Kansas State Historical Records Advisory Board

Members Present: Marilyn Chapman, Tony Crawford, Janet Chubb, Don Heiman, David Haury, Pat Michaelis, Sheryl Williams, Mary Allman

Others: Matt Veatch, Cindi Vahsholtz

Pat called the meeting to order at 10:35 a.m. and introduced Mary Allman, new Executive Director of the Kansas Historical Society, to the board. Members of the board introduced themselves to Mary. Pat welcomed new board member Janet Chubb from the Secretary of State's office.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Pat asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the last meeting, held October 24, 2001. Tony moved for approval of the minutes, David seconded, and the motion passed.

Distribution of Interim Report

Pat discussed the interim report regarding the Mentor Program. She said the mentors have reported that a couple of institutions have a higher capability than others to carry out the tasks/projects identified by the mentors and repository staff during their first site visits. She said progress depends on the individuals involved such as volunteers and maybe one part-time paid person. Of course, staff and volunteer changes always have an impact on small institutions.

Pat summarized the types of projects that the mentors and mentees had agreed to undertake and, on page 3, provided her own personal conclusions about the effectiveness of the project at the end of the report:

The extensive workshop increased knowledge.
Implementations were accomplished with a limited budget.
Mentors established ongoing relationships.
A third visit by the mentor would be better than two.
Historical collections are very uneven, but most have some kind of photo collection.

Tony asked if there would be another report from the mentors. Pat said there would be after the second on-site visit as well as evaluations from the institutions.

Update on Mentor Project

Pat said the board would probably be most interested in reading the initial reports and self-assessments from the mentors that were included in the NHPRC report handout. She said that Janice Lee, mentor for the Meade County Historical Society, is asking for advice since there have been cutbacks in staffing and support for paper collections might not be maintained.

Discussion of Resubmission of Local Records Grant Proposal

NHPRC at one point awarded re-grants without a cash match. KSHRAB submitted a local records re-grant proposal that was approved by NHPRC, but with a reduced budget and a requirement for a cash match of $30,000. The board turned down the award since it had no way of coming up with the required match.

We have been encouraged to resubmit it as an implementation grant which means we would not need a cash match, only in-kind cost sharing. We would need to revise the proposal in some ways. There would be two parts to the grant. Part 1 would offer workshops throughout the state on archival procedures. We now have an outline for a basic workshop because of the one offered with the mentoring project. Part 2 would make a local records archivist available to ten counties to work with a lead records person designated by the selected counties.

The goals of the grant would be:

Train volunteers, have the county adopt the model retention schedules, and assist in developing access policies.

On an annual basis, the county could deal with records to be sent to the county archives.

It would be designed for smaller counties.

Part of the requirement for assistance is that the county commission should go on record as supporting the records retention schedule and commit to ongoing records management.

The deadline for resubmitting the proposal is June 1, 2003.

There was discussion that ten institutions in ten counties might be too ambitious. Janet clarified that the grant has been considered as a re-grant before and will be redrafted for an implementation grant and modified for those standards. She asked if we have the resources for real time video conferencing. A discussion of video conferencing capabilities followed.

Marilyn Chapman discussed a video conference in which she had been involved. Don Heiman said there had been a court case settled during the Finney Administration, and the money for Kansas was given to DISC. Sites are located across the state, and there are interactive video sites in the Landon State Office Building, KU Med, the six universities, and Washburn. A large grant was given for military training within 50 miles of where personnel live, so there is a site in every National Guard Armory. They are very sophisticated, and there’s one in the armory in Topeka. Most states weren’t ready, but Kansas was. They are begging for people to use the site at no charge for the room. There is a backbone charge, and it is accessible to the state network. He will send a rate sheet to Pat, and he could get a deal coordinated through the Med Center. Don suggested putting this into the grant request since it is so reasonable and to do it as a pilot.

Janet said that it is an opportunity to be able to take advantage of something already in place with little expense. Don said there are about fifteen armories throughout the state. He said the sites are voice-activated and will require a little training. The capability of white boarding is available—writing back and forth.

Pat said five half-day workshops might be more effective than a two-and-a-half-day workshop all at one time. Don said you could have five half-day workshops on five topics—video, edit, and package them. David asked if that meant not taking the workshop on the road at all to all different parts of the state, and Don suggested a few in-person workshops might be good.

