Ohio Historical Records Advisory Board Meeting
Minutes, January 18, 2008
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Laidlaw, Jelain Chubb, Barbara Floyd, Laurie Gemmill, Raimund Goerler, Marjorie McLellan, John Runion, Roger Verny
BOARD MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Charles Arp, Amy Johnson Crow, Julie McMaster, Julia Michael Scott
OHS STAFF PRESENT: Todd Kleismit, Pari Swift, Rachel Tooker
1. Welcome
Dr. Laidlaw called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
2. Approval of October 26, 2007 Meeting Minutes
John Runion moved to approve the minutes, and Marjorie McLellan seconded the motion. The minutes were approved.
3. Selection of Vice-Chair
At Barbara Floyd’s suggestion, Jelain Chubb reviewed each member’s term and summarized the duties of the vice-chair. Nominations were received for McLellan and John Runion. McLellan was selected by secret ballot and will serve a one-year term.
4a. Advocating for Ohio’s Documentary Heritage
4a(i). 2008 Statehood Day Legislative Priorities and OHRAB Participation
Todd Kleismit informed the board that Statehood Day activities would take place this year on March 5, 2008 with a morning program at the Ohio Statehouse followed by small group meetings with legislators in the afternoon. In addition to Ohio Historical Society and OHRAB, partners include the Ohio Association of Historical Societies and Museums, Society of Ohio Archivists, Preservation Ohio, Ohio Archaeological Council, Ohio Genealogical Society, Ohio Council for Social Studies and Heritage Ohio.
Chubb outlined the 2008 Statehood Day priorities which affect records and archives, including a fee fund to support local government records, a tax check-off to create matching grants for historical organizations, including archives and funding for the Civil War Sesquicentennial. She also noted that representatives from the County Archivists and Records Managers Association (CARMA) and the Ohio Electronic Records Committee (OERC), who can attest to the need for increased funding, have been invited to attend. There will also be a display of historical records, including examples from participating local governments. Runion and McLellan committed to attending Statehood Day.
Members discussed the need for improved funding of local government records at length. Chubb and Runion noted the impact of House Bill 9 on local government record keeping and the need for increased resources. Chubb noted that House Bill 9 sponsor Representative Scott Oelslager might be interested in sponsoring fee fund legislation in the future.
The board also agreed to move forward with the local government records initiative by developing a case for public value added through the preservation and availability of local government records. Laidlaw asked that members suggest stories that will help illustrate the value of records and the consequences of their loss. McLellan suggested that in addition to using these stories to communicate with resource allocators, they can also be used in developing training materials. Goerler noted some examples from the Council of State Archivists’ “Closest to Home” project.
4a(ii). Local Government Records
Having discussed the impact of House Bill 9 under the above section, the board proceeded with reports on Belmont County and Sale of Public Records.
Belmont County
Pari Swift summarized recent records storage and access issues in Belmont County that had been called to the State Archives’ attention. Swift said that lack of funding, staff, space, and other resources is not isolated to Belmont County. Local governments in Ohio, such as Belmont County, could benefit from a fee-fund to provide necessary care for their records.
Sale of Public Records
Chubb informed the board that the State Archives recently made the decision to purchase a Ross County territorial document off of eBay because of its historical significance. Without proper records management, preservation, and laws specifically prohibiting the sale of public records, this is a situation that is likely to come up repeatedly.
Discussion of the issues ensued. Kleismit also noted in regard to the lack resources for local records, that given the state’s financial situation, J. Pari Sabity, Director of the Office of Budget and Management, might be open to considering the merits of a fee-fund for local government records. Members agreed to capitalize on the current attention to records in Ohio by moving forward with pursuing a fee-fund to support Ohio’s local government records and legislation prohibiting the sale of public records.
Laidlaw asked if the board had any other strategies for raising awareness and funding of local government records. McLellan suggested creating a “rescue fund” or an “adopt-a-document” program. Swift will present the idea at the CARMA meeting in April. The idea should also be presented to the Ohio Association of Historical Societies and Museums (OAHSM).
4a(iii). Federal Programs
Chubb reported that the Preserve America’s Historical Records Act (PAHR) will be introduced in the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform the week of January 22, 2008. Ohio has three representatives on that committee: Dennis Kucinich, Michael Turner and Jim Jordan. The board was urged to contact mayors, elected officials, persons in history-related fields and library communities to tell them about PAHR and encourage them to write letters of support. Gemmill, Goerler and Runion have already sent letters.
4b. NHPRC Grant Applications
4b(i). Competitive Grants
Chubb described the NHPRC grants opportunities for the June 1, 2008 application deadline. In October 2007 , the board agreed to create a list of institutions with significant collections, including the Miami Valley Conservancy District, Wright State (Cold War Technologies), and various school systems (integration collections), to encourage applying for an NHPRC grant.
McLellan suggested a consortium of counties or repositories work together using corresponding records series as the basis of grant project. It was decided that such an idea was a possibility for future grant cycles.
Board members voiced concern because there is so little money available for NHPRC grants, smaller institutions have very little chance of receiving funding. Chubb suggested that before taking action through a letter to the National Archives and NHPRC, board members should go to www.grants.gov and review all the NHPRC grant cycles and information.
Rachel Tooker suggested crafting project ideas for grant cycles several years out and then applying them when an appropriate grant is available. She stated that the archives staff would brainstorm on this idea before the next OHRAB meeting.
4b(ii). SNAP Grants
Chubb gave a brief summary explanation of the new State and National Archival Partnership (SNAP) grants. A more detailed discussion will take place at the April OHRAB meeting.
4c. Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Runion reported that at the January 17 meeting of the Ohio Electronic Records Committee (OERC) Sandy Anglin gave a presentation on Hybrid Microfilm and that all members present agreed to work on designing and reviewing training presentations on the OERC guidelines.
4d. Nominations & Renewals of Board Members
Laidlaw informed the board that three additional nominations had been submitted to the Governor’s Office, but the status of those nominations has not been communicated to OHS staff. Chubb reminded the board of members whose terms have expired or will do so on March 31.
4e. OHRAB Financial Status Report
Chubb reported that OHRAB was to have provided some financial support to the Society of Ohio Archivists’ BACE workshop in November, but it was cancelled. Upcoming expenditures include producing an OHRAB brochure that highlights board activities and promotes NHPRC grants.
Discussion ensued about whether administrative funds could be used to bring guests to the meetings to share their expertise in areas of interest to the board’s mission or to support the OERC’s training initiatives. Chubb explained that grant money needs to be spent according to how it was designated in the grant, but it might be possible to build these uses into the next grant.
Verny questioned whether the OHRAB administrative grant money could be used to support the Ohio Electronic Records Committee’s training initiatives. Chubb stated that it is a use that could possibly be built into the next grant.
5. Member Institutional Updates
Board members briefed those present about recent activities at their respective institutions.
7. Adjournment
Laidlaw sought a motion to adjourn the meeting. Runion motioned and McLellan seconded the motion. The business meeting adjourned at 12:40. A SWOT session followed lunch.
The next meeting of the Ohio Historical Records Advisory Board is scheduled for April 24-25 at the Ohio Historical Center in Columbus.
