Kansas State Historical Records Advisory Board Meeting Minutes Members Present: Peggy Goertzen, Tony Crawford, Don Heiman, Wilbur Ferguson, Janet Chubb, Mack Teasley, Mary Allman, David Haury, and Pat Michaelis. Others: Matt Veatch, Cynthia Laframboise, Justin Dragosani-Brantingham, and Cindi Vahsholtz. Pat called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. and introduced the board members. She told the members that we were working on their reappointments, and Barbara had called the Governor’s office the day before. The By-Laws state that members remain members until they are replaced. Minutes of the Previous Meeting Pat asked whether there were any additions or corrections to the minutes
of the Review of Wyandotte County Grant Application Pat began by saying that staff has had no input into this application and no discussions with Wyandotte County. Darrell Garwood had an inquiry on what the cost would be to film their records, but nothing was mentioned about a grant proposal. Pat said we could film the records at half of our normal price as stated in the grant, Darrell has not seen them. Pat referred to the evaluation and asked the board to comment on the first question, “How does this proposal relate to any priorities established by the state board?” After some discussion, Pat asked if the board could agree that it fits within a priority category, which they did. The second question was to comment on “The soundness of the plan
of work, especially the appropriateness of the techniques to be applied,
as described in the proposal.” David said we know very little
about the records—how many, the condition, the order they are
in, are they bound, or dates? Pat said there are 517 bound volumes in
twelve drawers of 25 each. Nine volumes in chronological order in 1867
and, from 1867 on, licenses are indexed alphabetically and one volume
is separate. There are 90 volumes from 1930 on. She said they may be
wanting the index filmed. Peggy said the 1859 material needs to be done,
and Pat responded if it’s the actual records and not the index.
Pat said we need a better description of the records involved. She said
maybe they can provide that detail and do an additional review. There
is no description of finding aids. If we were going to give them a price
break, they should prepare them. The third item discussed was the qualifications of personnel. Tony said that the people submitting the grant application have credentials. Peggy asked if they were wanting to throw the records away, and Matt said they cannot until they are filmed. Pat said they are permanent records on the county schedule. Matt said he had met with them a year ago, and was reasonably impressed with their desire to do things right even though the Wyandotte County Museum and Unified Government are in transition. The fourth item, the importance of the records had been discussed throughout the meeting. The fifth item, the soundness of the budget was discussed. They should have some staff time with a description and percentage of the annual salary. Mack said they should show a matching contribution, and it should be in-kind. Tony said that in terms of the budget, things aren’t spelled out or defined--$28,400 to film 180 cu. ft. plus matching salaries, etc., but there’s no breakdown. Pat said we could work with them to make a stronger proposal if the records are valuable. Pat said she didn’t feel comfortable recommending at this point to know whether we can work with them or whether it’s too much to do—maybe wait for a different grant cycle. Helping them is something we would be willing to do but don’t know whether it would be at this grant cycle. Janet asked if someone other than staff here should help them with the drafting of a plan. Is that a conflict of interest? Pat said it could be staff, but not the board. Pat said that if they loan something to microfilm, we assess it, and if it is something we think we will use, we give them a price break. That’s part of our standard practice. Again, we need to see the records before we make that decision. Mack said a good portion could already be filmed. David asked what would happen to these records if we don’t act. By law, they cannot destroy them without them being filmed. It has to be reviewed and approved by the staff here. David said the natural fear is that these records would be lost forever the way it’s described. Pat said that the bindings are off, but oftentimes the records inside are okay. She doesn’t know how extensive the mold is. David said a site visit could sort that out. Pat asked if the consensus was that we are not ready to recommend the application at this point. If the time allows, they could still do it if we received more information. She said she would ask Justin Dragosani-Brantingham to talk with them, and we would expect them to do the preparation. Pat would like to be sure we aren’t duplicating efforts. There was further discussion regarding the condition of the records, the number of records, the charge to film them, and whether they may or may not already have been filmed. Pat said she will try to contact Dick Cameron to see if we have enough time, but she would suggest that they withdraw the grant, we offer assistance, and have them submit for the next time. This will show that it’s a consensus of the board, and until we see the records, we won’t know. Janet said she thought it was important that the board said there has been no contact and would have helped them. Pat asked how we can do a better job of letting people know there are opportunities. Board Activities – Resubmission of Local Government Records Grant Pat began by saying that we did receive our Board Administrative Grant for the next two years. She said we anticipated five board meetings over the next two years and two workshops per year. In one, we would experiment with a video conferencing approach and a local records feasibility study on how to organize a local association since there is interest in Kansas to do that. Pat said she feels like we already have a good handle on local government, and we’ll look at doing some kind of a survey. There is a feasibility study in the second year of the proposal, and we will gather information on the needs the first year. David said that IMLS just funded a quarter million dollar survey to be done by SAA that may ask a lot of the same questions—how to involve county clerks who work with records a lot and how to get them in with other officials who might be missed. Pat introduced Justin Dragosani-Brantingham who works with local governments and will be involved with the activities. Mack asked if this compares with the last grant, and Pat said they are probably about the same. Other Business State House Preservation Project Don Heiman said there