Pat asked if we would need someone on-site. Don said yes to be sure it is done well, and the host site for sure to run the video camera. He said there is a technologist at each site. He will try to get a map of the sites, and give the information to Pat.

Matt said the board will probably meet again to review the submission with a draft in the fall and the final version in the spring.

There was discussion regarding funding. Pat said we have to have an in-kind match of 50 percent, but not a cash match. Don said there would be a $45-50 cost per hour per site charge for backbone transmission and no room cost. Pat said we could claim as a match $50 per hour for the backbone transmission and $20 per hour for the room. Don suggested if we were using the Adjutant General’s people, the reasonable rate would be $35 per hour for them. Don suggested asking INK for free service, and they would do the program at $85 per hour for 80 hours. He said he would talk to James Hollingsworth that afternoon, and he and Janet will work on it. Janet said the effort to present the workshop would be about the same, but it would serve more places. Pat said that by having a larger in-kind match, we could request more grant funds, thus allowing the project archivist to spend more time at each site. Janet said she thought this was very reasonable and conservative. Pat said she thought it would be attractive to NHPRC.

Don asked if you could partner with other states. The KSHRAB could do the workshops, perfect them, and then sell them to other states—even on the web. Tony said he thought we had enough to do—maybe for the future. Don said this is providing more than the workshop. It could be a national model. Pat said we would proceed with rewriting the grant and get together to critique it. Janet asked if it would be available electronically. Matt said it could be.

Next Board Operating Grant

Pat Michaelis said the current operating grant runs through the end of this calendar year, and the next deadline for submitting a grant is September 1, 2002. She asked what activities we should do for the next grant.

Matt suggested a pre-pilot interactive conference. Pat said it could be a generic archival workshop. Pat asked if we should request $10,000 per two-year period. We don’t have a lot of costs for board meetings. We could put in up to $6,000 for setting up a pilot project on video conferencing. Matt said it would help a lot to make the contacts. Pat asked if there were other activities the board might want to consider. There was discussion regarding whether to explore the feasibility of the board being in an advocacy position to promote a local government records association in Kansas—based on models in other states. Other costs would be limited to board travel, subsistence, etc. This would be in addition to the interactive conference.

The first year of the operating grant would be to work out the bugs on the conference. The second year would be to determine the feasibility of a government records association. Don mentioned creating guidelines for the preservation of electronic records and for disaster recovery.

Pat distributed and discussed information regarding Archives Week in October.

Other

Pat said there is several thousand dollars left in the current board operating grant and asked the board whether we should spend it or return it. The Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (COSHRC) is tied to NHPRC. They have set up a new organization and are asking states to pay dues. There is a ruling from NHPRC that allows states to use up to $1,000 or ten percent of their existing funds to pay the dues. This is a way for state boards to get together to share ideas and initiatives. The most recent COSHRC grant focused on archival educational opportunities.

We have $7,700 left, and we need to pay for this board meeting, travel, and honorariums in the mentor program which is about $2,000. We could spend $1,000 for COSHRC and have $4,000 remaining. Don Heiman moved to pay the dues. The motion was seconded by Sheryl, and approved unanimously.

Pat said there is going to be a two-day conservation workshop in the paper conservation lab in Omaha. There are four slots for people from Kansas. The grant includes funds to pay lodging, travel, and mileage for participants, but the Nebraska grant might not have enough money for people from far western Kansas. The board discussed how it should select people to attend. We don’t have time for people to apply. Don asked if the mentors could make recommendations, but Pat said that would only include six institutions. Tony said it should be someone with ongoing staff. Sheryl said the workshop is the same week as MAC, and Pat said it is also the week after the Kansas Museum Association meeting. Pat said her inclination is to contact some of the mid-size institutions that have an archives. We could use a ListServ to put up an announcement, but we might get too many delegates. Janet suggested having them send us an e-mail telling us why they want to attend the workshop. The board approved paying for any needed travel.

Don suggested we request an extension of the current operating grant. Pat asked if we should get an extension through June 1. David said the deadlines have always been June 1 and October 1. David said there might be enough money for the pilot video conferencing. Don asked if we had ever done video conferencing. He suggested putting together an agenda and conducting a KSHRAB meeting for the experience. Don said he would help with the pilot; David suggested having it at three sites. It was decided that we would ask for an extension of the current operating grant and use the remaining funds to test the concept of doing workshops through video conferencing.

The meeting adjourned at 1:03 p.m.