Minutes
Ohio
Historical Records Advisoy Board Meeting
13
October 2000
Ohio
Historical Center
Columbus
Board
members present:
Keith Corman, Barbara Floyd, Raimund Goerler, Ronald Koetters,
Michael Lucas, Julie McMaster, Gary Ness, James Oda & George
Parkinson
Board
members not present: Roland Baumann & Carol Tomer
Staff
present: Charles Arp, Matthew Benz, Laurie Gemmill, Shawn
Martin, Elizabeth Nelson, Angela O’Neal, Phil Sager & Judy
Walker
Guests
present: George Bain, David Larson
Deputy
State Coordinator George Parkinson called the meeting to order
at 10:10 a.m. State Coordinator Gary Ness then welcomed the board
and made opening remarks. Brief introductions followed, and the
board welcomed new members Raimund Goerler, Archivist for the
Ohio State University; Ronald Koetters, CEO of Monarch Construction
Company of Cincinnati and Member, Board of Directors of the Cincinnati
Museum Center; and Julie McMaster, Archivist for the Toledo Museum
of Art.
Ohio
Memory Project
Elizabeth
Nelson and Laurie Gemmill gave a presentation to the board on
the Ohio Memory Project. The presentation included introductions
of the project staff, a background to the project as well as a
demonstration of the web-site (www.ohiomemory.org). Nelson and
Gemmill also reported on the success of workshops, which are being
held around the state in an effort to publicize the project, enlist
support, and to encourage the submitting of materials for use
in the project.
The
proposed timeline of the project was also discussed. Nelson and
Gemmill explained that while additional funding is anticipated
the current funding from the Ohio Public Library Information Network
(OPLIN) is to be applied to completing the first phase of Ohio
Memory. In this first phase, the project would concentrate on
early Ohio history through the year 1903. The second phase will
take the project from 1903 to 2003. They also went over the selection
criteria to be used for materials for the Ohio Memory Scrapbook.
Parkinson mentioned that Ohio Memory is a "cutting edge" project
and thus has an experimental quality to it. However, the project
does have broad support from Ohio government and the Ohio Bicentennial
Commission. Barbara Floyd asked about "context" issues: would
there be enough text included along with images to give the user
enough contextual information? Nelson replied that narrative text
as well as provenance information would be provided with each
image. Links to sources would be provided as well.
The
board then formed into two groups for a brief "breakout" session.
During the session, the two teams gathered input on the Ohio Memory
Project. Upon reconvening of the board, the teams reported on
their suggestions as well as specific questions that they had
for the project leaders. Michael Lucas , reporting for "team X,"
explained that the team had some general concerns, among them
the "lack of content" that is inherent in on-line projects such
as Ohio Memory. They were also concerned with what happens to
the project after the "cutoff" date; how would the project continue?
Finally, the team saw OHRAB assisting Ohio Memory by asking tough
questions and serving as an advocate, as well as helping with
"important" collections: identifying and alerting the project
team to such collections, and perhaps contacting the host institutions.
Raimund
Goerler reported for Team "Y." Goerler said that the group’s general
comments were positive, and they agreed that OHRAB should be expected
to ask the hard questions. They also felt that board members could
serve as representatives of Ohio Memory. They had concerns that
the project contains a broad representation of the state, i.e.…ethnic
groups and smaller organizations, such as railroad historical
groups, local historical sites. Additional concerns were: the
inclusion of Ohio folklore; the overall quality of images, copyright
issues, and the possibility of using focus groups to review the
project in stages.
ARCHIVES
WEEK
During
lunch, George Bain, Archivist for Ohio University, gave a report
on Archives Week. The theme for this year was "Celebrating Museums
in Ohio" and Bain reported on various programs held around the
state, including an on line Exhibit in Columbus, and various other
celebrations held in Athens, Cleveland and Dayton. The theme for
2001 is "Media in Ohio."