is a $135 million effort of which a portion is to fund 118 square feet of new space in the State House preservation project. There have been a lot of historical things discovered as the building speaks its history, and there is a tremendous amount of history that is undocumented that is being discovered now. There will be an underground garage and visitors’ center, auditorium, and classrooms. He mentioned this because there will be opportunities to use the classrooms and auditorium for presentations of some of the things we do. The State House architect will give tours, and it would be helpful for some members of the board to take a tour. He said telecommunications within the building will be wireless in common areas. The rotunda will be set up for display, and it would be good for us to have a presence there. Mary said the space he was referring to is controlled by the Governor’s office. We will be doing some displays there about Lewis and Clark and Territorial Kansas. She has met with DoA to talk about it. She will mention this to the Cultural Resources Division. There are people working here who have worked on it in the past. Janet said regarding video conferencing, the facilities at the National Guard all over the state had been mentioned for live conferencing sessions with other groups. Don said we could do a town hall—public debates--out of the auditorium. All of the communication capabilities are there, and schools are being wired under the Kansas Education Network. Pat said the budget has been approved. We need to identify activities and topics for two workshops for the calendar year. Matt said for two workshops—one each year—there will be two instructors per workshop. Pat suggested the topic of video conferencing the first year. Don suggested starting with a video conferencing pilot with ten sites minimum—may have phases—two sites first phase and build up to ten sites. Pat said we need to identify topics and our audience and divide into two subcommittees for arrangements for video conferencing and the content for the workshop. Don asked if they would like to do one dealing only with the technology. Pat said it doesn’t fit in the grant, but she said we could do it with the board—have someone train us, but it could be the focus of the workshop. Matt asked if we could have the next board meeting using the video conferencing. Janet would recommend trying it as a board, and Pat said she thinks there are others at KSHS who would be interested. Don said he would talk with DISC. He asked where we would do this in six cities. Pat said possibly Topeka, Leavenworth, Wichita, Manhattan, Abilene, and Garden City. Regarding topics, Justin suggested the formation of a local government records association or something more like grant writing or a speakers’ bureau. Pat suggested some aspect of how you care for your records. Matt said preserve and conserve is always good—photos, papers, digital media. He said that through the mentoring workshop, there was an extensive set of handouts and Powerpoint on various topics. Other suggestions were county records, technology and digitization—lecture and Powerpoint. Matt said most from around the state are on a local level and are still dealing with people. Digitization would be for a few on a higher level. We could start with basic forms, etc. and, secondly, digitization as a means of access. Justin suggested first doing an inventory of the records they have themselves, but they don’t know how to start. Pat said we could do this with county historical societies, too—basics of archival collections. Pat asked how long the workshop should be, and two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon was suggested Pat said maybe a series of three half day workshops would be more extensive but would break it up. Don suggested 45-minute sessions with ten minute breaks where you would not be spending as much time with people in the room as on the screen looking at other sites. Tony said there is a level of demonstration especially if handouts coordinate with what they are seeing. Don said he wanted it to be interactive, and it could be that the sites are conversing. David suggested just trying it once for a half day. Pat asked if there would be three or four volunteers to be on the content committee. We will put the video conferencing on hold until we have our training. David Haury is the chair of the committee, and Tony Crawford, Sheryl Williams, and Sally Akers are the members. Don said that for the first one, you want it to be interactive instead of instructional. Mack said they could share problems across the state, and Matt said they could share success stories as well. Pat said we could do a small session on grants they could receive. Don suggested some type of document, have a subject meet in each of the rooms, select six sites, and add a topic and agenda. Board members would be in each of the six sites and would interact with each other as facilitators. One person at the host site would introduce the topic, and what we’re trying to achieve. Pat said she would wait to hear back from Don. David asked whether we want to arrange training this spring. Don suggested having a board meeting first, and the program committee could script out what this first session will be. After he sees the script, he will know what end user he will need and some estimate of time on the network for cost. You pay for the backbone and get two sites. For each additional site, it’s $50 - $60 per hour. Scheduling is important. He will have some idea from the script about the sites. Coverage of the state will be important. Pat asked the group to report back by April, and we will do the training first. Don said we could cut the cost by having three sites for the board meeting. Pat suggested an April meeting and an October workshop. Matt asked about the Technological Committee. Don is the chair, and Matt is staff support. Janet will help. Pat said she had submitted an application for the re-grant program instead of grant money to hire a local records archivist six to eight weeks for the application process for county government. If you really get the small counties set up and going, they could maintain on their own. They received their maximum funding. Should we resubmit this on behalf of the board? Before it required $30,000 in match. You could ask for $90,000 without a cash match. They will give less, but they have to come up with $30,000, and we had to turn it down. I think we can resubmit it under the original conditions. It could help a half dozen counties get their archives. Does the board want to resubmit this grant? The consensus of the board was yes. The next meeting will be in April—date to be determined. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
|
|
 |
