|SHRAB Minutes June 1, 2005|
Guy Louis Rocha, State Coordinator, called the meeting to order at 10:10 am at the Nevada State Library and Archives in Carson City.
Board members present: Guy Louis Rocha, Nevada State Library and Archives; Shayne Del Cohen, Consultant; Victoria Ford, The Ford Factor; Sabrina Mercadante, The City of Henderson; Peter Michel, UNLV Special Collections; David Millman, Nevada State Museum and Historical Society; James Smith, Deputy Attorney General; Jacque Sundstrand, UNR Special Collections,
Absent: Hal Rothman, UNLV History Department.
Staff Present: Jeffrey Kintop, Nevada State Library and Archives; Barbara J Gray, Nevada State Library and Archives; Teri Mark, Nevada State Library and Archives.
Item #1- Approve April 15, 2005 meeting minutes
Item #2 – Discussion of UNR Basque Studies Program grant proposal
Item #3 – Review of National Issues affecting Nevada
A. NHPRC - Mr. Rocha reported that the COSHRC Board and membership devoted a significant amount of time and energy to restoration of funding for the NHPRC. The President’s budget recommendations for Fiscal Year 2006 targeted the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) to receive no funding for either the grants program or for program administration. This would have effectively eliminated the NHPRC. He thanks the board members for their letters of support and said he felt NHPRC would continue but did not know what it was going to look like or how many changes would be made.
B. National Digital Image and Information Preservation Program -Mr. Kintop reported on his trip to Washington D.C and the Library of Congress. He said the Library of Congress was charged by Congress to serve as a catalyst for U.S. digital preservation to promote or speed up significant change. The initiative was created by legislation in 2000. He said they were provided with funds to do some work as well as funds that can tentatively be granted to states. He said they would be meeting with all the states in a series of three meetings, which involves the State Library, the State Archives and the Chief Information Officer of each state to try and find out what the problems are for the states and what the state’s responsibilities were. After the final meeting they will submit a report of their findings.
C. Council of State Historical Records Coordinators’ NHPRC proposal. - In April 2005, Mr. Kintop reported, COSHRC submitted a grant proposal to NHPRC which requests support for a two-year project focusing on local government archives. The proposal will be considered at the Commission’s November 2005 meeting. The project is intended to lay the groundwork for stronger local government archives by analyzing their current conditions and needs and determining what services, standards, and funding strategies will work best to ensure the long-term preservation of and access to the records that are closest to home.
Item # 4 – Presentation on Strategic Planning and Performance Measures and review of parts of the bylaws relevant to strategic planning.
Responding to questions by several members, Kintop explained he would like to have draft language sent to him in September to be presented to them at the October 5th meeting.
Mr. Rocha had to leave for another commitment, he then appointed Peter Michel as Deputy Coordinator to the SHRAB, and directed Michel to conduct the meeting.
Item # 5 – Review of Strategic Plan by Committees
1. Where are we now?
The Board Members gave their reports on their goals as follows:
Goal # 1- Sabrina Mercadante/Jim Smith
Both Smith and Mercadante agreed that the board keeps the goal and objectives because they are continuing. They thought the goal is good, but there is still a long way to go. They suggested a listing, index of directory to know where major repositories are. Del Cohen thought there needed to be an index to records throughout the state and there should be some standards to measure if the programs are meeting best practices. This was followed by a discussion of best practices and funding for gathering this information.
Smith explained to the about the Circuit Rider program for the Rural Water Districts where experts travel around the state and help the small districts with their work. Education and training were key parts of this goal, he emphasized and suggested the board use this model as one of its strategies in the new plan.
Kintop mentioned that the Nevada Arts Council had a similar project to help out artists, schools and small art groups with projects and finding funds to do them. He also said he had been approached with a similar idea by Steve Davis of the Nevada Humanities Committee, who suggested the committee might fund a similar project to help archives, museums, libraries and historical societies with their collections.
Goal # 2- Sabrina Mercadante/Jim Smith/Teri Mark
See Attachment A for Teri’s notes and comments.
Goal # 3- Vikki Ford/Jacque Sundstrand
See Attachment B for their notes and comments. Ford and Sundstrand had questions about the links to web pages, catalog records and the Nevada-specific authority file for cataloging collections. Kintop explained that when this plan was written, web pages were pretty basic and there were few effective search engines making it difficult to find information on the web. He also pointed out that there was already a list of Nevada Subjects that was developed in the early 1990s for cooperative photograph cataloging project undertaken by NSLA, UNR and UNLV. It was developed by the Cataloging Department at UNLV, but just has not been maintained. Search engines have improved to the point where there is not as much emphasis on MARC records.
