Tag: records management

“Far-reaching impacts”: Why the closure of NARA’s Seattle facility still matters

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. The following is from Burkely Hermann, recent graduate of the University of Maryland – College Park’s graduate program in Library and Information Science, with a concentration in Archives and Digital Curation.

Back on February 18, I wrote about the closure of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)’s Seattle facility, NAS for short. Recently this issue came to the fore with the publication of an article by Megan E. Llewellyn and Sarah A. Buchanan titled “Will the Last Archivist in Seattle Please Turn Out the Lights: Value and the National Archives” in the Journal of Western Archives.

The NAS facility is key to many different communities. The official page for the facility specifically highlights information they hold about Chinese immigrants and indigenous affairs, along with land records, court records, and genealogical resources. This includes tribal and treaty records of indigenous people living in the Pacific Northwest, and original case files for Chinese immigrants in the 19th century. Volunteers have been trying to index the Chinese immigrant files and create an “extensive database of family history.” This will be interrupted if the files are moved, making the database incomplete.

The NAS facility itself has regional significance. The property the facility sits on was once the location of  a prospering farm owned by Japanese immigrant Uyeji family from 1910 to 1942. [1] These immigrants were evicted from their land during World War II and put into concentration camps, like the over 120,000 Japanese Americans. The immigrant Uyeji family never returned to their home, and the land was seized by the U.S. Navy in 1945, after it had been condemned in earlier years, in order to build a warehouse. [2] The warehouse was later converted into a facility and began to be occupied by the National Archives after 1963. This transfer of ownership intersected with the history of Seattle’s development which benefited White people above those of other races, from 1923 onward.

There is more to be considered. As Llewellyn and Buchanan argue in the Journal of Western Archives, the closure of NAS is harmful, a failure at “multiple levels of government,” and was made without considering how valuable marginalized communities in the area see the records held at the facility. [3] 58,000 cubic feet are permanent records of federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest, while 6,600 cubic feet are occupied by records from the Bureau of Indian Affairs alone. [4] Neither should be destroyed per NARA guidance. This amount of cubic feet is equivalent to about 1,871 side-by-side refrigerators or about 1,234 top-mount refrigerators. [5] No matter how the size is measured, the NAS facility is well-used, as is its digital resources, by Asian-Americans, indigenous people, and various researchers. [6] Some indigenous people even called the closure and movement of records to other locations a “paper genocide.” As Bob Ferguson, the Washington State Attorney General, stated in February, moving the records from the NAS facility, to states such as California and Missouri, contradicts the purpose of the archives and impedes efforts by local families to research their ancestors.

There are other problems with the closure. Llewellyn and Buchanan pointed out, for one, the errors in the Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB)’s assessment to close the facility, noting the significant level of foot traffic, the lack of public hearings on the closure, and NARA management agreeing with the decision to close. [7] There is also  concern that not all the records held at the NAS facility could be digitized. Some news outlets, like MyNorthwest, have rightly pointed out that large items like bound books and maps might not be “properly scanned” or digitized at all. Llewellyn and Buchanan further note the involved process of digitization, and extra costs researchers will have to pay if the records from the NAS facility are moved. [8]

Readers may be asking what can be done about the closure. Now is not the time to sit back and let the Washington State government to the heavy lifting, nor the Seattle media. In the latter case, the Seattle Times opined against the decision to close the NAS facility. In the case of Washington State, Ferguson, mentioned earlier, proposed a compromise to keep the regional facility of NARA in Washington State, worrying, like others, of the prospect of losing access to “over a century of history.” But his noble efforts have been for naught. The closure is on track, with NARA justifying it based on experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the agency will be “less location dependent” in the future, with users accessing resources remotely rather than in-person. On the legal front, in August, Ferguson filed federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for public records against NARA, the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), and the General Services Administration (GSA). He also requested documents from the PBRB the same month. He stated that NARA and OMB failed to respond to requests he made in early February, while the GSA has not sent records it promised in the summer of this year. The PBRB, on the other hand, wanted taxpayers to pay about $65,000 to redact information from documents even though no sensitive information is present, as stated in various articles in the Seattle Times, HeraldNet, and Seattle Weekly. These efforts will likely go forward as Ferguson won the race to be the Attorney General of Washington State against Republican challenger Matt Larkin.

In the short-term, readers should email the OMB Director Russell Vought at Russell.t.vought@omb.eop.gov, the GSA Administrator Emily Murphy at emily.murphy@gsa.gov, Archivist David Ferriero at David.Ferriero@nara.gov, and the PBRB at fastainfo@pbrb.gov, opposing the closure of the NAS facility. Currently, the NAS facility has not been listed by the GSA for sale, whether on its database of real property or its database displaying federal properties being auctioned off. While COVID-19 makes the push for more remote learning attractive, it is still possible and vital to open in-person facilities, in line with existing rules and regulations to ensure the safety of the staff and patrons at specific facilities. In the long-term, if the NAS facility is closed, it could put other NARA facilities in jeopardy, as Llewellyn and Buchanan point out. [9] At the same time, archivists should advocate for a “massive investment in time, money, and planning” to digitize more of NARA’s holdings, as the aforementioned scholars argue for, [10] with not even 1% digitized at the present! Whether the facility is closed or not, there are dark times ahead for NARA, as less government spending may be on the horizon, unless the proposed budget for NARA is approved by the House of Representatives and Senate.

Notes

[1] Llewellyn, Megan E., and Sarah A. Buchanan, “Will the Last Archivist in Seattle Please Turn Out the Lights: Value and the National Archives and the National Archives,” Journal of Western Archives 11, no. 1 (October 12, 2020): 7, https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=westernarchives.  

[2] Llewellyn and Buchanan, 7-9.

[3] Ibid, 3-4.

[4] Ibid, 4-5.

[5] Karie Lapham Fay, “Dimensions of a Standard Size Refrigerator,” SFGate, December 17, 2018, https://homeguides.sfgate.com/dimensions-standard-size-refrigerator-82262.html. I used the largest size of a side-by-side refrigerator (31 cubic feet) and largest size of a top-mount refrigerator is 47 cubic feet when using the highest numbers in Fay’s article.

[6] Llewellyn and Buchanan,  5-6.

[7] Ibid, 11-17.

[8] Ibid, 17-19.

[9] Ibid, 24-25.

[10] Ibid, 21.

by Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

News Highlights: 2018 May

The I&A News Monitoring Research Team has compiled this list of recent news stories relating to archives, archivists, archival issues, and archival representations. This list was curated by SAA Issues & Advocacy News Monitoring Team, which includes Dana Bronson, Rachel Cohen, Samantha Cross, Shaun Hayes, and Beth Nevarez; it is managed by Steve Duckworth. More links and information are available in this month’s Google doc.

 

Acquisition, Preservation, & Access

Archival Finds & Stories

Exhibits & Museums

Human & Civil Rights, Equality, & Health

Security & Privacy

The Profession

by Categories: Research PostTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

END OF YEAR STEERING SHARE: Tales of an Engaged Archivist

Steering Shares are an opportunity to find out more about the I&A Steering Committee. This year-end post is from I&A Steering Committee member Laurel Bowen, University Archivist at Georgia State University.

What is an example of an elevator pitch you have used concerning your own archives, and who was the audience?

As a university archivist, one of my most important constituencies is the university’s administration.  In soliciting records and selling our services, we let administrative staff know that:

The Archives can enhance your effectiveness by helping you find and use records that address your most pressing needs.  We work hard to respond in a timely and thorough way to your priorities.  Sometimes the results may surprise you.

Here is an example of one request.  The President’s Office wanted Board of Regents support to obtain state funding to build a new classroom building.

Kell_Hall
Kell Hall, Georgia State University, courtesy of Georgia State University Archives, Atlanta

The Archives quickly provided information about the large classroom building the university wanted to replace:

  • We acquired it in 1946.
  • It was built as a parking garage (ramps are still there).
  • It was originally “renovated” for classroom use using World War II surplus.
  • In addition to its primary use as a parking garage, it also housed a grill, a cotton warehouse, and a sawmill.

Certainly not an adequate environment for 21st century teaching and learning! The Board of Regents, which oversees more than thirty public educational institutions, made the university’s request its top facilities priority that year, and the state provided the funding.

What controversial item or collection have you had to deal with in your career?

In a previous position, I was responsible for the papers of a number of state and national political leaders.  Managing the collections of incumbents was challenging because, during every election cycle, opponents would try to gain access to those papers.  The innovative subterfuges they employed always made us cautious when political papers arrived.

