[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ohio Situation -- Who Decides?



Response regarding Ohio Historical Society-
    What the situation comes down to is a precarious faith in the validity of
microfilm.  Just because a document or group of documents are microfilmed
does not mean the original source is no longer needed.  Many times mistakes
are made when items are being microfilmed.  Lost or misplaced pages can cause
great headaches for researchers.  If the item looked for is not in its
microfilm location,  the adage of "A needle in a haystack,"  becomes an
understatement.   If the original source cannot be located, or in this case
if the source was THROWN OUT,  the information is lost forever! This is why
retention schedules are set up in the first place.  If the Historical Society
could not remember to follow an established policy covering the most
intricate part of the Archivist's job,  what else has happened at the
institution?  Only if contaminated by molds and fungi or the documents have
finally reached the end of their life span,  are they warranted to be thrown
out.  Richard  Cox is right in saying that Archivists are both preservers and
destroyers.  This is true,  but we are destroyers only as the last resort.
If a collection had a number of old library periodical clipping books (used
to group current articles by subject),  These might be thrown out because:
1)Their usefulness to a researcher are very limited, if at any use at all.
              2) They have been contaminated by various problems.
              3) 90% of periodicals have some sort of index for their own
history of past issues.
              4) To create more shelf space for more necessary materials (a
constant problem for  an Archive).
In many cases the usefulness of such an item is nonexistent.  Therefore,
discarding them would be ok.  This is a case where more complete information
can be obtained through other sources.  In the case of the Ohio prison
records,  no alternative source or data base exists.  Microfilm is the only
backup.  Now the State has to rely on the perfection of microfilm.  By
throwing out the documents,  the State has lost a great source of heritage.
        As far as being liable to the State,  a Historical Society must be!
When taking care of
the State's Archive,  the Historical Society has an obligation to the State
to support the collections as best they can while following what the State
outlines.  They are funded by the state,  they are a State agency.  Much like
the health care profession,  the company is private but has to adhere to
State and Federal guidelines.  If not,  then the State can step in and take
over.   If  the State wants the prison records held for X number of years,
then the Historical Society should comply as any other state agency would.
If they don't they could rick losing the majority of their funding and, I
guess, their salaries.
Alex Rankin
Archival Coordinator
Department of Special Collections
Boston University
E-mail: rankin@acs.bu.edu
richard cox wrote:

> Yesterday Dennis East posted a message to this list, stating in part:
> "Every aspiring and practicing archivist should read the article in the
> Toledo Blade and decide for themselves based on the information
> available. It's a great case study for an archives class!"
>
> Well, ok, I had my class on Archival Access and Advocacy - one of nine
> courses on archives and preservation offered this academic year at Pitt -
> meeting last night and I accepted Dennis' challenge.
>
> Apart from the fact that every newspaper article like this only tells
> part of the story, it is the material of a good case study.
>
> Here are general observations made as part of our discussion:
>
> First, the idea that microfilmed records would not ultimately be
> destroyed is a poor principle.  The quotations from various people around
> the state revealed a sort of antiquarian fascination with preserving the
> originals that is part of the responsibility of the archives profession
> to change.  The public needs to understand that archivists are destroyers
> as well as preservers, especially corporate, government, and
> institutional archives administered as part of records management
> programs.  We need to help the public understand that careful appraisal
> and as part of this destruction is both a normal and necessary
> responsibility.  Here there seems nothing to fault about what the OHS
> staff were trying to accomplish.
>
> Second, there were some decidely poor judgments made at the Ohio
> Historical Society, if the newspaper article is an adequate reporting of
> the events, in terms of following procedures in archives and records
> management work.  Admissions of not checking retention schedules, of the
> lack of obtaining and documenting permissions for destruction, of some of
> the records being "saved" by an outside party, and other related
> activities reveal records management and archives procedures not being
> carefully followed.  If the OHS could have produced all of the forms and
> procedures, some of the controversy would have been avoided (although the
> criticism of the "self-advowed history buff" probably would not have
> dissipated simply because it is difficult for such people to understand
> that some older records will be destroyed).
>
> Third, and perhaps the greatest problem, is the notion that a private
> organization - the OHS - entrusted with the responsibility to manage the
> state government archives is somehow not liable to be investigated
> because it is not a state agency suggests a remarkable dilemma.  This is
> the responsibility of the state government not a private organization.
> Realizing that the majority of the funds for the OHS come from the State
> does not resolve anything if the OHS is not able to held accountable by
> the State.  It should be added that this is the fault of the State
> government not the OHS, and it is quite likely that the OHS problems with
> procedures and practices stems from the work environment created by a
> lack of accountability.
>
> NAGARA, SAA, and ARMA all should look into the legal and ethical
> dimensions of this incident - although none of our professional
> associations have strong mechanisms or interests in doing something like
> this.  Too bad.  It is especially too bad because such newspaper stories
> never tell the full set of events.  Even the tone of the Toledo Blade
> article suggests this because you can sense the reporter's joy in dealing
> with the supposed irony of the State Archives destroying such records.  A
> more active and viligant set of professional associations could provide
> more balanced accountings of such events -- like the General Accounting
> Office reports issued by the Feds.
>
> Richard J. Cox
> Associate Professor
> Department of Library and Information Sciences
> School of Information Sciences
> University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Voice:  412-624-3245
> FAX:    412-648-7001
> e-mail: rjc@lis.pitt.edu
> homepage: http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~rjc
>
> A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
>       In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
>                     *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
> To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu
>
> Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
>
> Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>