Michel stated that this will all probably change gain now that libraries and repositories are beginning to use Dublin Core to catalog its online collections.
Goal # 4- Peter Michel/Hal Rothman
Mr. Michel reported that he and Hal Rothman had not yet had an opportunity to meet and discuss this yet.
Goal # 5- David Millman/Shayne Del Cohen
See Attachment C for a summary of the comments.
After the reports were completed, the board decided the next meeting would be on October 5, 2005, location to be determined.
There being no new business, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn Mr. Millman seconded the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 pm
The board will be participating in the Induction Ceremony of Joan Kerschner-Tinker and R. Jackson Armstrong Ingram into the Heritage Hall of Fame, in the Koontz-Cahlan Research Room in the State Archives at 2:00 pm.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
Attachment A: Report by Teri Mark
Objective 2.1: Facilitate identification of description, protection, preservation, migration, and improved access to electronic records scheduled as permanent.
Strategy 2.1.1: Recommend that NSLA review and the DMLA (now DCA) revise the NAC as necessary to insure access to electronic records scheduled for permanent retention. Review should address such issues as: formats in which data is stored, types of acceptable indexes, responsibilities for data is stored, types of acceptable indexes, responsibility for data migration, collection of metadata, and the possibility of distributed custody and access.
Review: Objective not met. To date, NAC has not been updated – scheduled for revision following the 05 Legislative Session.
2.1.2: Foster collaboration between DMLA (now DCA), DIS (now DOIT) and other agencies of state, county, and local governments to establish statewide model standards to supplement concepts of “creator” and “custodian” as applied to electronic records. Standards to address issues of authenticity, security, data integrity, scheduling, migration, distributed custody, “remote” access, and whether records scheduled for permanent retention should be available on intranets and other systems in current use.
Review: Objective met. The Nevada Electronic Records Committee (NERC) was formed in 2001 and revised in 2004 to add NERC’s Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is chaired by a designee from NSLA with designees from the Department of Information Technology (DOIT), the Department of Administration (DOA) and the Attorney General’s Office (AG). Currently, we have one county government member and one local government member serving on the Steering Committee.
NERC has two standards that meet this objective: “Legal Requirements for Nevada Public Electronic Records” 2001, rev. 2004 and “Electronic Document Management and Imaging System Guidelines” 2001 (currently under revision and renamed “Electronic Records Management: Guidelines and Standards” – scheduled finalization and approval June 2005).
Strategy 2.1.3: Identify appropriate collaborators for the preparation of an information pamphlet to assist non-automated offices and agencies prepare RFP’s for electronic systems: what to ask for, how to evaluate proposals, etc.
Review: Objective partially met. An “information pamphlet” was not created. This objective was partially met in 2001 with the “Electronic Document Management and Imaging System Guidelines,” but not with step-by-step RFP procedures. NERC has a statewide-convenience contract with electronic document management vendors with products that meet DOD 5015.2 (US Department of Defense Records Management Applications) Standards. These contracts are in effect through 2005 and will be extended into 2006.
Strategy 2.1.4: Encourage NSLA to prepare addendum to Local Government Records Manual dealing with the storage and protection of electronic data, both on-line and off-line.
Review: Objective met. The 1998 version of the “Local Government Records Manual” has a section titled: “Optical Imaging Systems.” The NERC Steering Committee has a plan to update this section of the manual. A date for final completion has not been set.
Strategy 2.1.5: Secure collaboration of DMLA (now DCA), DIS (now DOIT), and other agencies of state and local government to publicize the vital importance of doing regular, timely back-ups of transactions, storing back-up tapes and disks off-site, and of maintaining information about electronic systems and about how data has been manipulated and stored so that operations can be restored and information recovered in the event of power failures or other catastrophes.
Review: Objective met. NERC is recognized as a working committee of the Nevada Information Technology Operations Committee (NITOC). NITOC is responsible for policy and oversight structure of Nevada’s information technology. NITOC has several policies that cover electronic systems and backups: “
4.06 Standard: IT Risk Analysis
Strategy 2.1.6: Reinforce and publicize DIS (now DOIT)’s plan for dealing with the Year 2000 problem. Sponsor workshops and presentations with DIS (now DOIT) or non-government experts to help county and local governments as well as constituents resolve the problem in their system.
Review: Objectives met.
Strategy 2.1.7: Work with DIS (now DOIT) to secure cooperation of state departments and agencies in instituting business process reengineering (BPR) to secure more orderly identification of and access to both paper and electronic records. Advocate including a qualified records manager in BPR planning teams.