One day a number of bankers boxes were delivered.  Markings indicated their use as evidence in legal proceedings.  These were the papers of a well-known state official.  In addition to the expected speeches and correspondence were a variety of financial records relating to his businesses, income tax returns, campaign finances, state vendor contracts, and race track investments.  Boxes of photos included friendly images of the official with his personal secretary.  Additional boxes concerned the settlement of his estate–names of some prominent people appeared there.

What was this?  Apparently, after the man’s unexpected death midway through his second term, a large amount of cash was discovered in the hotel room he routinely occupied in town.  A substantial liquor cache was also found.  (Remnants of neither remained in the collection—we checked carefully.)  On further inquiry, we heard the official was popular, folksy, and powerful:  people often came up to greet him, shaking his hand and simultaneously depositing little tokens of appreciation in his pocket.  He stored his growing collection in various sized containers in his hotel room closet.

How did we handle the situation?  After years of investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and the subsequent litigation, we decided anything controversial had already been well aired.  The collection opened for research without any restrictions.  (N.B.  The IRS recovered $1.5 million.)

What should archivists focus on in the future?

“Change only happens when ordinary people get involved, and they get engaged, and they come together to demand it.”

Archivists should be active in the civic arena, advising and even advocating on issues that have a records-related component.  Are elected officials creating and maintaining records documenting their decisions as they act on our behalf?  Do they provide timely access to those records when requested?  Are police body cameras  public records?  Are lives endangered by unwieldy records-keeping systems and laws limiting effective access to records?

Archivists who interact only with other archivists are preaching to the choir.  We need to be stepping out and engaging fully with neighbors and fellow citizens on issues that matter to us.  David Gracy’s “archives and society” initiative encouraged us to define the value of archives and archivists to society.  Rand Jimerson convinced us of the power of archives, enabling us to be bold in using familiar tools to effect meaningful change.  Kathleen Roe urges us to become expert at telling the stories that demonstrate how archives changed lives.

Archivists need to not only tell the stories, but create stories in our own communities.  We have the skills.  When is the last time your neighbors or a public official wanted to know, after seeing you in action, “What kind of profession are you in?”

by Categories: Steering ShareTags: , , , , , 1 Comment

Police-Worn Body Camera Footage: A Public Record? Part 2

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. If you have an issue you would like to write about for this blog series or a previous post that you would like to respond to, please email archivesissues@gmail.com. Please note that opinions expressed in Archivists on the Issues posts do not indicate an official stance of SAA or the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable.

This post, written by Rachel Mattson, is part two in a two-part series regarding the debate regarding police body-camera footage’s classification as a public record. Part 1 is available here.

BWCs: The Wild West of Records Requests
Requestors seeking access to police-worn body camera footage nationwide have encountered a diversity of other obstacles. Indeed, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) recently called police body cam footage “the Wild West of open records requests,” noting that obtaining access to these records “is proving to be an uncertain and challenging endeavor.”[1] One justification that agencies often use for the withholding of footage is its sensitive nature. BWC footage raises serious concerns about privacy, security, and confidentiality. But as RCFP’s Adam Marshall notes—and as video archivists who work with human rights documentation have long known—there exists a wide range of tech and policy strategies that can make video available to the public while protecting individual privacy and security.[2]

Possibly the greatest threat to the public’s ability to access BWC going forward may be the efforts currently underway in many states to pass legislation that would exempt BWC footage from public records laws. In July 2016, North Carolina made national news when governor Pat McCrory signed a bill declaring that “body camera and dash camera footage are not public record[s].” Similar bills are currently being considered in Michigan, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Louisiana, and California, among other states. In Utah, one lawmaker has even proposed a bill that would officially classify all footage as “a private government record” if it depicts any “images of nudity, death, or gruesome events.” Who determines if an image is gruesome? “Something’s gruesome if police say it is.”[3]

In the view of many observers, access to police BWC footage, especially of fatal police shootings, is “crucial” to both “the public’s ability to hold police responsible for their conduct” and officers’ ability to exonerate themselves when wrongly accused of misconduct.[4] And the potential privacy and security concerns that these records raise remain separate from the question of whether these videos should be officially classified as public records. Indeed, many confidential and sensitive records, including federal intelligence records, are classified as public records under law. Body camera footage is not more sensitive than these kinds of records, and should not treated as such.[5]

It may be the case, as several activist groups have claimed, that equipping the police with cameras is the wrong strategy for addressing the larger problems of police accountability and racial justice. A broad base of community and activist groups have critiqued the practice of equipping police with BWCs. For instance, We Charge Genocide, a Chicago-based group working toward restorative justice solutions for police misconduct, suggests that “when police control the cameras, those cameras are at the service of police violence.” In fact, they observe that one body camera manufacturer “actually uses the slogan ‘Made by Cops for Cops. Prove Your Truth.’” The recent “Vision for Black Lives” Statement put forth by the Movement for Black Lives likewise includes a demand to “End the Use of Technologies that Criminalize and Target Our Communities (Including IMSI Catchers, Drones, Body Cameras, and Predictive Policing Software).”[6]

Nonetheless, the calls for and deployment of police-worn body cameras increase every day. As more local policing agencies equip officers with BWCs, we have a responsibility to engage with challenges that these government-generated records present. Indeed, as professional archivists and records managers, some of us may soon manage BWC footage as part of our official responsibilities. As we have learned recently, making this video a public record will not in-and-of-itself put an end to police murder of black and brown people. In order for that to occur, access to documentation will have to be coupled with mechanisms that make it possible to hold public servants accountable for their actions. But for BWC footage to be used in the pursuit of accountability and justice, it has to be a public record first. [7]

SAA and BWCs
This fall, I will work to start a conversation about BWCs among SAA members and hope to put forth proposal to the Society of American Archivists’ Committee on Public Policy (COPP) that SAA take a public stand supporting policies that, at a minimum, ensure that police BWC footage be officially classified as a public record.[8] I hope you’ll support—or join!—this conversation and effort. On its main webpage, COPP heralds the power of archival records to “ensure the protection of citizens’ rights, the accountability of organizations and governments, and the accessibility of historical information,” noting that the SAA “believes that archivists must take an active role in advocating for the public policies and resources necessary to ensure that these records are preserved and made accessible.” As BWCs gain widespread usage by U.S. police departments, the footage they generate will become an ever-more pervasive part of the criminal justice system. Ensuring that videos remain public records is something that, as an archival organization committed to “the public’s right to equal and equitable access to government information found in archives,” we should support wholeheartedly.[9]

Rachel Mattson is a Brooklyn-based historian and archivist. She currently works as the Manager of Special Projects in the Archives of La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club and is a core member of the XFR Collective. She previously volunteered for I-Witness Video, a group that used citizen video and archival strategies to oppose police misconduct. Mattson holds a PhD in U.S. History from NYU and an MLIS from UIUC. Her writing has appeared in publications including Radical History Review, the Scholar and the Feminist, Movement Research Performance Journal, and in books published by Routledge, Washington Square, and Thread Makes Blanket Press.

Citations
[1] Adam Marshall, “Police Bodycam Videos: The Wild West of Open Records Requests,” rcfp.org/bodycam-video-access.
[2] Marshall, “Police Bodycam Videos: The Wild West of Open Records Requests.”
[3] “North Carolina Keeps Public From Seeing Police Camera Video,” Winston Salem Journal, July 11, 2016; Sophia Murguia, “More States Set Privacy Restrictions on Bodycam Video,” rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/more-states-set-privacy-restrictions-bodycam-video; “Police Bodycam Footage is a Vital Public Record; Don’t Restrict It,” the Utah Standard-Examiner, February 12, 2016.
[4]“Police Bodycam Footage is a Vital Public Record; Don’t Restrict It,” Standard-Examiner.
[5] I thank Eileen Clancy for reminding me of this fact. For more on the parameters of the federal records laws, see e.g. Douglas Cox, “Burn After Viewing: The CIA’s Destruction of the Abu Zubaydah Tapes and the Law of Federal Records,” Journal of National Security Law and Policy, Vol. 5, 2011, pp. 131-177.
[6] We Charge Genocide, “Statement on Cops and Cameras,” http://wechargegenocide.org/statement-on-cops-and-cameras; The Movement for Black Lives, “A Vision for Black Lives, Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom and Justice,” policy.m4bl.org/end-war-on-black-people/. See also Caruso, Burns, and Converse, “Slow Motion Increases Perceived Intent,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (33) May 2016, pnas.org/content/113/33/9250.full; and Williams et al., “Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?” New York Times, April 1, 2016.
[7] For a critical analysis of the complexity of the issues at hand and the kind of work that needs to be done to address them, see Kimberle Crenshaw and Andrea Ritchie’s indispensible report, “Say Her Name: Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women,” African American Policy Forum, 2015.
[8] The proposal is currently in development. If you wish to contribute or add your name to the list of supporters, please email keepbwcfpublic [at] gmail [dot] com.
[9] SAA Public Policy Agenda, archivists.org/advocacy/publicpolicy/saapublicpolicyagenda#.V6UTso7OlqA; Committee on Public Policy webpage, archivists.org/groups/committee-on-public-policy#.V6Y3N47OlqB

by Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 10 Comments

The Clinton Emails and Proper Digital Records Storage

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. Below is a post from Hilary Barlow about the the Clinton email scandal and government digital record storage. If you have an issue you would like to write about for this blog series or a previous post that you would like to respond to, please email archivesissues@gmail.com. Please note that opinions expressed in Archivists on the Issues posts do not indicate an official stance of SAA or the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable.