Bain
also brought before the board a possible proposal for a NHPRC
grant project. Encouraged by Daniel Stokes of NHPRC, Bain is looking
into the processing of a collection of Columbus/Hocking Iron and
Coal Company records, dating 1880-1920. Despite the NHPRC’s past
reluctance to fund processing proposals - an issue brought up
by the board - there is a possibility that they are more open
to such proposals than they have been. At any rate, Bain will
look further into the possibility of applying for a grant for
this collection, and will provide an abstract of the proposal
to the board at the December meeting.
JOINT
ELECTRONIC RECORDS REPOSITORY INITIATIVE
Judy
Walker reported on the status of the Joint Electronic Records
Repository Initiative (JERRI) and grant proposal. After providing
a background on the work done in Ohio on archiving electronic
records, Walker went over the current standing of the JERRI Proposal.
JERRI was created with the intent of establishing an electronic
records archive for the State of Ohio and is a joint project between
the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (ODAS), the Supercomputer
Center at the Ohio State University, the State Library of Ohio
(SLO) and the Ohio Historical Society. ODAS will work on the rules
and guidelines to be followed, the Supercomputer Center will provide
technical support and help address legal issues, SLO will assist
in identifying and providing access to the electronic publications
of the state, and OHS will work on the archiving issues. In June,
the JERRI team submitted a proposal to the NHPRC, asking for $180,000
to develop best practice recommendations on establishing and maintaining
a semi-custodial electronic records repository. A 3-year project,
JERRI is composed of four committees: 1). Project Oversight, 2).
Legal & Policy, 3). Archival, and 4) Technical. The first
two years will be committed to meetings, the results of which
will be published as a report: Guidelines for the Implementation
of Semi-Custodial Electronic Records. The 3rd year
will see the actual implementation of the recommended procedures,
and will result in a final report back to the committees. The
proposal includes a web-site as well as a project journal, which
will provide an on-line documentation of the process.
The
current status of JERRI: a preliminary committee has been established
to build support among the archival community as well as in state
government. SLO has agreed to provide funding to create the tools
for appraisal and identification, and a proposal for additional
funding from the state to establish a 2-year pilot program is
in the works. Comments on the proposal from NHPRC have thus far
been positive, and the JERRI team is awaiting the results of the
grant application.
Following
questions, OHRAB discussed supporting a proposal to offer a formal
resolution giving its support to JERRI. This resolution of support
would not effect the NHPRC proposal, but would be offered as support
to the proposal for funding from the state. The resolution is
as follows:
The
Ohio Historical Records Advisory Board (OHRAB) offers a resolution
of support for the Joint Electronic Records Repository Initiative
(JERRI). OHRAB fully supports the plan as presented to provide
guidelines and support the implementation of the preservation
of electronic records in Ohio, as the board called for in The
Ohio 2003 Plan. Furthermore, OHRAB offers its recommendation that
the State of Ohio provide funding for JERRI as it sees the project
as integral to the archiving of historical records in Ohio.
A
motion was made to offer the formal resolution. Seconded, the
motion passed, with board members Goerler, Lucas and Parkinson
abstaining.
Minutes
& Meeting Schedule
The
board then voted on the corrected minutes for the previous two
meetings held on 12 November 1999, and 6 April 2000. A motion
was made to approve. Seconded, the motion passed.
It
was decided that additional old business, such as the revision
of The Ohio 2003 Plan, would be postponed until the next
meeting, to be held in December. The board members then agreed
to forward their approval of the following meeting schedule for
the next year: This schedule is not final until board approval.
15
December 2000
16
February 2001
13
April 2001 (Retreat)
17
August 2001
12
October 2001 (Archives Week)
Procedures
Governing Records of State Agencies Transferred to the State Archives
of Ohio
Assistant
State Archivist Charles Arp described for the board the new procedures
as drafted by Archives-Library Staff, reviewed and approved by
legal council, and adopted by the OHS Trustees at their June meeting
of this year. State Archives Staff wrote the procedures in response
to criticism of the disposal of prison records in May 1997. The
original records were destroyed, and archival quality microfilm
was retained. The adoption of written rules, it was felt, would
facilitate understanding of what the State Archives is about,
and review of the rules and of any issues that may arise because
of them by OHRAB will strengthen the State Archives program.
The
meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
George
Parkinson
Deputy Coordinator