Review: DOIT has a Technology Improvement Request (TIR) process that is required for Executive Branch agencies as part of their biennial budget request and for agencies seeking funding for any IT project. The TIR is part of the BPR process. Included in this process, the requesting agency must send an M-14 worksheet to the Records Management Program. The M-14 must be submitted with each TIR and is intended to assist agencies in planning for the maintenance of electronic text, data and image files according to requirement in NRS Chapter 239 and NAC Chapter 239. The worksheet is to be used to assist the agency in insuring that adequate funds have been included in TIR related to the life cycle management of electronic record systems.
Objective 2.1: SHRAB will encourage NSLA (and departments and agencies transferring records to the Archives for permanent retention) to develop and implement strategies to migrate electronic records to new technologies to insure that electronic records scheduled for permanent retention remain accessible, as required by NAC 239.760 and 239.780, as amended.
Strategy 2.2.1: Work with DMLA (now DCA) and NSLA to review and provide consistent rules and guidelines to ensure timely migration of electronic data and images from older to newer technological bases.
Review: Objectives met. The “Electronic Records Management: Guidelines and Standards” and “Legal Requirements for Nevada Public Electronic Records” both discuss migration requirements. Migration issues are also part of the Records Management Program’s class curriculum in the class titled “Nevada's Records Retention and Disposition Schedules.”
Strategy 2.2.2: Work with and for NSLA to provide on-going operating funds to sustain a program of migration.
Review: This objective has not been met.
Objective 2.3: Establish grant/regrant programs to foster the development of comprehensive electronic records management systems and the sharing of lessons learned on websites, etc.
Strategy 2.3.1: With appropriate volunteer professionals, prepare and conduct regular workshops, user-group meetings, and training sessions at professional meetings on such topics as storage, back-ups, data migration, metadata, and disaster preparedness.
Review: This objective has not been met. NERC sponsors quarterly training sessions with case studies and technology updates, but they are not presented as workshops or official training sessions. In September 2005, NERC will host CDIA+ training to state personnel interested in achieving CDIA+ certification. Sponsored by the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), CDIA+ Certification demonstrates competency and professionalism in the document imaging/document management industry.
Strategy 2.3.2: SHRAB shall consider applications for funding assistance from local governments, private agencies, and other eligible applicants for projects that facilitate access to and preservation of electronic information, providing that applicant meets a portion of the costs, can demonstrate the ability to sustain new procedures or practices, and is willing to share lessons learned widely.
Review: This objective has not been met.
Objective 2.4: Encourage establishment of interdepartmental/ intergovernmental committee to develop model standards and protocols for data warehouses, GIS, and other systems sharing electronic information.
Strategy 2.4.1: SHRAB should encourage DMLA (now DCA) and DIS (now DOIT) to anticipate inquiry by the Legislative Council Bureau to establish such a committee. The Committee should draw upon expertise of Clark County GIS and others to address such potential problems as data security and integrity and should develop protocols for the collection of metadata as well as distributed custody of and access to datasets.
Review: This objective has not been met.
Objective 2.5: To fulfill the promise of Nevada’s Open Records legislation, the SHRAB shall encourage the establishment of a Nevada Government Information Locator Service.
Strategy 2.5.1: Encourage DMLA (now DCA) and DIS (now DOIT) jointly to explore what kind of technological base will be necessary, the costs of installation and operation, as well as issues of confidentiality, etc.
Review: NSLA received an LSTA for a GIL’s pilot project in 2001 and the project indicated it was not feasible in the state of Nevada because of the work tagging metadata into existing web pages and the reluctance of state agency webmasters to include metadata tags as they create new pages. DCA and DoIT have a difficult time cooperating on projects because DoIT generates its funding by charging state agencies for services and DCA receives its funding from the State General Fund.
Strategy 2.5.2: Work with other agencies and constituent groups to secure appropriate level of sustained funding.
Review: This strategy has not successful because of the way state agencies are funded. There are agencies funded by fees, agencies funded by federal money and general fund agencies. Until someone demonstrates a possible funding source that is acceptable, this will not be done.
Attachment B: Report of Jacque Sundstrand and Vikki Ford
Goal 3: Nevada's people and governments will share responsibility to preserve and make our unique documentary heritage available.
The SHRAB will work to insure that the Nevada's documentary heritage continues to be collected, appreciated, and made as widely available as possible. They will foster an awareness all Nevada residents are responsible for and benefit from the preservation of Nevada's Documentary Heritage.
Objective 3.1: Actively and publicly encourage the identification, collection, donation (if appropriate), preservation, and protection of records of individuals and businesses, along with civic, political, and religious organizations.