As Hillary Clinton is now the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, it’s worth remembering that her issues with email are part of the federal government’s checkered history with proper digital record storage. As Secretary of State, Clinton was not the first federal official to hide emails in a private server. In 2007, it came to light the Bush Administration officials did the same thing, with Karl Rove et al holding the bag. But Hillary Clinton’s emails shouldn’t just be a Republican talking point. Even if she isn’t the first, her blatant abuse of proper records practices, along with the inability or disinclination of others to sanction her actions, are a discouraging portent for the future of digital recordkeeping in the highest echelons of American government.

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey revealed that, while he found that Clinton had sent and received confidential information via her private email server, he was not recommending that she be indicted by the Department of Justice. On July 12, Attorney General Loretta Lynch backed Comey’s recommendation. Details about Clinton’s record-keeping practices were already troubling, more specifics have come to light.

It first became apparent that Clinton was using a private email account in March 2013, when a hacker accessed the email of her aide Sidney Blumenthal. The existence of the account received wider attention in the summer of 2014 when the House Select Committee on Benghazi realized that there were no official emails belonging to Clinton in State Department records. Since then, the emails have been a target for anti-Clinton Republicans and an election talking point.

Clinton turned over around 30,000 emails to the State Department in December 2014. Comey revealed on July 5 that many e-mails were lost in transfers from old to new servers, and that his team uncovered e-mails outside of the surrendered 30,000 that had either been lost in those transfers or deleted. Clinton has claimed the deleted emails were personal, which may be true, but since they were taken out of official recordkeeping channels completely history will never know for certain. The provenance of Clinton’s State Department emails is complicated to say the least and permanently so.

In March of 2015, the SAA issued a statement expressing concern at the use of non-governmental e-mails by government officials in general and Clinton in particular. The Council noted 2014 amendments to the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act “to prohibit the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days.”

Though the amendments were finalized after Clinton had completed her term as Secretary of State, there have been questions about whether Clinton violated the Act as it stood during her term, as well as the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual. Comey stated during a House Oversight Committee hearing that he believed Clinton had violated the Federal Records Act, at least “in some respects.” Attorney General Loretta Lynch went a step further than Comey, stating that the Federal Records Act was not under the purview of the investigation.

As President, Clinton would be expected to abide by the 2014 amendments to the Presidential Records Act. Similar to the Federal Records Act amendments, in which government officials are expected to use an official email and forward emails to official channels within 20 days if a personal account is used, the Presidential Records Act puts the burden of compliance is specifically on the President and Vice-President.

Comey noted in his statement to the press on July 5 that while Clinton would not be prosecuted, other individuals could face “security or administrative sanctions” in similar circumstances. The heavy implication is that low-level staff are likely to face consequences that higher-level officials can avoid. This sets a troubling precedent, not only for Clinton’s likely presidential administration, but for digital recordkeeping in the federal government overall. Alongside the Bush Administration email scandal in 2007, there is a bipartisan pattern of misplaced emails. Adding the complacency of both Comey and Lynch creates an overall picture of disregard for these issues.

What can we expect from Hillary Clinton’s administration and future administrations with regard to record-keeping and overall transparency? And no, I don’t think Donald Trump would be better on any of these issues. I shudder to even think of the information practices under his administration, but regardless of who is in the White House this case will set an important precedent. Ultimately, effective documentation thrives in an environment of clear standards, consistent application and a culture of accountability. This is a systemic issue bigger than Hillary Clinton, though her role as a major presidential contender and former Secretary of State should not be underestimated. The weak responses from Comey and Lynch are alarming because of the implications for the culture of accountability in the federal government surrounding these issues, and the pattern they set for future records practices.

One would hope that the 2014 amendments to the Federal Records Act and President Records Act will spur Clinton and others to properly store records for posterity. Since Hillary Clinton has been dogged by the email issue throughout her campaign, perhaps her administration will be more attentive to digital records to avoid future scandal. Personally, I will be very interested in seeing how a Hillary Clinton administration will handle records.

Hilary Barlow earned her Master of Information degree in 2015 from the University of Toronto. She currently works as a Preservation & Digitization Technician at Penn State University.

by Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Great Advocates: Alison Stankrauff

Back in March, we asked you to nominate “Great Advocates”–SAA members who inspire you with their advocacy efforts. Thanks to your nominations, we have a fantastic slate of Great Advocates.

You are cordially invited to join I&A’s gathering at SAA in Atlanta on Friday, August 5 from 7:30-9:00 am (it’s early, but there will be donuts and coffee!) for an engaging Q&A with leaders of advocacy efforts from SAA’s recent history, reflecting on their work and the future of advocacy within SAA.

To get everyone in the advocacy spirit in these weeks leading up to SAA, we’re publishing Q&As with each of our Great Advocates (including some who won’t be able to join us on August 5th).

To submit questions for the in-person session and follow the event, please tweet at @archivesissues using #GreatAdvocates or email archivesissues [at] gmail [dot] com.

Once they’ve all been posted, you’ll find all of the Q&As in the series here.

StankfrauffGreat Advocates Q&A with Alison Stankrauff

How would you define advocacy?

I see advocacy as twofold.

I see advocacy for areas where archives intersect with issues of social justice. I see it as critical for archivists to see those intersections between what we do every day: collect, preserve, and make accessible historical materials of all stripes – and social justice. I see myself as an advocate for archivists, archives (and like institutions) as well as the publics that we serve.

I also see a role for myself – and other archivists – to be proactive where our activities as archivists, as professionals, affect others. Case in point: being active in being vocal with workplace issues like labor strikes when the Society of American Archivists conference may be happening in a hotel or conference venue involves workers on strike. My stance is to consider the issue at hand matched with the civil rights and greater good of those workers. What we do as professionals greatly affect others.

What draws me to be a leader in the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable is the strong draw that I feel to issues of social justice. What I think that this means for my participation in this roundtable is that I see it as an advocate for archivists as well as the publics that we serve. I would work to make sure that critical issues that are central to the concerns of archivists and preserving – and making accessible – the historical record are addressed.

What was the very first lesson you learned about advocacy–either how to do it or why it’s important?

I think that – perhaps – the first time I saw the connection between archives and advocacy was as an undergraduate History student. Admittedly I wasn’t a very focused one – until a critical internship I had sponsored by Washburn University of Topeka, Kansas (not my own undergraduate institution – which was Antioch College of Yellow Springs, Ohio. Washburn merely provided that all-important internship). I saw the work that archivists did with the research that I did day in, day out for the internship – largely at the Kansas Historical Society, but also at other institutions. I saw the work they did as advocacy – from preserving the materials to, as a state institution, having to advocate for funds – to serving the history up to the public. Through this I saw the critical roles that archivists serve on many levels.

Describe your most memorable experiences with advocating for archivists and archives.

I don’t know that I can pinpoint one particular lesson.

But I can give text from one of the actions that we took as a Roundtable in 2011 – in a letter that we wrote on behalf of the Hungarian Archives in collaboration with the wider SAA. This was while I was Chair of the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable.

The Society of American Archivists is deeply concerned about a recent decision by the Hungarian Ministry of Public Information and Justice with regard to the government archives.  The Ministry apparently has decided to rectify historical wrongs committed by the former communist regime in Hungary by de-accessioning the surveillance files assembled by the nation’s secret police and Ministry of the Interior.  These files are scheduled to be removed from the Historical Archives of Hungarian State Security and returned permanently to their subjects, who presumably will be permitted to destroy their own files at their discretion.

We believe that the Hungarian government is likely sincere in its desire to see moral justice done.

If you could encourage archivists to do just one thing to help advocate for the archival profession, what would that one thing be?

