made commitments at the NFACE meeting were indeed honoring those commitments; the Educators’ Roundtable which met at the just completed NAGARA annual meeting, and a gathering of regional groups at the upcoming Society of American Archivists meeting. The NFACE action agenda will be finalized for the January COSHRC meeting. Now is the time to comment on that agenda, which will become final in February 2001 after its endorsement by COSHRC at the January meeting.
Gottlieb said that the Steering Committee would discuss further the meeting of the “Big 4” and the spending of the remaining grant funds. Without objection that was approved.
8. Gottlieb (Wisconsin) reported that between last April’s meeting and this meeting, he prepared and submitted an administrative support grant application. The primary grant purposes are to support the annual meeting and the NFACE website. This grant was identified as a “bridge” grant for the period January 2001 to January 2002, at which point the self-study will have determined the future direction of COSHRC. The question was addressed to NHPRC if this grant is considered a support grant. Richard Cameron (NHPRC) responded that it was and it wasn’t. NHPRC want to see a continuation of the NHPRC-funded NFACE and this proposed grant will allow time for a decision to be made on future direction. A follow-up question wondered if COSHRC is transformed into a full-fledged organization will COSHRC be eligible for administrative support funds as opposed to current project driven funding.
Gottlieb announced that January 26-27, 2001, is the date set for the next COSHRC meeting in Washington D.C and that a second meeting would be held at the NAGARA annual meeting. The Steering Committee was requested not to set the COSHRC meeting on the last day of the NAGARA meeting.
9. Ann Newhall (NHPRC) presented a status report on the NHPRC re-authorization bill, H.R. 4110, which provides reauthorization at a level of $10,000,000 dollars per year for a three year period. The bill had passed the House Government Oversight Committee after a hearing on April 2. Newhall gave a summary of the hearing, indicating that most of the questions dealt with the publications program. H.R. 4110 is currently waiting action by the House of Representatives. Newhall stressed the importance of House action, followed by quick Senate action, so that the legislation can be passed at this session of Congress.
Regarding NHPRC staff, Newhall announced that Laurie Beatty has left and that a program officer will be added to the staff positions. The upcoming American Archivist will include an article by Newhall and R. Cameron on the history of NHPRC. She also announced that printed copies of the revised guidelines are available.Mark Conrad (NHPRC) announced that NHPRC in November 1999 adopted a new initiative to allocate up to $600,000 for the next three years to support development of a broad base of archival experience in electronic records.
10. Richard Cameron (NHPRC) suggested that COSHRC adopt a memorial resolution acknowledging the life and contributions of Lila J. Goff, deceased Deputy State Historical Records Coordinator from Minnesota, and expressing the group’s deep regret at her passing to her family and the staff of the Minnesota Historical Society. He offered the following.
Resolved, that the members of the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators assembled in their annual meeting at Columbia, South Carolina, express their deep regret and sense of loss at the death of Lila J. Goff, Deputy State Historical Records Coordinator from Minnesota and former chair of the Council. She was a valued colleague, and an unassuming, but strong and extremely effective leader. She stepped forward at a time when COSHRC needed her and played a crucial role in managing several grants and projects for COSHRC. This organization, the archival profession and the cause of history have been enriched by her presence.
Be it further resolved, that the Chair of the Council be instructed to send this resolution to Dr. Nina Archabal, Director of the Minnesota Historical Society and Minnesota State Historical Records Coordinator for forwarding to Lila's family and for sharing with the staff of the Historical Society and the Minnesota Historical Records Advisory Board.
A motion was made for the Steering Committee to take the resolution under advisement, to prepare the resolution on behalf of COSHRC and to forward it to the family and the Minnesota Historical Society. The motion passed without objection.
Rocha (Nevada) asked for a point of personal privilege to offer thanks for the help he had received during his tenure as Steering Committee Chair.
Following his remarks, Rocha handed the reins of power to incoming chairman Peter Gottlieb (Wisconsin).
11. Gottlieb (Wisconsin) adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.