Review: Question as to why we would want the “if appropriate” wording to remain?
Strategy 3.1.1: Work with Nevada Museum Association and other interested constituents to identify personal and business papers, as well as those of religious, professional, civic, and political groups to urge them to preserve and donate their records to appropriate repositories.
Review: Objective met. This is a continuing strategy. Question about if we want to name more organizations other than NMA.
Strategy 3.1.2: NSLA prepares several brief pamphlets or information bulletins for wide distribution containing advice on:
Review: Unsure if objective was met. Continue this strategy but with more emphasis on placing online web links to other organizations’ public information—i.e. Conservation website through Stanford, etc., and urge others to include these links on their sites. Consider if hardcopy is economically feasible for production or if distribution can be maintained.
Strategy 3.1.3: Encourage state licensing boards and commissions and the Department of Business and Industry to urge business to preserve crucial business records.
Review: Unsure if objective was met. Continue strategy. Question about placement of this strategy not following after 3.1.1? We may have to better define the “crucial business records” to which we are referring.
Strategy 3.1.4: Include non-NSLA records on CLAN, even if only an expanded vertical file listing of names and locations. For example, establish links to websites such as UNR's for the finding aid produced by the NV Women's Archives Project, and to the Nevada Historical Society for the inter-Tribal Collection.
Review: Unsure if objective was met. Question about this strategy’s purpose (as well as clarity to those unfamiliar with the abbreviations) and placement under 3.1 as this one concerns access to collected materials already maintained in repositories.
Strategy 3.1.5: Encourage DMLA's cataloging committee to create a Nevada-specific authority file; make it accessible on NSLA website. Use model of cooperative NSLA/UNR/UNLV Nevada photographic project.
Review: Objective not met. Strategy on authority files must be in cooperation with Library of Congress authority files creation and usage. Question about this strategy being moved to 3.3 Objective.
Objective 3.2: Use SHRAB grant/regrant process to stimulate local and regional collection and preservation of, and access to essential documentary materials.
Strategy 3.2.1: Work with DMLA boards and committees to recruit professionals to visit, upon request, local museums and historical societies to help them evaluate and improve their programs and facilities. [Model: Texas's NHPRC-sponsored Program Development & Training grant program or Vermont's similar program].
Review: Objective met. This is a continuing strategy.
Strategy 3.2.2: Include on-line posting, EAD, or MARC descriptions as part of any SHRAB-supported collections project.
Review: Unsure if object met. Question about rewriting strategy to encourage use of standards and tools in library and archival work (i.e. MARC records on online catalogs, Encoded Archival Description for finding aids) and placement of project information and summary on the SHRAB (others?) website.
Objective 3.3: Collaboration with DMLA boards and committees and with the Nevada Museum Association and others to strengthen the policies and programs and improve the facilities at local and tribal history centers statewide.
Strategy 3.3.1: Encourage Nevada Museum Association and other appropriate organizations to foster regional collections strategies and to encourage the transfer or deposit of poorly maintained collections to institutions that can provide better care and access.
Review: Objective met. This is a continuing strategy.
Strategy 3.3.2: SHRAB shall work with Director, DMLA to explore options to improve facilities in southern Nevada.
Review: Objective met.
Strategy 3.3.3: Cooperation with ITCN to survey records-keeping facilities in tribal governments.
Review: Unsure if objective met. This is a continuing strategy.
Strategy 3.3.4: Encourage youth leadership organizations to sponsor, in connection with Nevada History Day, projects that result in the identification of significant local or regional collections of personal, business, or organizational papers and in the subsequent donation and processing of the papers.
Review: Objective not met. Question about working closely enough with those organizing History Day activities as to this annual goal. Discuss rewriting objective.
Objective 3.4: Improvement of access to records statewide by encouraging the creation of traditional finding aids and directories, as well as through the wider use of standard online descriptions. Encourage access to full texts of records through CD-ROM, and other traditional and on-line forms of publishing.
Review: Encourage access to repositories with online catalogs and/or presence through web links to these materials. Consider have possible “best practices” points online for staff at smaller repositories.
Strategy 3.4.1: Encourage DMLA, Nevada Historical Society, and other appropriate agencies to sponsor regular (annual or biennial) statewide competition for the outstanding finding aid or publication produced by any non-DMLA organization with commensurate recognition in connection with Nevada History Day.
Review: Unsure if objective was met. Current biennial Nevada History Conference is held, but unsure about awards or competition.
Strategy 3.4.2: [Same as 3.1.4, above]
Strategy 3.4.3: [Same as 3.2.2, above]
Attachment C: Shayne Del Cohen and David Millman
SHRAB – Strategic Planning for 2006-2010 DRAFT
Summary of Prior Plan:
Goal #5 for the period of 1997-2005 was the “Mobilizing collective resources of SHRAB, DMLA, and constituent organizations.”