Honestly it’s difficult to pinpoint only one thing to help to advocate for the archival profession. But I do think that being incredibly focused on archives in danger – whether its repositories facing funding cuts, closing altogether, natural disasters, etc. – is key. And then responding to those dangers to those repositories – by gathering the widest swath of response from as many professionals as possible – in a very targeted way. I think to partner this response with other associated organizations that have a shared stake in the message at hand makes for a stronger case.

What strategies and skills would you recommend archivists use when they are advocating for something in their local context (for example, for additional funding or personnel, policy changes, etc.)?

I think that it depends on what the need is at hand – and just whose need it is.

But perhaps one thing that can be helpful in any case is:

Supporting the request with data that shows the need(s) at hand.

What is an archives issue that means a lot to you and requires advocacy?

It’s difficult to choose only one.

I think that in particular when any archive faces closure and/or severe budget cuts and/or loss of personnel we’re all in danger. And this needs the immediate and concerted advocacy and voice that I note in the question above about encouraging archivists to do one thing to help advocate for the archival profession.

What motivates you to continue when the going gets rough?

Honestly it’s the amazing nature of archives themselves. The fact that they are repositories of one-of-a-kind materials that chronicle communities and that they’re the only spots to do that is incredible. It reminds me – constantly – that the work that I do is critical.

by Categories: News from I&ATags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Great Advocates: Dr. Rand Jimerson

Back in March, we asked you to nominate “Great Advocates”–SAA members who inspire you with their advocacy efforts. Thanks to your nominations, we have a fantastic slate of Great Advocates.

You are cordially invited to join I&A’s gathering at SAA in Atlanta on Friday, August 5 from 7:30-9:00 am (it’s early, but there will be donuts and coffee!) for an engaging Q&A with leaders of advocacy efforts from SAA’s recent history, reflecting on their work and the future of advocacy within SAA.

To get everyone in the advocacy spirit in these weeks leading up to SAA, we’re publishing Q&As with each of our Great Advocates (including some who won’t be able to join us on August 5th).

To submit questions for the in-person session and follow the event, please tweet at @archivesissues using #GreatAdvocates or email archivesissues [at] gmail [dot] com.

Once they’ve all been posted, you’ll find all of the Q&As in the series here.

Great_Advocates_4Great Advocates Q&A with Dr. Rand Jimerson, Western Washington University

How would you define advocacy?

SAA’s “Core Values of Archivists” defines advocacy by stating what archivists do as advocates: “Archivists promote the use and understanding of the historical record. They serve as advocates for their own archival programs and institutional needs. They also advocate for the application of archival values in a variety of settings including, to the extent consistent with their institutional responsibilities, the political arena. Archivists seek to contribute to the formation of public policy related to archival and recordkeeping concerns and to ensure that their expertise is used in the public interest.”

For me, advocacy means any effort made to connect the work of archivists and the documentary evidence we select and preserve with the needs, concerns, and interests of our institutions, users of archives, and the society we serve.

What was the very first lesson you learned about advocacy–either how to do it or why it’s important?

Sometimes we learn the hard way. Early in my career, as the first archivist ever employed by a public state university, I developed and directed a two-year grant project to conduct a survey of all university records being produced in offices and to establish a records management program. This would be necessary in order to determine what functions of the university needed to be documented and what records should be selected for the archives. I thought that showing the administrative benefits of good recordkeeping practices, such as cost savings and efficiency, would provide the best argument to fund and expand a combined archives and records management program.

Unfortunately, I had not identified correctly the internal power systems of the university. The Vice President for Finance and Administration recognized the benefits of improved recordkeeping and endorsed our request for two full-time staff members. However, the Vice President for Academic Affairs (to whom I reported via the University Library) did not see the academic or research value of such a program. This was the more senior VP. Thus, we did not receive funding and I remained as the “lone arranger” in the University Archives.

Moral of the story: Know who has the authority and power to make decisions that affect the support needed for archival programs. Explain the benefits of good archival practices and programs in ways that this person (or persons) will appreciate.

Describe your most memorable experiences with advocating for archivists and archives.

My most memorable advocacy moment was speaking with Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy about the importance of the National Archives and Records Administration. I was President of SAA in 2004-2005. The George W. Bush administration had just forced Archivist of the United States John Carlin out of office, despite legal provisions that prohibited politically-motivated appointments for this position.

Late one evening I was waiting in Boston’s Logan Airport for my flight home from a library/archives conference. In a nearly empty lobby I looked up to see Senator Kennedy speaking with someone. When the other person left, I took a deep breath and approached the Senator. I introduced myself and stated that SAA was concerned about the dismissal of Carlin and about the proposed nomination of historian Allen Weinstein to be the next Archivist of the US. Kennedy asked about Carlin and SAA’s concerns and then gave me the phone number of his chief assistant on such matters. “Call her on Tuesday when you get home,” Kennedy told me.

As Weinstein’s nomination moved forward, SAA developed, in collaboration with NAGARA and the Council of State Archivists, a list of questions for the Senate committee reviewing Weinstein’s nomination to ask the nominee. Weinstein invited me to have lunch with him at the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC, during one of my visits there. My brief meeting with Senator Kennedy and SAA’s involvement in reviewing the nomination did not make a direct difference—SAA Council determined that we would neither support nor oppose the nomination, but instead issued a statement critical of the partisan nature of Carlin’s improper dismissal—but at least we were consulted as the Weinstein nomination proceeded.

The lesson I took away from this was that it is always good to be prepared and to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity to speak up on behalf of archival concerns. Being part of the conversation is essential, even when there is little chance to change the outcome of events. Advocacy requires preparation—knowing what one needs to convey (perhaps as an “elevator speech”)—and then taking advantage of any opportunity that might arise.

If you could encourage archivists to do just one thing to help advocate for the archival profession, what would that one thing be?

I think every archivist should be proud of the title “archivist.” I always wear hats, so it is natural for me to wear an SAA baseball cap with the word “ARCHIVIST” boldly on the front. One of my earlier SAA caps carries the term “100% ARCHIVIST.” When I introduce myself to people I say, “I am an archivist—and also an historian,” putting my primary professional commitment first. (Many archivists might say, “I am an archivist—and also a librarian,” or whatever is appropriate.)

Any encounter can become a “teachable moment.” It’s always good to have in mind an “elevator speech”: what can you say in 30-60 seconds that will explain the importance of being an archivist? For example, I might say, “I am an archivist. Archivists contribute to society by determining what information from the past and present will be needed in the future. Archival documentation contributes to social memory, holds public officials and leaders accountable to their constituents, enables us to apply knowledge of the past to future decisions, provides a basis for social and group identity, and can assist in promoting social justice and the public good.” (Or I might use a shorter version of this, as appropriate.)

What strategies and skills would you recommend archivists use when they are advocating for something in their local context (for example, for additional funding or personnel, policy changes, etc.)?

It is important to remember that there is no single answer for the best strategy for advocacy. Each situation will require special insights into the ways archivists can promote their repository’s needs or the good of the profession or of society. For ideas, I recommend reading about other archivists’ experiences and ideas. A good starting point is Many Happy Returns: Advocacy and the Development of Archives (SAA, 2011), edited by Larry J. Hackman. It contains more than a dozen case studies and reports of advocacy efforts in a wide variety of institutional settings (academic, government, business, artistic organizations, etc.).

One key to effective advocacy is identifying the important decision-makers in your organization. Find out their priorities, interests, and goals, and try to show how the archival program can contribute to the good of the institutions. Each person may have a different perspective, and it is important to identify and respond to their concerns.

Another thing to remember is that advocacy is a continual process, not a one-time “event” or activity. It needs to be built into everything an archivist does. Since few people know much about archives, this will be an educational process. Learn how to communicate the benefits of archives for your institution, rather than focusing first on the needs of the archives. If those who control funding (resource allocators)  recognize the contributions that the archives makes or could make, they will be more likely to provide the necessary funds than if you simply complain about your lack of resources. How can you make their jobs easier or more effective?

In promoting the ways that the archival program enriches or benefits the larger institution, find opportunities to communicate effectively throughout the institution and beyond. Social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) can provide a platform on which to build an effective advocacy and public awareness program for the archives. So can old-fashioned “word of mouth” and print media.

What is an archives issue that means a lot to you and requires advocacy?

Ever since my teenage years in the early 1960s, when my father worked for civil rights in Alabama, I have been committed to social justice, equality, and the dignity of all people in society. Archives contribute to these purposes in numerous ways: by holding public leaders accountable to the people, by documenting human rights infringements, by providing one means to redress grievances and abuses, and by helping to ensure that the past will not be forgotten. These are issues that require continual advocacy.

Not all archivists would agree with the goal or function of advocacy for such “political” issues, but as a profession I believe that archivists need to take an activist role. The American Library Association, for example, speaks out actively in defense of freedom of information and other social causes. I think it is especially important for archivists, who select and preserve primary source documentation—which often does not exist in multiple copies or locations—to recognize that all of our actions inevitably take place in a political environment. If we do nothing to redress or prevent social wrongs, we support the status quo and forces of oppression. In order to promote a balanced and fair approach to documenting society, we should encourage and support affirmative action (what I call “affirmative archives”) on behalf of those who otherwise might not have a voice in public affairs or a recognition in historical documentation.

What motivates you to continue when the going gets rough?

The importance of archives to the life of society and the protection of individuals’ rights provide motivation for my commitment to the archival enterprise. In our day to day work it sometimes seems difficult to remember the ultimate purposes we serve. But in the words of the civil rights era song, we need to keep our “eyes on the prize.” Especially when the going becomes difficult we need to commit ourselves to the people we serve by providing authentic and reliable documentation of the past and present for future generations.

by Categories: News from I&ATags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. Below is a post from Steve Duckworth and Steve Ammidown about the problem of records management and the ATF’s National Tracing Center. If you have an issue you would like to write about for this blog series or a previous post that you would like to respond to, please email archivesissues@gmail.com.

Let’s talk about guns. And records management. And maybe some advocacy.

According to their website, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is:

 a law enforcement agency … that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. [They] partner with communities, industries, law enforcement, and public safety agencies to safeguard the public [they] serve through information sharing, training, research, and use of technology.

That’s a big job. But as we’re about to see, “information sharing” and the “use of technology” are pretty restricted at the ATF.

The National Tracing Center (NTC) is the firearms tracing facility of the ATF. Located in Martinsburg, WV, they are the only facility in the United States that can provide information to law enforcement agencies (local, state, federal, and international) that can be used to trace firearms in criminal investigations, gun trafficking, and other movement of firearms, both domestically and internationally. And they are drowning in records. From recent reports, roughly 1.6 million records arrive at the facility each month. Records usually come from defunct firearms dealers who are required to submit their records when they go out of business. (For dealers still in business, the NTC contacts them after tracing a weapon through its manufacturer.) There appear to be no standards in place for how dealers have to keep or submit these records. There is a form (4473) for the actual gun purchase, but other records can come in on computer media or hand-written documents. They often arrive somewhat damaged, with partially shredded or water-damaged records being frequently cited in news reports. Some people even send theirs in on rolls of toilet paper.

As it is currently illegal to create a registry of firearms in the U.S., the idea of a searchable database is also off the table. This leaves workers at the facility with the task of sifting through these records manually to complete traces. Upwards of 365,000 traces are requested each year, and the number will just keep growing (due in part to the Obama administration’s requirement that every gun involved in a crime be traced). While records are now being digitized to provide some easier access and relief for the physical space needed, the records remain non-searchable and amount to a newer version of microfilmed records.

Some of the problems at the NTC can be traced to the lack of consistent leadership and chronic underfunding. The position of the agency director was unfilled from 2006 to 2013 due to legislation backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that requires Senate confirmation to fill the position. In 2013, acting director B. Todd Jones was narrowly confirmed to fill the Director role, but he retired soon after (in 2015) and the position has yet to be filled permanently. Stagnant funding has prevented the ATF from keeping up with demand. In addition to the overwhelmed workers at NTC, the agency has just over 600 inspectors dedicated to inspecting the record-keeping at over 140,000 gun dealers across the country.

The data collected by the NTC is also subject to the NRA’s legislative sway in Washington. As mentioned, they have been successful in heading off any attempts at creating a searchable database, arguing that such a mechanism would be a “registry” in violation of the Second Amendment. Taking it one step further, a set of provisions known as the “Tiahrt Amendments” has been attached to every U.S. Department of Justice appropriations bill since 2003, prohibiting the NTC from releasing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. The law effectively blocks this data from being used in academic research on criminal gun use or in civil lawsuits against gun sellers or manufacturers. It also prevents the ATF from collecting the inventory information from gun dealers, which would further help identify lost or stolen guns. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence argues that these amendments only empower criminals and reckless dealers.

Restrictive laws and a lack of quality management lead to a massive backlog of records and a very limited system of filling the great number of trace requests the NTC receives. The antiquated measures required by the NTC restrict law enforcement’s ability to perform their duties. While public opinion regarding gun sales seems to be turning (unlike Congress’s voting record), the idea of a database seems quite far off. An effective and permanent director at the ATF would be a good starting place, but as of this writing, a nomination doesn’t appear to even be in place (and given the upcoming election, it’s not likely to happen anytime soon).

Not unlike the rest of the gun debate, the political debate around the NTC and gun tracing data seems intractable and unlikely to change. Luckily for us, however, we’re archivists and records managers! We offer a unique perspective on this subject when we contact our elected officials on this topic. We’ve been in the dusty stacks (yes, we said it) and dealt with unwieldy access systems when time was of the essence. We should be arguing for the modernization and full funding of the NTC and the repeal of the Tiahrt Amendments, at the least to improve access to government information and at the most to help save lives. So consider this your call to advocacy (as mentioned at the start). If you feel this situation warrants some action, take it and contact your legislators now!

 News/Links:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), https://www.atf.gov

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Maintaining Records on Gun Sales,” http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-dealer-sales/maintaining-records-on-gun-sales/

National Tracing Center (NTC), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/national-tracing-center, (informational brochure: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/national-tracing-center-information-industry-members-atf-p-331210/download)

National Tracing Center via Wikipedia (good general overview), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Tracing_Center

The White House, “Presidential Memorandum – Tracing of Firearms in Connection with Criminal Investigations,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/presidential-memorandum-tracing-firearms-connection-criminal-investigati

 News reports:

2016 March 24, America’s 1st Freedom [NRA magazine], “Where the ATF Scans Gun Sales Records,” https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/3/24/where-the-atf-scans-gun-sales-records/

2016 January 6, The Guardian, “Agency tasked with enforcing Obama’s gun control measures has been gutted,” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/06/bureau-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-obama-gun-control-measures-funding-understaffing

2015 October 27, USA Today, “Millions of Firearms Records Languish at National Tracing Center” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/27/firearms-national-tracing-center-atf/74401060/

2015 March 20, USA Today, “ATF director announces resignation,” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/20/atf-director-b-todd-jones-resigns/25081713/

2013 June 11, Media Matters, “How the NRA Hinders the ATF Director Confirmation Process,” http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/06/11/how-the-nra-hinders-the-atf-director-confirmati/194412

2013 May 20, NPR, “The Low-Tech Way Guns Get Traced,” http://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-guns-get-traced

2013 March 13, InformationWeek, “ATF’s Gun Tracing System is a Dud,” http://www.informationweek.com/applications/atfs-gun-tracing-system-is-a-dud/d/d-id/1109062

2013 February 19, WJLA ABC7 (Washington, D.C.), “ATF National Tracing Center Traces Guns the Old-Fashioned Way,” http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/atf-national-tracing-center-traces-guns-the-old-fashioned-way-85417 (YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lFdLaYcDNQ)

2013 January 30, CBS Evening News, “Tracing Guns is Low-tech Operation for ATF,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tracing-guns-is-low-tech-operation-for-atf/

2011 November 2, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Federal Law on Tiahrt Amendments,” http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-tiahrt-amendments/

2010 October 26, Washington Post, “ATF’s Oversight Limited in Face of Gun Lobby,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102505823.html

Steve Duckworth is the Processing Archivist at the University of Florida where he wrangles and tames all sorts of archival collections. Previously, he has held roles with the National Park Service in Anchorage, AK and the PACSCL/CLIR Hidden Collections Project in Philadelphia, PA.

Steve Ammidown is the Manuscripts and Outreach Archivist for the Browne Popular Culture Library at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio.

by Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

Announcing…Candidates for Our 2016 Election!

Drumroll… announcing the fantastic candidates for Issues and Advocacy Roundtable leadership for 2016. A big round of applause to each of these individuals for running!

Voting will will start during the first week of July and will be open for two weeks. Descriptions of each position’s responsibilities can be found here, and in the I&A Bylaws.

Note: because we have so many (wonderful!) candidates, this post is lengthy. But oh so worth the scrolling!

Candidate Listing (scroll down for bios and statements)

Vice-Chair (Two-Year Term: first year as Vice-Chair and second year as Chair) (vote for one candidate)
Hope M. Dunbar
Rachel Mandell

Steering Committee Member (Two-Year Term) (vote for two candidates)
Stephanie Bennett
Samantha Dodd
Keith Phelan Gorman
Lucinda Manning
Alessandro Meregaglia
Megan Miller
Blake Relle
Alison Stankrauff

Steering Committee Member (One-Year Term) (vote for two candidates)
Megan M. Atkinson
Hilary Barlow
Laurel Bowen
Tara Kelley
Daria Labinsky
Rachel Seale

Candidate Bios and Statements: Vice-Chair (vote for one)

Hope M. Dunbar
Bio:
I would like to nominate myself for the position of Vice-Chair for the Issues & Advocacy Roundtable. I am currently an Archivist at SUNY Buffalo State College in the Archives & Special Collections Department. Previously, I have had roles in the Special Collections & Rare Book Department of the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library; the Library & Archives of the John Felice Rome Center, Italy; and the Archives & Special Collections Department of the Newberry Library, Chicago. I participated in the I&A Legislator Research Team in early 2016.

Statement of Interest:
In addition, prior to my work in the archives field, I was an attorney in Illinois focusing on government and federal mediation. I have worked in Washington, D.C. and Chicago for federal offices, including the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the U.S. Dept. of State, and the U.S Dept. of Education, and understand the necessity of institutional advocacy. Based on my interdisciplinary background, I can offer additional perspectives and expertise. Archives, special collections, and the humanities as a whole must advocate just as fervently as other fields to maintain funding and support. Additionally, we know our profession best including its benefits and its challenges; it is our duty to actively represent these realities to those outside our field. I believe this committee is essential to this advocacy.

Rachel Mandell
Bio:
Rachel Mandell graduated with her Master’s in Library and Information Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2012. She then pursued a personal goal to live abroad and also gained international experience as a visiting scholar at the Center for Art and Media Technology in Karlsruhe, Germany.  Rachel continued her exploration of central Europe as she was awarded a 2013-2014 Fulbright grant in Vienna, Austria. In addition to developing an appreciation for Viennese coffee houses, Rachel concentrated on audiovisual archiving by working in the Austrian Academy of Sciences’ Phonogrammarchiv—the oldest sound archive in the world and the Austrian Film Museum, where she digitized and archived amateur films.  Since returning to her hometown of Los Angeles, Rachel began to transition into the next stage of her archival career by getting more involved with both the local archival community and also establish herself within the larger field of archivists. During her 12-month post as the LA as Subject Resident Archivist, Rachel completed short term archival projects at four member institutions of the LA as Subject organization—a network of institutions in Los Angeles that collect materials documenting the history of the city and its diverse population of residents. She was then offered the Digital Archivist position at California State University, Dominguez Hills, working on a large-scale collaboration called the California State University Japanese American Digitization Project. The goal of this project is to bring together disparate records, photographs, oral histories, and other archival materials relating to the incarceration of Japanese Americans in California during the World War II era. She is also the current Issues and Advocacy Intern. Together with the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable team, Rachel has contributed to the improvement of the Issues and Advocacy Toolkit and hopes to continue working with the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable in the future.

Statement of Interest:
I hope to be selected as the next Vice Chair of the Issues and Advocacy (I&A) Roundtable. This past March I became an active member of the Roundtable when I accepted the position of I&A Intern. I saw the internship as a unique opportunity to get involved with the Society of American Archivists (SAA) and expand my professional network beyond my local archival community. As I specified in my statement of interest, I hoped to contribute to the improvement of the Issues and Advocacy Toolkit by designing a survey that would target areas that need improvement. I believe I have accomplished this initial goal.  I designed and administered the nine question survey that we used to help identify layout and user interface issues as well as solicit advice from the community about how to improve the content of the toolkit. We received 31 responses total and nine of the respondents also agreed to participate in a future focus group. I am currently in the process of creating hypothetical scenarios for the focus group, which will hopefully exploit further weaknesses in the content of the toolkit.

Working with the I&A team has been a rewarding experience, which has inspired me to apply for the Vice Chair position.  If selected, I hope to continue working towards implementing changes to the toolkit. I would love to see the new and improved toolkit come to fruition! In addition to my experience as the I&A intern, I believe that my enthusiasm for collaboration and strong communication skills would make me an excellent candidate for this position. I look forward to the chance to serve the I&A Roundtable and to support fellow archivists advocate for our profession and increase dialogue and awareness of important archival issues.

Candidate Bios and Statements: Steering Committee Member (Two-Year Term) (vote for two)

Stephanie Bennett
Bio:
Stephanie Bennett is the Collections Archivist for Wake Forest University, which is also her alma mater. She holds an MSLIS with an Archives Management concentration from Simmons College and is a member of the Academy of Certified Archivist. Bennett worked previously at Iowa State University, Boston College, and corporate research firms. She is an active member of the Society of American Archivists, the Society of North Carolina Archivists, where she was recently a Member at Large on the Executive Board, and the Midwest Archives Conference.

Statement of Interest:
Archivists often are affected by the reverberations of societal or political happenings. Gun laws affect reading room environments and policies, for example; activism causes us to rethink the nature of our work; environmental changes affect our storage conditions or the records we collect; this list could go on. I respect the work that I&ART does to help archivists think through political and personal issues and advocate for policies and changes that will benefit us, our communities, dare I even say humankind? And the recent changes to the website have been great! I would be thrilled to continue I&A’s good work and contribute to helping archivists navigate contentious issues, find allies, and ultimately act on our concerns.

Samantha Dodd
Bio:
Samantha Dodd is an archivist in Special Collections at the UT Arlington Library. Prior to joining UTA, she served as the archivist for the Dallas Historical Society. She earned a Bachelor of Arts in history with a minor in education from UT Arlington in 2009, a Master of Arts degree in History at UT Dallas in 2012, an Archival Administration Certificate from UT Arlington in 2013, and became a certified archivist in 2013. Fueled by a passion for higher education, and wanting to develop her skills and abilities as an archivist, Samantha attended the University of North Texas from 2013-2014 and earned her Master of Library and Information Science degree. In 2014 she was one of twenty-one candidates selected to participate in the American Association for State and Local History’s Seminar for Historical Administration.

Statement of Interest:
I would like to take a more active role in the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable of the Society of American Archivists. My passion in this profession is advocacy, whether it is advocating for awareness,  relevancy, rights, or any number of issues facing archivists. As SAA recently endorsed the History Relevancy Campaign, I would like to help continue the discussion and promote the efforts of this campaign as this issue of history’s relevancy can directly impact archives and archivists.  Furthermore, by joining the leadership of the roundtable, I hope to encourage increased participation by members, and to instill in our membership a passion for perspective. By looking ahead, and looking around us, we can see the issues and problems coming down the line, and formulate our responses before facing the issues head on.

Keith Phelan Gorman
Bio:
Keith Gorman is the Assistant Dean of Special Collections and University Archives at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG).  During his past six years at UNCG, he has actively promoted the value of the department’s unique collections, instructional services, and digital projects to faculty, students, administrators, donors, and the general public.  As a result of Keith’s advocacy, his department has been able to acquire new positions, grow donations, and quintuple the number of class sessions being taught.  In addition, Keith has identified and cultivated local stakeholders through the development of off-campus programs that emphasize life-long learning.

Trained as a historian, Gorman received his Ph.D. in history from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  After a decade of teaching history at Simmons College, Keith decided to pursue a new career that brought together his deep interest in how individuals access information and his passion for empowering communities to understand and craft their own history.  He received a MLS (archives concentration) from Simmons College and has held positions at the Smithsonian Institution Archives and the Martha’s Vineyard Museum.

Throughout his fourteen year career in archives, Gorman has actively engaged educators, service organizations, librarians, local businesses, elected officials, and funders to promote the social and cultural value of rare and unique collections.  For example, over the past academic year, Keith initiated a community engagement program that focused on digital information literacy and teaching with primary sources.  Teaching thirty-five class sessions at area middle school and high school students, Keith was able to stress the impact an academic library at a public university can have on a community.

Statement of Interest:
With my diverse professional background in archives, museums, and academia, I believe that I would be an effective and innovative contributor to the Issues and Advocacy (I &A) Roundtable.  In this challenging economic and political climate, it is critical for archivists to be able to effectively “tell their story” and forcefully address the issue of return on investment.  Drawing on my own experience of promoting archives as a cultural hub, I believe I could help contribute to the reframing of how archives are being represented in a community’s collective imagination and political discourse.

If elected to the position, one of my goals would be to consider new ways to broaden dialog between archivists and K-12 educators.  For archivists, local teachers and students have always had the potential to be collaborators and vocal supporters.  With rapid shifts in pedagogy, teaching standards, and learning tools, teachers are seeking new ways to effectively incorporate primary sources into curriculum design. Through targeted outreach to area educators, archivists could develop and scale programs to meet teacher needs and at the same time demonstrate their educational/cultural value to community leaders.

Lucinda Manning
Bio:
I (Lucinda Manning) have worked as both a professional archivist and librarian since 1980 in various historical societies, and in college and university libraries, including URI, NYU, Barnard, and Teachers College at Columbia University. For twelve years, I directed the UFT Archives & Records Center for the United Federation of Teachers labor union in NYC. More recently, I have worked on consulting projects, was the Curator of Archives for the Historical Society of the Town of Greenwich and was also a Consulting Archivist for the National Office of the ACLU in NYC. I am also currently serving on three committees for the ALA United for Libraries division including their Newsletter Committee and their Intellectual Freedom Committee.

Statement of Interest:
My academic background includes an undergraduate degree in print journalism/graphic design; graduate study in U.S. history (with an emphasis on 19th and 20th C. social change movements, including civil rights, women’s studies & labor history); and an MLS in academic libraries and special collections from the University of Rhode Island. She has recently served on the NYC Archivist Round Table’s Advocacy Committee and on the SAA Diversity Committee, as well as participating in many local, activist, community and political activities in New York.

Our profession’s role in helping to preserve our cultural and historical history (and the many related and critically important archival/information issues – including privacy, records security, intellectual freedom, records management concerns, long-term preservation of our multi-cultural US history – that are shared, of course, with other similar professions such as librarianship, the historical profession and cultural museums) have all been a major focus throughout my archival and library career.  I would very much enjoy serving as a member of our SAA Issues & Advocacy Round table leadership with others who are also interested and passionate about helping to formulate effective responses to all of the increasingly important professional advocacy and information concerns outlined above.

Alessandro Meregaglia
Bio:
I work as an archivist/librarian at Boise State University’s Special Collections and Archives, where I manage our digital collections and respond to reference questions. I have a Master of Library Science (Archives & Records Management specialization) and a MA in History from Indiana University. Prior to joining Boise State, I worked as a project archivist at a non-profit organization.

Statement of Interest:
As an academic archivist and during my time with a small non-profit organization, I understand the vital need for advocacy in archives of all sizes and want to build on the efforts that the I&A Roundtable has already accomplished (the Advocacy Toolkit, the blog, etc.).

Earlier this year, I participated on Legislators Research Team for I&A, which gathered information about key legislators. That experience reiterated the need for advocacy in archives when I noticed that legislators on archival governing committees had little experience with archives. Maintaining awareness about public policy affecting archives directly (or indirectly through other cultural institutions) is key to strengthening the profession while also making sure archivists’ voices are heard. I look forward to the opportunity to serve SAA and the archival profession on the I&A Steering Committee.

Megan Miller
Bio:
Megan Miller is the Digital Imaging Technician for the Chemical Heritage Foundation’s Beckman Legacy Project. Her academic training is in history: she received her MA from Temple University, where her coursework focused on public history and archival studies, and her AB from Bryn Mawr College. She is a member of MARAC’s Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion.

Statement of Interest:
There are dramatic changes I would like to see (in society, in the profession), but incremental progress is still progress. I can’t wave a magic wand and suddenly provide funding for cash-strapped institutions, force stakeholders to realize the value of archives, or make the profession instantly welcoming and accessible to a diverse talent pool. I can help a bit with the grind: spotlighting new issues, keeping longstanding issues from being forgotten (or incorrectly deemed to be solved), and making sure that momentary gains are not allowed to disappear. I want to help the conversations and resources I&A fosters migrate throughout the profession.

Blake Relle
Bio:
Blake Relle received his Master’s Degree in Library and Information Science with a concentration in archive management from LSU in 2013.  Currently, he serves as an Archives Specialist at the Louisiana State Archives where he fulfills request for materials made by the public as well as state agencies. From 2013 to 2015, he served as a digitization intern at the National World War II Museum in New Orleans.  Professionally, Relle has presented on “How to get new archival professionals involved in archival organizations?” and “Should archival professionals do continuing education?” At the upcoming SAA meeting in August, Relle will be on a panel that will discuss how archives and museums can provide access to their collections to people with disabilities. Relle serves as Website and Social Media Coordinator for the New England Archivist Early Professionals and Students Roundtable.  In this capacity, Relle manages and updates the Roundtable’s website and social media accounts.  He co-wrote a blog post for ProjectArc regarding how the Toronto City Archive reduced its energy consumption by 59%.

Statement of Interest:
This opportunity will provide a way for me to give back to my profession as
well as learn from others. I will have a chance to learn about the issues facing the archival community as well as help find solutions to these issues. We have to work together because we can do more as a whole than we can individually.

Alison Stankrauff
Bio:
I have served as the Campus Archivist at the Indiana University South Bend campus since 2004. I am a lone arranger, and inherited an archives that had not had an archivist for ten years. What draws me to be a leader in the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable is the strong draw that I feel to issues of social justice. What I think that this means for my participation in this roundtable is that I see it as an advocate for archivists as well as the publics that we serve. I would work to make sure that critical issues that are central to the concerns of archivists and preserving – and making accessible – the historical record are addressed. Previous to my current position, I served as a reference archivist at the American Jewish Archives, and previous to that, as a technician at the Reuther Labor Archives at Wayne State University. I interned at the Rabbi Franklin Archives at Temple Beth El in metropolitan Detroit. I graduated with my Masters in Library Science with Archival Administration concentration in 2002 from Wayne State University, and I have a Bachelors degree in history from Antioch College.

Statement of Interest:
I’m Alison Stankrauff, Archivist and Associate Librarian at Indiana University South Bend. I’m committed to being vigilant for the archival profession and the archival record that we collect, protect, make accessible. When either of those are in danger, I believe it’s my duty to do my part to personally advocate for what’s at stake – and motivate others to do the same – with a collective voice.

Candidate Bios and Statements: Steering Committee Member (One-Year Term) (vote for two)

Megan M. Atkinson
Bio:
Megan M. Atkinson is the University Archivist for Tennessee Technological University.  She has worked for over six years as an archivist.  Her primary goal is making as many collections as possible available for research to the users.  Her previous positions include the National Park Service, Louisiana State University, and Temple University’s Institute on Disabilities. She has a BA in History from West Chester University and an MLIS from Drexel University.

Statement of Interest:
I have always advocated for archives, but I recently took a position where few knew I existed or the importance of the archives.  Although this was not a novel idea-given most of my jobs were this way-this was the first time that I was in a position where it was my duty to advocate for myself and not the duty of my supervisor.  As a result, I feel that advocating for myself at the lower level, my university, will be greatly aided by my participation in Issues and Advocacy and advocating as a whole for the profession and archives nationally and internationally. I participated in the Legislator and Research Team pilot program and would like to participate and dedicate more time towards this effort, which aids all archives and archivists.

Hilary Barlow
Bio:
Hilary Barlow is a Preservation Staff Member at Penn State University and a Volunteer Archivist at the Centre County Historical Society in State College, PA. She completed her Master of Information degree in Archives & Records Management at the University of Toronto in 2015 and worked as an Archives Intern for Democracy Now! Productions in New York City. As an MI student, Hilary served as President of the Master of Information Student Council. She is an active member of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference and has contributed to the I&AR blog.

Statement of Interest:
In my archives career thus far, I have tried to keep advocacy at the center of my practice. As President of my student union, I advocated for an information master’s program more open and accessible to students. As an Archives Intern at Democracy Now! Productions, I learned how archives can document social movements and a long history of independent reporting. I feel that the Issues & Advocacy Roundtable engages with the challenges our professional faces most urgently today. I want to be more involved in collaborating with other archivists and determining what issues to bring to light.

Laurel Bowen
Bio:
I am the University Archivist at Georgia State University, where I provide records and research services for university administrators, the academic community, and the public.  I have an M.A. from Cornell University.  To increase public awareness and appreciation of the value of archives and archivists, I enjoy demonstrating the powerful, practical, and sometimes unusual ways that records can be used to advocate for citizens in their local communities.

Statement of Interest:
I’ve served for one year on the Steering Committee and would like to be considered for a second year.
1. Our profession is enhancing its advocacy efforts to make a bigger impact on issues that affect the public interest. I’d like to be part of this effort as a member of the I&A Steering Committee.
2. The Steering Committee identifies, discusses, and recommends issues to be brought forward for action, and coordinates its work with other advocacy groups. I’d like to get a clearer view of what motivates our profession to take action and the forms that action takes, so our Roundtable can be increasingly successful in advocating for our members’ concerns.
3. I hope to see our Roundtable continue to offer opportunities for members to be actively involved in advocacy efforts.  See https://issuesandadvocacy.wordpress.com/
4. Engaging in advocacy issues on the Steering Committee also stimulates thought on larger challenges such as (a) How do we as a profession advocate effectively for citizens, records, and the public interest when public officials can be elected with mega-contributions from a few sources?  (b) What strategies can be employed to persuade officials to provide timely access to public records? I would appreciate your vote.

Tara Kelley
Bio:
Tara D. Kelley is a moving image Archivist / Librarian at New York Public Library. She became the Specialist for the Mikhail Baryshnikov Archive in 2012, and began work with the Moving Image and Recorded Sound Division at the Schomburg Center in 2014. Kelley is a founding member of the AMIA Film Advocacy Task Force, promoting the continued use of film for archival preservation and creative work, and currently serves on the Steering Committee of the SAA Issues & Advocacy Roundtable. She earned her MLIS at Rutgers University and is a graduate of the L. Jeffrey Selznick School of Film Preservation at George Eastman Museum.

Statement of Interest:
I am a moving image librarian and archivist at New York Public Library. I started with NYPL’s Library for the Performing Arts as the project archivist for the Mikhail Baryshnikov Archive and now work in the Moving Image and Recorded Sound division at the Schomburg Center.

I currently serve as a member of the I & A Roundtable Steering Committee and seek an additional year-long term. This would allow for continuity with our current News Monitoring and Awareness Research Team and for the development of additional projects.

As a member of SAA and AMIA, I value partnerships with similar organizations, as we share common concerns and extend our reach by working together. As just one example: when the Cinemateca Brasileira moving image archive caught fire, the ability to share news from AMIA with the SAA community was helpful in generating attention and support for the archive. I hope to have the opportunity to advocate for our communities again this year.

Daria Labinsky
Bio:
I am an Archivist at the National Archives at St. Louis, where I have worked since 2010. Before coming to NARA, I worked for eight years as a Local History and Reference Librarian at the Rio Rancho Public Library in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. I earned a BS in Radio/TV/Film and an MS in Journalism from Northwestern University, and an MLS from Emporia State University. I am an active member of the Society of American Archivists (member of I&A Research Team, several roundtables, Government Records Section), the Regional Archival Associations Consortium (steering committee member and subcommittee chair), the Midwest Archives Conference (formerly public information officer), and the Association of St. Louis Area Archivists.

Statement of Interest:
As a former journalist I have always been especially conscious of attempts to curtail the free flow of information. The few months I have served on the Issues and Advocacy News Media Research Team have only increased my awareness in potential threats that archivists need to know about—because they may physically affect archives and archivists and/or may restrict access to, and openness of, public records.

In my current position I haven’t had much chance to advocate for archives on an institutional basis, other than to participate in promotional efforts such as the #ThisIsArchives Twitter event. When I was a public librarian in New Mexico, I participated in Librarian Legislation Day, during which librarians met with state Congresswomen and Congressmen and lobbied for budget increases. I would be interested in working with the I&A Roundtable on similar activities on a local, state, or even national level, or in participating in other initiatives that further the cause.

Rachel Seale
Bio:
In January I assumed my new position as outreach archivist for Iowa State University Special Collections & University Archives. I spent the last six years working in the Alaska & Polar Regions Collections & Archives (APR) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. I spent two years working primarily in reference and processing collections, then moved on to cataloging manuscripts and rare maps, working with donors, and appraising potential donations. In addition I organized presentations and exhibits that highlighted the collections and services of APR. I received my MSLIS with an Archives concentration from Simmons College in January 2006.

Statement of Interest:
Issues & Advocacy is an exciting roundtable. I am interested in a leadership position within it because, now more than ever, I think there is a need for committed professionals to advocate for our profession and for the organizations we work in. I have just recently started getting involved with this roundtable, I am a member of one of the on-call research teams that monitors breaking news and provides a summary and then coverage of the relevant issue. I am eager to get more involved with this roundtable and do have leadership experience within SAA. I have spent the last 3 years in different leadership positions in the Security Roundtable (secretary, junior co-chair, and senior co-chair).

by Categories: News from I&ATags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Research Post: Fire at the Cinemateca Brasileira

I&A Research Teams are groups of dedicated volunteers who monitor breaking news and delve into ongoing topics affecting archives and the archival profession. Under the leadership of the I&A Steering Committee, the Research Teams compile their findings into Research Posts for the I&A blog. Each Research Post offers a summary and coverage of an issue. This Research Post comes from On-Call Research Team #2, which is mobilized to investigate issues as they arise.

Please be aware that the sources cited have not been vetted and do not indicate an official stance of SAA or the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable.

Summary of the Issue

A fire broke out in the film library of the Cinemateca Brasileira in São Paolo on February 3, 2016. The exact cause of the fire was not reported, but the area involved was where nitrate film was stored. This material is known to be volatile and can spontaneously combust due to environmental factors. Sources reported that approximately 1,000 rolls of film burned in the fire. All is not lost, however, as the institution states that all films lost in the fire had been preserved in other media formats (though some of the reports located state that number at 80%). Reports of the fire came out soon after the event occurred, but updates and further information has not been located. While there are many reports, especially reports in Portuguese, almost all of them date from February 3 or 4. They each appear to leave some questions on the table.

The fire occurred in one of the institution’s nitrate film warehouses, which are specially designed to house such film. There is no electric grid, and interior walls do not reach the ceilings. Most sources report that it took about 30 minutes to contain the fire. Some video footage of the scene can be found here.

The Cinemateca Brasileira holds some 250,000 film rolls, including features, short films, and newsreels, as well as books, papers, movie posters, and other paper records; this loss represents 0.4% of their film holdings. The history of the Cinemateca can be traced back to 1946 as the Second Film Club of São Paolo (after the First had been closed by the Department of Press and Propaganda in 1941). In 1948, the Club became affiliated with the International Federation of Film Clubs and, in 1949, with the film department of São Paolo’s newly created Museum of Modern Art. In 1964, it was incorporated into the Ministry of Culture, becoming a governmental institution. Previous fires have occurred in 1957, 1969, and 1982, all due to nitrate film. The institute moved into its current facilities, built under the technical guidance of the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF), in 1998.

The Archivist Rising blog reported that the institution suffered somewhat recent budget cuts due to a large financial crisis. Blogger Aurélio Michiles blames the incident on the previous budget cuts as well, but describes the cuts as more of a punishment towards the administration rather than having to do with an overall financial crisis. Further sources state the number of employees has been reduced from over 100 in 2013 to just over 20 currently, though it remains unclear how many employees are governmental workers and how many are actually employed by the Cinematheque’s Friends Society (Sociedade Amigos da Cinemateca) and whether or not that affects the various numbers reported from different sources. The truth behind this budget controversy is left for further research – and preferably by someone proficient in Portuguese.

bibliography of coverage of the issue:

“Some thousand film rolls burnt in Cinemateca Brasileira fire.” EBC Agencia Brasil. Accessed 2016 March 25. http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/cultura/noticia/2016-02/some-thousand-film-rolls-burnt-cinemateca-brasileira-fire (EBC manages TV Brasil, TV Brasil International, Agência Brasil, Radioagência, and the National Public Broadcast System. Besides the commitment to public communication, their values are characterized by editorial independence, transparency, and participatory management.)

“Cinemateca Brasileira.” Wikipedia. Accessed 2016 March 25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinemateca_Brasileira

“Ministério da Cultura não tem plano para evitar novos incêndios na Cinemateca Brasileira.” Estãdo. Accessed 2016 March 25. http://cultura.estadao.com.br/noticias/cinema,ministerio-da-cultura-nao-tem-plano-para-evitar-novos-incendios-na-cinemateca-brasileira,10000014848

“Ministério da Cultura mudará gestão da Cinemateca.” Folha De S. Paolo. Accessed 2016 March 25. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ilustrada/1220662-ministerio-da-cultura-mudara-gestao-da-cinemateca.shtml

The I&A Steering Committee would like to thank Steve Duckworth for writing this post, and Rachel Seale and Alison Stankrauff for doing key research on the issue.

I&A On-Call Research Team #2 is:

Alison Stankrauff, Leader
Katherine Barbera
Anna Chen
Steven Duckworth
David McAllister
Rachel Seale

If you are aware of an issue that might benefit from a Research Post, please get in touch with us: archivesissues@gmail.com.

by Categories: Research PostTags: , , , , , , , , Leave a comment