From GarrettR1 at michigan.gov Wed Mar 7 16:01:11 2007 From: GarrettR1 at michigan.gov (Robert Garrett) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:01:11 -0500 Subject: [Maa-l] Archives of Michigan Web Updates Message-ID: The Archives of Michigan naturalization index page now includes indexes for Genesee and Barry Counties. For direct access, click here: http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17449_18635_20684---,00.html . Web surfers can also find these indexes by visiting the Archives of Michigan home page (www.michigan.gov/archivesofmi ) and selecting "naturalization indexes" from the "Genealogy" pull down menu. I also invite you all to view the Archives' latest Image of the Month page. In observance of Women's History Month, our March image spotlights abolitionist Laura Smith Haviland. Archives of Michigan intern Nicole Garrett wrote the accompanying essay. Click here to view this feature: http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17445_19273_19313-163242--,00.html Bob Garrett Archives of Michigan Telephone: (517) 241-1382 E-mail: garrettr1 at michigan.gov Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. From GarrettR1 at michigan.gov Thu Mar 8 12:37:03 2007 From: GarrettR1 at michigan.gov (Robert Garrett) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:37:03 -0500 Subject: [Maa-l] Fw: [AMIA-L] NATIONAL ARCHIVES -- A DYING INSTITUTION? Message-ID: Please forward to the MAA List, if it is active. Kim Schroeder ARCHIVE MEDIA PARTNERS 220 Bagley, Suite 828 Detroit, MI 48226 313-963-6355 phone 413-383-9946 fax www.archivemediapartners.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Madeline Fitzgerald Matz To: AMIA-L at LSV.UKY.EDU Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:06 PM Subject: [AMIA-L] NATIONAL ARCHIVES -- A DYING INSTITUTION? The National Archives - A Dying Institution? 2/25/2007 by Carren Kaston Researchers in the Washington, DC, area are blessed to have at their disposal the two flagship facilities of the National Archives and Records Administration system - NARA I in downtown DC and NARA II in College Park, MD. The mandate of the institution is first, to preserve and maintain records in many formats, including films and photographs, created by or for the federal government, and second, to make these materials available to the public for research. The two Washington-area facilities have been a mecca for researchers and scholars from all over the country - and the world - because their holdings are the largest, most comprehensive in the NARA system. Many in the film and television community depend upon materials uniquely located at these two facilities. On October 2, 2006, however, the National Archives drastically reduced the times when the public has access to these materials. The cutback in hours is exacerbated by severe equipment failures, especially in the Motion Picture Research Room in NARA II, and the decision not to replace retiring archivists. These conditions significantly limit our ability to access records - to the point that the Archives could be in danger of becoming mainly a warehouse for records. For many years, the Archives was open a full day on Saturday, and in the evenings on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday every week. That level of access - amounting to 60 hours a week - was on a par with the access offered by the Library of Congress, Washington?s other major research facility, which has been and continues to be open three evenings a week and on Saturdays. But the Archives has now eliminated nearly all evening and Saturday hours. Through these cutbacks, the institution saves not quite $1 million at NARA I and II together, in a total NARA 2007 budget appropriation of nearly $340 million. The institution says that it based its decision to cut hours on tallies showing that 77 percent of NARA I and II researchers used the facilities during weekday daytime hours. Even if these figures are correct (and there is some question about the methodology NARA used in the tabulations), that means that 23 percent - nearly 1 in 4 - of those who used the Archives did so during the hours that have been cut. That is no small number. Most affected are those who work elsewhere during the day and depended upon NARA for evening and weekend access, those who maximized their income and hours by working a longer day at NARA, and those who have rush jobs to complete and, now, fewer hours in which to finish. Also impacted are visitors to the Archives from elsewhere, who need to make the most of their brief time in the nation?s capital. The budget requested for 2008 does not currently provide for restoration of the lost hours. Two other main areas in which researchers? access to NARA records is jeopardized are severe equipment failures and archivist replacement policies. Equipment failures are especially critical in the Motion Picture Research Room at NARA II. The collection holds 13,000 3/4" videotapes (reference access copies), in fragile condition, which need to be copied to newer formats to make them reliably usable. The chief of the Motion Picture Division estimates that at current levels of funding and current cost of tape transfer, the job would probably take ten years. Of even more pressing concern is the fact that the 3/4" decks and flatbeds used to view tapes and films are wearing out. When a machine goes down, it takes ?weeks? to repair it, often resulting in substantial waits for working equipment. The cutback in NARA hours has exacerbated the wait time, since a shorter day means that more researchers arrive between 9 and 5 to use the equipment. In the past couple of months, NARA II?s Modern Military Branch (focused largely on military matters from WW II forward) has dropped from six archivists to two, due to buy-outs and early retirement, ostensibly another cost-saving measure. But the archivists are not being replaced. When the last two retire or leave, no specialists will be left to consult on modern military matters, only generalists, without institutional memory or period-specific knowledge. The same is true in other archival areas, gravely jeopardizing the ability to do in-depth research. The institution is well on its way to becoming an archive without archivists. Public access at NARA is also threatened by a recent two-thirds reduction in the number of technicians who ?pull? materials, such as government correspondence and documents, in the Textual Records Research Room. Wait times of several hours can occur, when the standard used to be one hour, and the number of incorrect pulls has proliferated. In addition, a newly instituted draconian policy forbids researchers from seeing, under any circumstances, original documents that have been microfilmed, even if parts of the microfilm were done so poorly that they cannot be deciphered. In the past, these decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. Now researchers are compelled to pay outside vendors to photograph or scan material that is indistinct on microfilm, even if all that the researcher wants is to get a better look at what is there, not necessarily buy it. One way in which NARA deflects public protest about the loss of archival access is by focusing attention on its digitizing and electronic programs. A November 11, 2006, Washington Post article on the cutbacks whitewashed the situation, letting NARA answer the complaints by tooting its horn about a pilot project with Google in which ?the company converted 100 of the Archives? films to digital form. . . . A few weeks after it was available on the Internet, it had been downloaded 200,000 times.? But such grandstanding and selective digitizing do nothing to help keep the National Archives a functioning archives. NARA can skim off for Internet viewing items that have mass appeal. However, it will never be able to digitize everything it has, the material that research exists to find and that the institution has been mandated to make available - the millions upon millions of items that comprise the essential history of our government dating back to 1775, including the rare, confidential, recently declassified, and constantly arriving new materials - everything that makes an archive an archive. In another example of selective digitizing used to deflect attention away from loss of access, NARA boasted in the January 17, 2007, Washington Post that it had partnered with Footnote Inc. to have millions of its documents digitized and made available for free at NARA facilities. But on what equipment will the public be able to see these digitized documents? The Archives? computer connections are so outmoded and slow that researchers already face interminable waits. Finally, a review of NARA?s proposed 2008 budget reveals that 15 percent of the total is devoted to preserving electronic records of the Bush Administration - although they will not be opened to the public for many years. If you believe that a restoration of hours and a different use of appropriations would better serve the public and should be a priority for NARA, please write or e-mail now, while there is still time to make a difference: Dr. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20408; allen.weinstein at nara.gov. Dr. Michael Kurtz, Assistant Archivist for Records Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Records Services, 8601 Adelphi Road, Suite 3400, College Park, MD 20740-6001; michael.kurtz at nara.gov. Congressman Steny Hoyer - The Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, United States House of Representatives, 1705 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515-2005. E-mail from website only: http://www.hoyer.house.gov/contact/email.asp. Since the Archives at College Park is named after him, for his efforts in getting it built, he would presumably take a particular interest in reported problems. Finally, the Motion Picture Division would be receptive to suggestions from WIFV members either about vendors from whom to procure reconditioned and working-order 3/4" decks and flatbeds at a reasonable price, or about other government agencies, ready to deaccession their equipment, that might be willing to donate it to NARA through some sort of ?agency-to-agency surplusing mechanism.? Please e-mail your suggestions to me (ckaston at starpower.net) for forwarding. Carren Kaston, Ph.D., is a writer, researcher and coordinator for projects in the arts and humanities, including documentary films, public television, and library and museum exhibits and publications. Bob Garrett Archives of Michigan Telephone: (517) 241-1382 E-mail: garrettr1 at michigan.gov Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. From reynoldsg at hope.edu Fri Mar 9 15:40:37 2007 From: reynoldsg at hope.edu (reynoldsg) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:40:37 -0500 Subject: [Maa-l] Bookkeeper Deacidification Spray Message-ID: <45FF6E89@hope.edu> MAA List, Do any of you have notes on how much Bookkeeper Deacidification Spray you use per average page when applying it? I have a 20 page magazine with 12"x14" pages and need to know how much to order. Geoffrey D. Reynolds Director Joint Archives of Holland Hope College P.O. Box 9000 Holland, MI 49422-9000 USA 616-395-7798 (voice) 616-395-7197 (fax) http://www.hope.edu/jointarchives From HarveyM at michigan.gov Fri Mar 9 16:37:01 2007 From: HarveyM at michigan.gov (Mark Harvey) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:37:01 -0500 Subject: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding Message-ID: Next Wednesday, March 14, there will be a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on NARA's FY2008 budget during which the issue of NHPRC funding can be raised. As was the case last year, there will be no public testimony at the hearing itself, but the Subcommittee will accept written testimony via email before the hearing. TESTIMONY MUST BE EMAILED NO LATER THAN MARCH 14. Guidelines for Providing Public Testimony on NHPRC Funding to the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Appropriations The House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, will hold a hearing on the National Archives and Records Administration and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission on Wednesday, March 14, 2007. The Subcommittee is accepting written public testimony in anticipation of that hearing. Following are some guidelines for providing testimony. Testimony should be submitted on behalf of an organization. It is important that the testimony is submitted by the most senior member of the organization. For example, for a university archives, it is best to have the archives director - or ideally the university president or dean to whom the archives reports - submit the testimony. For state archives, consider submission by the State Archivist or the head of a larger department to which the archives reports. Although letters from individuals (ie, not on behalf of an organization) are valuable, these should be directed to the individual members of the subcommittee rather than submitted as public testimony. How to submit testimony. Written testimony should be concise and focused on the issue. It should not exceed the equivalent of four single-spaced, typed pages (two pages would be ideal), and should be in 12-point type. Testimony can be submitted in writing via email to: nadine.berg at mail.house.gov. The testimony must be submitted prior to the start of the hearing on Wednesday, March 14. What to include in your testimony: * At the top of the page indicate your name, title, and institutional affiliation. * In the first paragraph state the agency, program, and amount of money involved in the request [National Archives, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, $5.5 million in competitive grants, $2 million for program administration] * Explain the mission/purpose of your organization, its geographical coverage if relevant, and membership or service numbers. * Explain why NHPRC is of value to your organization and your constituents. Stress positive benefits to users, society, government, democracy. Note what will be lost if NHPRC is not funded. * Provide arguments about why NHPRC provides unique services and benefits that no other agency offers. * Thank the Subcommittee for its attention to this issue. More background on NHPRC at www.archives.gov/nhprc _____________________ Mark E. Harvey, State Archivist Archives of Michigan 702 W. Kalamazoo Box 30740 Lansing, MI 48909-8240 Ph: 517.373.1415 Cell: 517.331.0597 Fax: 517.241.1658 E-mail: harveym at mi.gov URL: www.michigan.gov/archivesofmi Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. From HarveyM at michigan.gov Fri Mar 9 16:50:30 2007 From: HarveyM at michigan.gov (Mark Harvey) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:50:30 -0500 Subject: [Maa-l] NHPRC Correction Message-ID: Whoops! This is even more recent from the president of the state archivists group: The material that accompanied the package suggested asking for $5.5 million in grant funds plus $2 million for administrative costs (which is what NHPRC received during the last fiscal year). In consultation with our colleagues at SAA, NAGARA, and the National Coalition for History, we would like to amend that advice and recommend that we all ask for the fully authorized level of $10 million for grants plus $2 million for administration. An updated version of this "call to action" package plus materials that you may find useful in preparing your testimony are available at http://savearchives.pbwiki.com/ We apologize for any confusion this may have caused and know that we can count on you to support restored funding for NHPRC. From mrobyns at nmu.edu Fri Mar 16 09:42:23 2007 From: mrobyns at nmu.edu (Robyns, Marcus) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings, MAA List! I am wonder if we might have a discussion concerning continued funding of the NHPRC. I have always been a staunch supporter of the NHPRC; commission funding helped establish my former and current jobs (City of Portland, Oregon, and NMU), so I am indebted to the commission. I am also an NHPRC grant recipient. However, an experience with my previous NHPRC grant and comments from colleagues have made me begin to wonder. As many of you know, I am a staunch and vocal opponent of EAD, and I am particularly appalled at the millions our profession has squandered on the DTD while so many more immediate and pressing issues remain unresolved. When I applied for my NHPRC grant (an arrangement and description project), I initially included EAD as part of the descriptive component (knowing this would help the grant's prospects). I also included a MARC record for our OPAC and a standard inventory for the total finding aid package. The MSHRAB thought EAD was too much and recommended dropping it from the application. I did so. The application went to NHPRC and they immediately asked why I had not included EAD and basically implied I would not get funding without it, so I put it back in and got the grant. A few weeks later, I sent queries to the Archives and Archivist List asking if anyone had experience or data concerning how well EAD served patron access and indicated my general concern and doubt about EAD. Well, big brother was watching, and I soon received a letter from NHPRC asking if I was considering dropping EAD from the grant project and informing me that doing so would be a violation of the agreement and I could possibly lose funding. Not wanting to lose the grant, I obsequiously wrote back (in a panic) that I had no intention of dropping EAD. Needless to say, the experience left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. In my opinion, the experience serves as evidence to suggest that a small minority of people in our profession (EAD proponents) have hijacked our most important institutions (SAA, NHPRC, LC, etc) in order to impose their particular agenda on the rest of us, thereby diverting much needed funds away from more pressing problems and putting our profession's energy and brain power into something that only a very small percentage of archival repositories can use. As most of you also know, I am an equally staunch opponent of the Bush Administration and do not wish to be seen as supporting one of their policies; however, I wonder if this might be a good time to bring the NHPRC under some serious review. What are your thoughts? --Marcus Marcus C. Robyns, CA Associate Professor / University Archivist Northern Michigan University mrobyns at nmu.edu 906.227.1046 FAX 906.227.1333 -----Original Message----- From: maa-l-bounces+mrobyns=nmu.edu at lists.dhal.org [mailto:maa-l-bounces+mrobyns=nmu.edu at lists.dhal.org] On Behalf Of Mark Harvey Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:37 PM To: maa-l at lists.dhal.org Subject: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding Next Wednesday, March 14, there will be a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on NARA's FY2008 budget during which the issue of NHPRC funding can be raised. As was the case last year, there will be no public testimony at the hearing itself, but the Subcommittee will accept written testimony via email before the hearing. TESTIMONY MUST BE EMAILED NO LATER THAN MARCH 14. Guidelines for Providing Public Testimony on NHPRC Funding to the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Appropriations The House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, will hold a hearing on the National Archives and Records Administration and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission on Wednesday, March 14, 2007. The Subcommittee is accepting written public testimony in anticipation of that hearing. Following are some guidelines for providing testimony. Testimony should be submitted on behalf of an organization. It is important that the testimony is submitted by the most senior member of the organization. For example, for a university archives, it is best to have the archives director - or ideally the university president or dean to whom the archives reports - submit the testimony. For state archives, consider submission by the State Archivist or the head of a larger department to which the archives reports. Although letters from individuals (ie, not on behalf of an organization) are valuable, these should be directed to the individual members of the subcommittee rather than submitted as public testimony. How to submit testimony. Written testimony should be concise and focused on the issue. It should not exceed the equivalent of four single-spaced, typed pages (two pages would be ideal), and should be in 12-point type. Testimony can be submitted in writing via email to: nadine.berg at mail.house.gov. The testimony must be submitted prior to the start of the hearing on Wednesday, March 14. What to include in your testimony: * At the top of the page indicate your name, title, and institutional affiliation. * In the first paragraph state the agency, program, and amount of money involved in the request [National Archives, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, $5.5 million in competitive grants, $2 million for program administration] * Explain the mission/purpose of your organization, its geographical coverage if relevant, and membership or service numbers. * Explain why NHPRC is of value to your organization and your constituents. Stress positive benefits to users, society, government, democracy. Note what will be lost if NHPRC is not funded. * Provide arguments about why NHPRC provides unique services and benefits that no other agency offers. * Thank the Subcommittee for its attention to this issue. More background on NHPRC at www.archives.gov/nhprc _____________________ Mark E. Harvey, State Archivist Archives of Michigan 702 W. Kalamazoo Box 30740 Lansing, MI 48909-8240 Ph: 517.373.1415 Cell: 517.331.0597 Fax: 517.241.1658 E-mail: harveym at mi.gov URL: www.michigan.gov/archivesofmi Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. _______________________________________________ Maa-l mailing list Maa-l at lists.dhal.org http://lists.dhal.org/mailman/listinfo/maa-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.dhal.org/pipermail/maa-l/attachments/20070316/167ba094/attachment.html From boles1fj at cmich.edu Fri Mar 16 11:31:20 2007 From: boles1fj at cmich.edu (Boles, Frank J.) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Marcus: The real answer to your question is that the proponents of EAD have been persuasive in arguing their case within professional circles and the grant agencies are following "best practice" guidelines, which include EAD. The problem, my friend, is that the opponents of EAD (and I'm not a big fan) have not been terribly effective in arguing against it, or for some other option.. Time to pull out your pen (out of the ice, Marcus, you know the stuff that covers NMU about 9 months out of the year!) and write the persuasive and definitive "why EAD stinks" article. That is what it will take to move NHRPC and the other grant making agencies away from EAD, or at least to start questioning it. I think seriously questioning the role of NHRPC simply because they've bought into EAD is unwise. I can think of several components of NHRPC (or for that matter NEH, MHC, MCACA, and others) that I would like changed in a perfect world (that being one where I get to make all the rules) but in a less than perfect world I think the good these agencies do far outweighs whatever annoyances all of us might have over specific procedures and requirements that we personally find burdensome or just plain stupid. Frank Boles Ps. Trust me Marcus, I'd accuse you of a lot of things, but agreeing with George Bush is not one of them. ________________________________ From: maa-l-bounces+boles1fj=cmich.edu at lists.dhal.org [mailto:maa-l-bounces+boles1fj=cmich.edu at lists.dhal.org] On Behalf Of Robyns, Marcus Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:42 AM To: maa-l at lists.dhal.org Subject: Re: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding Greetings, MAA List! I am wonder if we might have a discussion concerning continued funding of the NHPRC. I have always been a staunch supporter of the NHPRC; commission funding helped establish my former and current jobs (City of Portland, Oregon, and NMU), so I am indebted to the commission. I am also an NHPRC grant recipient. However, an experience with my previous NHPRC grant and comments from colleagues have made me begin to wonder. As many of you know, I am a staunch and vocal opponent of EAD, and I am particularly appalled at the millions our profession has squandered on the DTD while so many more immediate and pressing issues remain unresolved. When I applied for my NHPRC grant (an arrangement and description project), I initially included EAD as part of the descriptive component (knowing this would help the grant's prospects). I also included a MARC record for our OPAC and a standard inventory for the total finding aid package. The MSHRAB thought EAD was too much and recommended dropping it from the application. I did so. The application went to NHPRC and they immediately asked why I had not included EAD and basically implied I would not get funding without it, so I put it back in and got the grant. A few weeks later, I sent queries to the Archives and Archivist List asking if anyone had experience or data concerning how well EAD served patron access and indicated my general concern and doubt about EAD. Well, big brother was watching, and I soon received a letter from NHPRC asking if I was considering dropping EAD from the grant project and informing me that doing so would be a violation of the agreement and I could possibly lose funding. Not wanting to lose the grant, I obsequiously wrote back (in a panic) that I had no intention of dropping EAD. Needless to say, the experience left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. In my opinion, the experience serves as evidence to suggest that a small minority of people in our profession (EAD proponents) have hijacked our most important institutions (SAA, NHPRC, LC, etc) in order to impose their particular agenda on the rest of us, thereby diverting much needed funds away from more pressing problems and putting our profession's energy and brain power into something that only a very small percentage of archival repositories can use. As most of you also know, I am an equally staunch opponent of the Bush Administration and do not wish to be seen as supporting one of their policies; however, I wonder if this might be a good time to bring the NHPRC under some serious review. What are your thoughts? --Marcus Marcus C. Robyns, CA Associate Professor / University Archivist Northern Michigan University mrobyns at nmu.edu 906.227.1046 FAX 906.227.1333 -----Original Message----- From: maa-l-bounces+mrobyns=nmu.edu at lists.dhal.org [mailto:maa-l-bounces+mrobyns=nmu.edu at lists.dhal.org] On Behalf Of Mark Harvey Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:37 PM To: maa-l at lists.dhal.org Subject: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding Next Wednesday, March 14, there will be a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on NARA's FY2008 budget during which the issue of NHPRC funding can be raised. As was the case last year, there will be no public testimony at the hearing itself, but the Subcommittee will accept written testimony via email before the hearing. TESTIMONY MUST BE EMAILED NO LATER THAN MARCH 14. Guidelines for Providing Public Testimony on NHPRC Funding to the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Appropriations The House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, will hold a hearing on the National Archives and Records Administration and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission on Wednesday, March 14, 2007. The Subcommittee is accepting written public testimony in anticipation of that hearing. Following are some guidelines for providing testimony. Testimony should be submitted on behalf of an organization. It is important that the testimony is submitted by the most senior member of the organization. For example, for a university archives, it is best to have the archives director - or ideally the university president or dean to whom the archives reports - submit the testimony. For state archives, consider submission by the State Archivist or the head of a larger department to which the archives reports. Although letters from individuals (ie, not on behalf of an organization) are valuable, these should be directed to the individual members of the subcommittee rather than submitted as public testimony. How to submit testimony. Written testimony should be concise and focused on the issue. It should not exceed the equivalent of four single-spaced, typed pages (two pages would be ideal), and should be in 12-point type. Testimony can be submitted in writing via email to: nadine.berg at mail.house.gov. The testimony must be submitted prior to the start of the hearing on Wednesday, March 14. What to include in your testimony: * At the top of the page indicate your name, title, and institutional affiliation. * In the first paragraph state the agency, program, and amount of money involved in the request [National Archives, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, $5.5 million in competitive grants, $2 million for program administration] * Explain the mission/purpose of your organization, its geographical coverage if relevant, and membership or service numbers. * Explain why NHPRC is of value to your organization and your constituents. Stress positive benefits to users, society, government, democracy. Note what will be lost if NHPRC is not funded. * Provide arguments about why NHPRC provides unique services and benefits that no other agency offers. * Thank the Subcommittee for its attention to this issue. More background on NHPRC at www.archives.gov/nhprc _____________________ Mark E. Harvey, State Archivist Archives of Michigan 702 W. Kalamazoo Box 30740 Lansing, MI 48909-8240 Ph: 517.373.1415 Cell: 517.331.0597 Fax: 517.241.1658 E-mail: harveym at mi.gov URL: www.michigan.gov/archivesofmi Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. _______________________________________________ Maa-l mailing list Maa-l at lists.dhal.org http://lists.dhal.org/mailman/listinfo/maa-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.dhal.org/pipermail/maa-l/attachments/20070316/f2cf7988/attachment-0001.html From mrobyns at nmu.edu Fri Mar 16 13:03:54 2007 From: mrobyns at nmu.edu (Robyns, Marcus) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:03:54 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings: I agree with Frank, we should not question the efficacy of NHPRC solely because of EAD. My point was to suggest that EAD's dominance in NHPRC points to a structural problem with the commission that would allow a vocal minority to achieve such influence. I would disagree, however, with Frank's contention that opponents of EAD have not offered alternatives. The recent effort by Chris Prom with Archon (www.archon.org ) is one example. I would also argue that we don't need an alternative to current "best practice" in archival description (but that's another issue). EAD is simply a superfluous and expensive distraction - far, far removed from "best practice." Still, Frank's point is well taken that those of us opposed to EAD (or any other unnecessary and elitist proposal offered from on high) must proactively engage the profession by providing construct alternatives. If and when my pen ever thaws, I'll see what I can do. --Marcus Marcus C. Robyns, CA Associate Professor / University Archivist Northern Michigan University mrobyns at nmu.edu 906.227.1046 FAX 906.227.1333 ________________________________ From: maa-l-bounces+mrobyns=nmu.edu at lists.dhal.org [mailto:maa-l-bounces+mrobyns=nmu.edu at lists.dhal.org] On Behalf Of Boles, Frank J. Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:31 AM To: maa-l at lists.dhal.org Subject: Re: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding Marcus: The real answer to your question is that the proponents of EAD have been persuasive in arguing their case within professional circles and the grant agencies are following "best practice" guidelines, which include EAD. The problem, my friend, is that the opponents of EAD (and I'm not a big fan) have not been terribly effective in arguing against it, or for some other option.. Time to pull out your pen (out of the ice, Marcus, you know the stuff that covers NMU about 9 months out of the year!) and write the persuasive and definitive "why EAD stinks" article. That is what it will take to move NHRPC and the other grant making agencies away from EAD, or at least to start questioning it. I think seriously questioning the role of NHRPC simply because they've bought into EAD is unwise. I can think of several components of NHRPC (or for that matter NEH, MHC, MCACA, and others) that I would like changed in a perfect world (that being one where I get to make all the rules) but in a less than perfect world I think the good these agencies do far outweighs whatever annoyances all of us might have over specific procedures and requirements that we personally find burdensome or just plain stupid. Frank Boles Ps. Trust me Marcus, I'd accuse you of a lot of things, but agreeing with George Bush is not one of them. ________________________________ From: maa-l-bounces+boles1fj=cmich.edu at lists.dhal.org [mailto:maa-l-bounces+boles1fj=cmich.edu at lists.dhal.org] On Behalf Of Robyns, Marcus Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:42 AM To: maa-l at lists.dhal.org Subject: Re: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding Greetings, MAA List! I am wonder if we might have a discussion concerning continued funding of the NHPRC. I have always been a staunch supporter of the NHPRC; commission funding helped establish my former and current jobs (City of Portland, Oregon, and NMU), so I am indebted to the commission. I am also an NHPRC grant recipient. However, an experience with my previous NHPRC grant and comments from colleagues have made me begin to wonder. As many of you know, I am a staunch and vocal opponent of EAD, and I am particularly appalled at the millions our profession has squandered on the DTD while so many more immediate and pressing issues remain unresolved. When I applied for my NHPRC grant (an arrangement and description project), I initially included EAD as part of the descriptive component (knowing this would help the grant's prospects). I also included a MARC record for our OPAC and a standard inventory for the total finding aid package. The MSHRAB thought EAD was too much and recommended dropping it from the application. I did so. The application went to NHPRC and they immediately asked why I had not included EAD and basically implied I would not get funding without it, so I put it back in and got the grant. A few weeks later, I sent queries to the Archives and Archivist List asking if anyone had experience or data concerning how well EAD served patron access and indicated my general concern and doubt about EAD. Well, big brother was watching, and I soon received a letter from NHPRC asking if I was considering dropping EAD from the grant project and informing me that doing so would be a violation of the agreement and I could possibly lose funding. Not wanting to lose the grant, I obsequiously wrote back (in a panic) that I had no intention of dropping EAD. Needless to say, the experience left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. In my opinion, the experience serves as evidence to suggest that a small minority of people in our profession (EAD proponents) have hijacked our most important institutions (SAA, NHPRC, LC, etc) in order to impose their particular agenda on the rest of us, thereby diverting much needed funds away from more pressing problems and putting our profession's energy and brain power into something that only a very small percentage of archival repositories can use. As most of you also know, I am an equally staunch opponent of the Bush Administration and do not wish to be seen as supporting one of their policies; however, I wonder if this might be a good time to bring the NHPRC under some serious review. What are your thoughts? --Marcus Marcus C. Robyns, CA Associate Professor / University Archivist Northern Michigan University mrobyns at nmu.edu 906.227.1046 FAX 906.227.1333 -----Original Message----- From: maa-l-bounces+mrobyns=nmu.edu at lists.dhal.org [mailto:maa-l-bounces+mrobyns=nmu.edu at lists.dhal.org] On Behalf Of Mark Harvey Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:37 PM To: maa-l at lists.dhal.org Subject: [Maa-l] NHPRC funding Next Wednesday, March 14, there will be a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on NARA's FY2008 budget during which the issue of NHPRC funding can be raised. As was the case last year, there will be no public testimony at the hearing itself, but the Subcommittee will accept written testimony via email before the hearing. TESTIMONY MUST BE EMAILED NO LATER THAN MARCH 14. Guidelines for Providing Public Testimony on NHPRC Funding to the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Appropriations The House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, will hold a hearing on the National Archives and Records Administration and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission on Wednesday, March 14, 2007. The Subcommittee is accepting written public testimony in anticipation of that hearing. Following are some guidelines for providing testimony. Testimony should be submitted on behalf of an organization. It is important that the testimony is submitted by the most senior member of the organization. For example, for a university archives, it is best to have the archives director - or ideally the university president or dean to whom the archives reports - submit the testimony. For state archives, consider submission by the State Archivist or the head of a larger department to which the archives reports. Although letters from individuals (ie, not on behalf of an organization) are valuable, these should be directed to the individual members of the subcommittee rather than submitted as public testimony. How to submit testimony. Written testimony should be concise and focused on the issue. It should not exceed the equivalent of four single-spaced, typed pages (two pages would be ideal), and should be in 12-point type. Testimony can be submitted in writing via email to: nadine.berg at mail.house.gov. The testimony must be submitted prior to the start of the hearing on Wednesday, March 14. What to include in your testimony: * At the top of the page indicate your name, title, and institutional affiliation. * In the first paragraph state the agency, program, and amount of money involved in the request [National Archives, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, $5.5 million in competitive grants, $2 million for program administration] * Explain the mission/purpose of your organization, its geographical coverage if relevant, and membership or service numbers. * Explain why NHPRC is of value to your organization and your constituents. Stress positive benefits to users, society, government, democracy. Note what will be lost if NHPRC is not funded. * Provide arguments about why NHPRC provides unique services and benefits that no other agency offers. * Thank the Subcommittee for its attention to this issue. More background on NHPRC at www.archives.gov/nhprc _____________________ Mark E. Harvey, State Archivist Archives of Michigan 702 W. Kalamazoo Box 30740 Lansing, MI 48909-8240 Ph: 517.373.1415 Cell: 517.331.0597 Fax: 517.241.1658 E-mail: harveym at mi.gov URL: www.michigan.gov/archivesofmi Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. _______________________________________________ Maa-l mailing list Maa-l at lists.dhal.org http://lists.dhal.org/mailman/listinfo/maa-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.dhal.org/pipermail/maa-l/attachments/20070316/17edca6f/attachment-0001.html From garrettr1 at michigan.gov Mon Mar 19 14:07:08 2007 From: garrettr1 at michigan.gov (Robert Garrett) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:07:08 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] Preservation question Message-ID: I'm on the road today. I'm visiting in my little home town in Wisconsin. My sister works in a small public library here. She knows a librarian in a neighboring town with a preservation issue. My sister asked if I could solve this, and I thought - heck, I'll just throw this out to the list. The issue: The librarian has a scrapbook of photographs. The scrapbook belonged to a member of the town's founding family and documents this family's history. The photos are beginning to deteroriate and in some cases, the emulsion is rubbing off onto the emulsion of photos on adjoining pages. So ... is there a way to preserve these photos while still maintaining the order of the scrapbook? If the librarian interleaves pages with microchamber paper (for example), then will this really prevent the emulsion from eroding? If the pages are encapsulated, then will that help, or will the emulsion just rub off onto the mylar? Does anyone have advice here? (Admittedly, I could have begun by asking co-workers at the Archives of Michigan. I'm posting this here, because I wanted to start a listserv discussion.) Bob Garrett Archives of Michigan Telephone: (517) 241-1382 E-mail: garrettr1 at michigan.gov Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. From TaylorHV at michigan.gov Tue Mar 20 08:02:41 2007 From: TaylorHV at michigan.gov (Helen Taylor) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:02:41 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] Preservation question Message-ID: Bob, I know that micro chamber paper won't do anything for photo emulsion. It just helps to absorb acid. I hope someone else has some other ideas. Helen V. Taylor Archivist Archives of Michigan 702 W. Kalamazoo Lansing, MI 48908 Ph. 517-373-1452 taylorhv at michigan.gov Michigan Historical Center >>> "Robert Garrett" 3/19/2007 2:07 PM >>> I'm on the road today. I'm visiting in my little home town in Wisconsin. My sister works in a small public library here. She knows a librarian in a neighboring town with a preservation issue. My sister asked if I could solve this, and I thought - heck, I'll just throw this out to the list. The issue: The librarian has a scrapbook of photographs. The scrapbook belonged to a member of the town's founding family and documents this family's history. The photos are beginning to deteriorate and in some cases, the emulsion is rubbing off onto the emulsion of photos on adjoining pages. So ... is there a way to preserve these photos while still maintaining the order of the scrapbook? If the librarian interleaves pages with micro chamber paper (for example), then will this really prevent the emulsion from eroding? If the pages are encapsulated, then will that help, or will the emulsion just rub off onto the Mylar? Does anyone have advice here? (Admittedly, I could have begun by asking co-workers at the Archives of Michigan. I'm posting this here, because I wanted to start a Listserv discussion.) Bob Garrett Archives of Michigan Telephone: (517) 241-1382 E-mail: garrettr1 at michigan.gov Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. _______________________________________________ Maa-l mailing list Maa-l at lists.dhal.org http://lists.dhal.org/mailman/listinfo/maa-l From millerwh at msu.edu Tue Mar 20 09:48:40 2007 From: millerwh at msu.edu (Whitney Miller) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:48:40 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] Preservation question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c76af6$77cd97d0$78c10a23@D5JF6921> Bob- I would suggest that no matter what final measures she decides to take for preservation purposes. At the very least, have her take digital pictures (which can always be printed later) of the book's pages or a digital video. That way if there is an unsuccessful preservation attempt or further deterioration occurs down the road there is a record of how it once looked. Whitney Whitney Miller MSU Archives & Historical Coll 101 Conrad Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 -----Original Message----- From: maa-l-bounces+millerwh=msu.edu at lists.dhal.org [mailto:maa-l-bounces+millerwh=msu.edu at lists.dhal.org] On Behalf Of Robert Garrett Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:07 PM To: maa-l at lists.dhal.org Subject: [Maa-l] Preservation question I'm on the road today. I'm visiting in my little home town in Wisconsin. My sister works in a small public library here. She knows a librarian in a neighboring town with a preservation issue. My sister asked if I could solve this, and I thought - heck, I'll just throw this out to the list. The issue: The librarian has a scrapbook of photographs. The scrapbook belonged to a member of the town's founding family and documents this family's history. The photos are beginning to deteroriate and in some cases, the emulsion is rubbing off onto the emulsion of photos on adjoining pages. So ... is there a way to preserve these photos while still maintaining the order of the scrapbook? If the librarian interleaves pages with microchamber paper (for example), then will this really prevent the emulsion from eroding? If the pages are encapsulated, then will that help, or will the emulsion just rub off onto the mylar? Does anyone have advice here? (Admittedly, I could have begun by asking co-workers at the Archives of Michigan. I'm posting this here, because I wanted to start a listserv discussion.) Bob Garrett Archives of Michigan Telephone: (517) 241-1382 E-mail: garrettr1 at michigan.gov Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. _______________________________________________ Maa-l mailing list Maa-l at lists.dhal.org http://lists.dhal.org/mailman/listinfo/maa-l From garrettr1 at michigan.gov Tue Mar 20 12:45:26 2007 From: garrettr1 at michigan.gov (Robert Garrett) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:45:26 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] Preservation question Message-ID: Thanks to everyone who responded. The consensus seems to be that the library should create high. res. digital scans - or at least make photocopies. Bob Garrett Archives of Michigan Telephone: (517) 241-1382 E-mail: garrettr1 at michigan.gov Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. From GarrettR1 at michigan.gov Fri Mar 23 09:37:15 2007 From: GarrettR1 at michigan.gov (Robert Garrett) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:37:15 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] On the History Channel... Message-ID: On Saturday, March 24, at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the History Channel will air FULL METAL CORSET: SECRET SOLDIERS OF THE CIVIL WAR. This one-hour program focuses on two female Civil War soldiers. One is Sarah Emma Edmonds of Michigan. Archives of Michigan sources were used in researching Edmonds' story. For more information on the program, see this listing from the History Channel's web site: http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=218239 Bob Garrett Archives of Michigan Telephone: (517) 241-1382 E-mail: garrettr1 at michigan.gov Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org. From ac8756 at wayne.edu Fri Mar 23 10:16:56 2007 From: ac8756 at wayne.edu (Brecque Keith) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] MAC 2007 Attendees to share transportation? Message-ID: Hi all, I'm looking for others attending MAC who would like to carpool. My plan is to arrive Tuesday night to attend the ARMA Columbus Chapter seminar, and to leave early Saturday morning. Is anyone else planning to attend the pre-conference workshop? Please reply to my email address as you have a chance. Have a great weekend! Brecque -- Brecque Keith, University Archivist Walter P. Reuther Library of Labor and Urban Affairs Wayne State University PH: 313.577.9894 From garrettr1 at michigan.gov Wed Mar 28 21:51:55 2007 From: garrettr1 at michigan.gov (Robert Garrett) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:51:55 -0400 Subject: [Maa-l] Open Entry is On Its Way! Message-ID: I just wanted to note that I mailed out the Open Entry copies today. MAA members opting to receive hard copies should receive it within the next week. Those opting for the electronic version should have received theirs already. There's no question that that method is faster. Electronic subscribers also get to see the newsletter in glorious color! Some might wonder if we're behind schedule. Technically, no. It is our Spring issue, and it's only been Spring for a week. I will confess, though, that I hoped for a shorter turnaround time. This was my first issue as Editor, and the printing was moved from Dearborn to Lansing. That resulted in a few bumps. I hope to have those all ironed out with the next issue, which is scheduled for Autumn. I hope you all enjoy the latest Open Entry. I certainly enjoyed putting it together. Bob Garrett Archives of Michigan Telephone: (517) 241-1382 E-mail: garrettr1 at michigan.gov Discover your connections to Women's History Month, March 1-31, at the Archives of Michigan and the Michigan Historical Center: www.michiganhistory.org.