The SHRAB proposed to work collaboratively with other boards and committees within the DMLA, with other state agencies and local governments, and with professional and constituent organizations to create an affirming attitude to fulfill its goals and objectives. Board members were to work to create the optimum funding base from government and private sources in support of its programs.
Specifics were to:
Objective 5.1: Obtain a secure, appropriate funding base for staff and programs of NSLA and DMLA.
Strategy 5.1.1: Encourage DMLA and its Management Team to explore and expand public relations opportunities offered by linking NSLA's webpage to those of the Legislature and the Supreme Court to remind state leadership of the quality and quantity of the resources available through NSLA.
Strategy 5.1.2: Recommend to Legislature that NSLA be funded to become a "read-only" part of DIS's Nevada Information Infrastructure where mediated access could be provided to electronic records not in the physical custody of NSLA.
Strategy 5.1.3: Expand on-going p/r program at NSLA:
Objective 5.2: Set biennial priorities for programmatic support and initiatives and schedule regular review of achievements. The needs and opportunities suggested by surveys include:
Objective 5.3: Strengthened interdepartmental and intergovernmental communication and cooperation.
Strategy 5.3.1: Work with DMLA, DIS, and other agencies of state and local government, and with tribal governments to insure open communications and cooperation.
Within limited funding and no staffing above that of the beleaguered State Archives Manager during this period, the SHRAB’s activities for collaboration can mainly be categorized as
1. supporting the setting of standards and practices for electronic records; supporting the development of electronic collections and displays by NSLA and related agencies
2. consistent outreach to government entity records keeping organizations
3. limited special initiatives
The funding base for NSLA and Department of Cultural Affairs (formerly DMLA) programs, while secure, did not experience any enhancement during the 1997-2005 period, in fact, actually declined. The presence of related information, discussions, actual collections, etc. “on the web”, however, has made one form of outreach and public relations economically efficient and accessible to a wide swath of the Nevada population. This has been essential for a state that for over a decade continues to lead the country in population explosion in a “no new taxes (services)” political climate.
It can be stated that every record generator/keeper has a broadened awareness of electronic records issues, including systems procurement, security, migration, metadata, etc.; whether the quality of local record keeping has improved or not remains to be seen.
The State Archives Manager emphasized disaster preparedness and planning throughout the period.
Electronic records See Terri Mark summary in Section 2.
Working with Records Groups
A Brochure (attached/included) was developed for general distribution.
SHRAB initiated an annual Archives Week in which there generally is a symposium at the State Capitol on “Nevada Day”, publication of the Nevada Archives Treasure Map, and a discussion about the Nevada Constitution and related or interesting Nevada Documents on a TV series.
SHRAB has supported the development of Great Basin Indian Archives (www.gbcnv.edu/gbia) and the website of “Our Story” (African-American experience in Northern Nevada) www.sncar.org/our_story.htm as demonstrations of ways to include, serve and showcase minority collections.
Planning for 2006-2010
Reality dictates that there will not be additional staff available through state or federal resources in the near future. Thus the outlook for additional collaborations will be dependent upon “outside” entities being aggressive in requesting partnerships.
SHRAB will continue to advocate for additional staffing; the maintenance of effort as well as keeping abreast of the emergent issues from population growth and technology indicate that keeping the quality of present efforts at standards of excellence will be a full time effort. No new major projects should be undertaken without appropriate resources.
The SHRAB proposes to maintain existing levels of communication and outreach for its activities.
The collaboration with the various related professional groups can be strengthened by identifying those persons at each institution/agency who are responsible/interested for/in record keeping and maintaining an active directory (placed on the ‘net) so that they can be included in education, special programs and grant application
Again, by posting on the ‘net, the SHRAB may issue an annual update of status/additions of collections for state archives/county museums/libraries and state agency archives, university archives, and tribal/private collections at their discretion. This precludes the man-hours and costs expended for printing, mailing and “finding the right people” to whom to get such materials. Such a directory online will be another tool for public awareness and access.
The SHRAB will continue to provide leadership in electronic archiving by supporting NSLA and DCA staff to
The SHRAB will continue to support efforts that educate and provide skill training to all levels of the population:
As previously mentioned, the Nevada population is burgeoning. Thus, the simple question of facilities – either those to store conventional records or the construction of technologically appropriate facilities to house electronic networks and eventually archives – is critical in developing a physical infrastructure to serve basic needs. The SHRAB will support staff to: