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

(FWD) NCC WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 8, #5, February 7, 2002



> NCC WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 8, #5, February 7, 2002
> by Bruce Craig <rbcraig@nccph.org
> National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (NCCPH)
> *****************
>
> 1.   President Submits Budget: Overall, Good News for History/Archives
> 2.   Reynolds Foundation Withdraws Support for Smithsonian Exhibit
> 3.   Reagan Boyhood Home NHS Legislation Signed by President
> 4 .  News Bits and Bytes: Truman Library/Institute -- New NCCPH
> Institutional Supporter; Seminar for Historical Administration; NARA
> Comments Sought on NHPRC Guidelines
> 5.   Articles of Interest: "Stop, Historians! Don't Copy That Passage!
> Computers Are Watching" (New York Times)
>
> 1.  PRESIDENT SUBMITS BUDGET: OVERALL GOOD NEWS FOR HISTORY/ARCHIVES
> In the opening volley of what promises to be a multi-month battle in
> Congress over the government's spending plan for FY 2003, on February 4,
> 2002, President Bush forwarded to Congress a five-inch high stack of budget
> books wrapped in red-white-and-blue covers depicting the American flag that
> outlines a $2.13 trillion federal budget.
>
> Overall, the Bush budget proposal reflects a 3.7% increase in total
> spending over FY-2002.  The President calls for dramatic increases spending
> for the war on terrorism, defense (a $48 billion increase), and homeland
> security and makes dramatic cuts in other programs. Bush proposes to cover
> the budget shortfall (which is projected at $106 billion) by tapping into
> the Social Security and Medicare surpluses.
>
> Bush's proposed domestic program cuts include reductions in highway
> spending, reductions in spending on environmental protection, and
> elimination of hundreds of education and health and education projects.  To
> increase government revenue, Bush proposes several controversial measures
> including one designed to reap $1.2 billion in new revenue by leasing the
> drilling rights in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a
> controversial measure strongly opposed by environmentalists.
>
> Given the fiscally tight nature of the overall budget, the nation's
> cultural institutions seem to have fared fairly well:
>
> DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:  In the Department of Education budget, there is
> delightful and unexpected good news for the history profession.  Following
> up on his recently approved "No Child Left Behind" education bill that
> authorizes "such sums as may be necessary for FY 2002 and each of the 5
> succeeding fiscal years" (see "President Bush Signs Education Authorization
> Bill,' in NCC WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 8, #1, January 11, 2002), for the
> "Teaching American History" initiative, in his FY 2003 budget President
> Bush is supporting the initiative to the tune of $50 million
> dollars.  These funds are designed to provide "competitive grants to school
> districts for activities that promote the teaching of traditional American
> history."  The initiative, spearheaded by Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV),
> Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, may see an increase,
> possibly to $100 million -- the level appropriated in the FY 2002 federal
> budget.
>
> INTERIOR DEPARTMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES:  The budget for the Department of
> the Interior (which houses several agencies and programs of interest to
> historians and archivists) is virtually unchanged from a year ago.  The
> Administration is proposing a $10.6 billion budget for Interior.  There is
> an increase of $107 million for the National Park Service to $2.422 billion
> including $663 million to continue working on reducing the maintenance
> backlog at park units.  Several important programs, however, face cuts if
> not total annihilation.  While the "Save America's Treasures" program is
> proposed to be funded at $30 million, the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)
> is slotted to take a $5 million cut in grants-in-aid funds (the proposed
> funding level for the HPF is $37 million) and the Urban Park and Recreation
> Fund (UPAR) program is completely zeroed out as is funding for the National
> Trust For Historic Preservation.
>
> The Interior budget launches the Cooperative Conservation Initiative -- a
> program being promoted as "an innovative new" multi-agency program designed
> to strengthen conservation through partnerships and citizen involvement in
> the stewardship of public lands. The initiative is actually a repackaging
> of an aspect of the stateside program traditionally housed in the Land and
> Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).  Among other things, the initiative will
> enable state governments to tap federal matching funds (up to 50%) for
> "restoring, protecting, and enhancing natural areas near State lands." No
> funding in the new initiative seems to specifically benefit historical
> sites or properties unless they contain riparian or wetland areas or can be
> used to establish or expand wildlife habitat.
>
> The nation's cultural endowments are also funded out of the Interior
> Department.  This year, the President opted not to propose "flat
> funding"for the endowments, but instead requested $126.893 million for the
> National Endowment for the Humanities (a $2 million or a 1.9% increase over
> FY 2002) and $117 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (again a
> $2 million or a 1.7% increase).  Of the $126.893 million slotted for the
> NEH, $89.932 million is for the Endowment's grant programs; there is
> $10.436 million for NEH Challenge Grants; $5.686 million to match
> non-federal contributions to humanities projects supported by the
> Endowment; and $20.839 million for administrative expenses.
>
> Most of the increases for the Endowments are aimed at funding the full
> costs associated with accruing employee pensions, retirement/health
> benefits, and mandated salary increases; program budgets are nearly
> identical with the present fiscal year. Congress (as it traditionally has)
> may well decide to give both agencies larger increases. Agency officials
> reportedly were pleased with the small increases though John Hammer,
> director of the National Humanities Alliance, an advocacy group for the
> NEH,  stated, "we're going to try to get it up higher than that, but it's a
> good start."
>
> The Administration's budget request for the Smithsonian Institution calls
> for an increase of $9 million; this figure represents a 1.8% increase over
> the previous year.  The $528 million proposal, allocates $454.3 million for
> salaries and expenses.  In the Smithsonian budget proposal there clearly is
> an emphasis on putting federal dollars to work making building repairs.  To
> this end, this year's request is for $81.3 million as compared to last
> year's request of $68 million. In addition, the budget calls for $10
> million for construction of the National Museum of the American Indian as
> well as $5.2 million for staffing and exhibition planning for the new
> museum.  Funding also is proposed to continue the renovation work on the
> historic Patent Office Building that houses the National Portrait Gallery.
> There also is $9.7 million for information technology and financial system
> updates and $12 million for the continuation of security positions once
> contemplated to be contracted out.
>
> The Institute of Museum and Library services is slotted for an increase of
> 8.1 % to $210.7 million with about $13 million going for library
> programs.  This figure includes a request for $10 million under the
> National Leadership Grants program to recruit and train a new generation of
> librarians (statistics gathered by a recent study demonstrated that 40% of
> the current library professionals are nearing retirement). In the arena of
> cuts, the Administration recommends that the National Commission on
> Libraries and Information Science be eliminated, thus saving taxpayers $1
> million a year.
>
> TREASURY DEPARTMENT:  The Treasury Department proposal encompasses the
> recommended budget for the National Archives and Records Administration
> (NARA).  Bush is seeking $263.933 million, an unexpected 8.1% increase for
> the agency.  Included in this figure is a $4.5 million increase for the
> electronic records initiative.  John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United
> States, said that the increase will help the agency "address the tremendous
> challenges posed by myriad types and vast quantities of electronic records
> now being created by the government." In addition, the budget proposes $1
> million to operate and maintain NARA's Archival Research Catalog (an online
> "card catalog" of descriptions of the Archives' nationwide holdings), over
> $3 million for security, and $3.25 million to assist the University of
> Texas to repair the leaking plaza at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential
> Library in Austin, Texas.
>
> The National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) did not
> fare nearly as well.  This agency is slotted in the President's budget for
> only $5 million, a 22% cut over last year's Congressionally approved
> appropriation of $6.436 million for competitive grants. To the President's
> credit, however, the proposal represents a $600,000 increase over the $4.4
> million proposed in last year's budget. A concerted effort will be needed
> this year by the historical and archival community to raise the NHPRC
> budget up to its fully authorized level of $10 million.
>
> LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS: Because the budget for the Library of
> Congress (LC) is proposed by Congress (it is part of the Legislative Branch
> appropriations) and not by the Administration, the proposed funding levels
> for the LC, and the Government Printing Office (which provides funding for
> the Superintendent of Documents and Federal Depository Library Program)
> have yet to be announced.  Congressional budget hearings for these agencies
> will probably not take place until late March.  Sources inside the LC,
> however, report that in all likelihood, the Librarian of Congress will seek
> a continuation of existing programs and will not propose any major new
> programs. Details of the GPO budget are not currently available.
>
> The President's budget may be accessed at:
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/index.html>.
>
> 2.   REYNOLDS FOUNDATION WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FOR SMITHSONIAN EXHIBIT
> On February 4, 2002, in a short four-paragraph letter to Smithsonian
> Secretary Lawrence M. Small, businesswomen Catherine B. Reynolds announced
> that she will withdraw most of a planned $38 million donation from her
> foundation that would have created a 10,000-square-foot "Spirit of America"
> exhibit on individual achievement at the National Museum of American
> History.  The announcement came less than three weeks after some 170
> activists and scholars complained to the Smithsonian Board of Regents that
> the Institution's chief executive was commercializing the museum complex.
>
> In her letter to Small, Reynolds stated, "It is with deep regret that I
> inform you that the Foundation will not be proceeding with the remainder of
> its donation to the National Museum of American History for the 'Spirit of
> America' exhibit...Unfortunately, and painfully, this gift to our nation
> has become impossible to give....I wish you the best in your efforts to
> bring the Smithsonian and its staff into the new century."
>
> According to Marc Pachter, Acting Director of the Smithsonian's National
> Museum of American History: "We regret the foundation's decision and the
> fact that the exhibit, which was to have opened in 2004, will not now go
> forward. We are disappointed that the Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation has
> decided to withdraw from this project, which was being developed in strict
> accordance with Smithsonian standards. We remain committed to exploring
> opportunities with private donors that will enable the museum to tell the
> compelling story of Americans and American history."
>
> The exhibit -- designed to honor "achievers" such as personality Martha
> Stewart, ice-skater Dorothy Hamill, basketball legend Michael Jordan, and
> director Steven Spielberg -- drew sustained and widespread criticism from
> the media, museum professionals, and others.  Most recently a New York
> Times editorial characterized the exhibit at "empty-headed." According to
> the Times, "What was controversial were the terms of the plan which would
> have granted her [Reynolds] and her foundation inappropriate influence over
> curatorial decisions."  The primary concern of Smithsonian professional
> historical and curatorial staff indeed was that according to the terms of
> the never-made-public agreement between Reynolds and the Institution,
> Secretary Small apparently had granted Reynolds deferential rights to
> define the scope, contents, and appearance of the exhibit.
>
> In her letter, Reynolds stated that it was the sustained criticism over
> many months that led her to change her mind about the donation.
> "Apparently, the basic philosophy for the exhibit -- the power of the
> individual to make a difference -- is the antithesis of that espoused by
> many within the Smithsonian bureaucracy, which is 'only movements and
> institutions make a difference, not individuals.' After much contemplation,
> I see no way no way to reconcile these diametrically opposed philosophical
> viewpoints."
>
> Some Smithsonian staff took issue with the Reynolds' rationalization for
> withdrawing the donation. According to Smithsonian historian Paul Forman,
> "If this had been done properly, we could have come to an agreement on the
> exhibit." Helena Wright, Vice-President of the Smithsonian's Congress of
> Scholars agreed: "I think there was possibly room to have worked this out
> with negotiation, but that didn't happen here."
>
> According to Wright, the basic problem was that there was a disconnect
> between the Reynolds Foundation and the museum as to how Smithsonian
> exhibits are planned and executed. Museum curators saw the exhibit as
> envisioned by Reynolds as a sort of an "old curiosity shop" -- a
> smorgasbord exhibit full of stories, objects, and pictures of famous people
> with little historical context or value. Other critics felt donors such as
> Reynolds were being permitted by Secretary Small  "to dictate" program
> content to the Smithsonian, thereby "sacrificing the Smithsonian's
> independence and integrity."
>
> According to sources inside the Smithsonian, staff curators were making
> some progress in redefining the scope of the exhibit and had made some
> headway in advancing the notion that an "achievers exhibit" ought to
> explore all facets of achievement in America including political, social,
> and economic barriers to achievement. Reynolds apparently disagreed and
> decided her money wasn't going to be well spent.
>
> The larger impact that the Reynolds decision will have on other
> fund-raising efforts at the Smithsonian is not entirely clear.  But
> according to University of Chicago history professor Neil Harris, who sits
> on the Smithsonian commission that has been examining the future of the
> National Museum of American History, "This kind of event will produce
> rethinking of the nature of public-private relationships with the
> Smithsonian." The New York Times, was more blunt in its assessment: "This
> episode is a perfect demonstration of the short-coming of Secretary Small's
> fund-raising....given the compromises implicit in accepting the Reynolds
> gift there is reason to question his leadership."
>
> 3.  RONALD REAGAN BOYHOOD HOME NHS LEGISLATION SIGNED BY PRESIDENT
> On February 6th - President Ronald Reagan's 91st birthday - President Bush
> signed into law legislation (H.R. 400) authorizing the Secretary of the
> Interior to establish the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site
> in Dixon, Illinois. The measure passed the House of Representatives by
> voice vote on November 13, 2001 (see "Legislation That Has Passed the
> House," in NCC WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 7, #50, December 14, 2001) and by
> the Senate on January 29, 2002.
>
> The measure, signed into law by Bush at his oval office desk once used by
> Reagan, authorizes the Secretary to purchase the property from a willing
> seller "with donated or appropriated funds at fair market value."  Only
> after the property has been purchased is the Secretary directed to
> designate the property as the "Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic
> Site."
>
> In a rather unusual management arrangement, the bill directs that the
> property be owned by the NPS but managed and operated under the terms of a
> cooperative agreement with the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation.  At
> present there are no plans for the NPS to actually operate the historic
> site.  The measure does, however, direct that a General Management Plan
> (GMP) be prepared within two years of enactment of the legislation.  That
> plan could clarify the nature of the NPS's long-term involvement in the
> ownership, management, and operation of the site.
>
> The home at 816 South Hennepin Avenue is associated with Ronald Reagan
> during his teenage years. In this rented two-story frame house, the young
> Reagan lived with his parents and brother Neil between 1920 and 1923.   The
> home was acquired by the Ronald Reagan Home Preservation Foundation in 1980
> and it has been restored and refurnished in 1984 to appear as it did during
> the period that Reagan lived there. Currently, the site receives about
> 20,000 visitors a year.
>
> While admirers of the former President see value in establishing a national
> park unit devoted to perpetuating the legacy of the 40th President, some
> have questioned whether the boyhood home was the best site to recognize the
> historical importance of Ronald Reagan. Typically, only one national park
> unit is set aside to recognize the historical significance of a
> president.  Presidential sites are ideally established only after a
> comprehensive survey of sites and properties associated with a former
> president has been conducted by the NPS.  Often in this process, a former
> president is consulted in order to get his opinion on what site he would
> like to see designated a national historic site.  In the case of the Reagan
> boyhood home, neither was a comprehensive survey prepared, nor was Reagan
> (or members of his family) consulted with respect to the legislation by NPS
> officials.
>
> During hearings conducted by the House of Representatives on March 8, 2001,
> the National Park Service did not support the designation but rather sought
> to amend the bill "to authorize a study of the site" to determine whether
> the home meets national park system criteria. The study would have assessed
> the association of the site with the former president and would have looked
> at other issues like integrity of the buildings and a determination would
> have been made "whether there are other sites that might more appropriately
> tell the story associated with a particular site."  The measure was not
> given the benefit of a hearing in the Senate.  Undoubtedly, had it taken
> place, these concerns would have once again been raised.
>
> 4.  NEWS BITS AND BYTES:
> Item #1 - New NCCPH Institutional Supporter: The NCCPH is pleased to
> welcome the Harry S. Truman Library Institute for National And
> International Affairs in Independence Missouri as the NCCPH's latest
> institutional supporter. The Truman Library Institute is a not-for-profit
> partner of the Truman Presidential library. It is committed to fulfil the
> Truman Library's commitment to research and education.
>
> Other organizations that wish to support the important educational and
> advocacy work of the NCCPH should drop Bruce Craig a note at
> rbcraig@nccph.org for complete details on how institutions and
> organizations can be supportive.
>
> Item #2 -  Seminar for Historical Administration: The Seminar for
> Historical Administration (SAH) provides an unsurpassed opportunity for 18
> participants to become aware of the most recent trends in the profession
> and to build networks with their colleagues and the community.  The Seminar
> is specifically targeted to full-time, paid staff of history museums,
> historic sites, preservation or other history/museum organizations, with
> three to ten years experience who are now in a position of administrative
> responsibility or are preparing for such a position. Tuition for the
> Seminar is $550 with lodging and meals running approximately $1,400. The
> 2002 SHA will take place November 2-23, 2002 at Colonial Williamsburg.  The
> application deadline is May 24, 2002. For information contact Peggy
> McDonald Howells at (757) 220-7211; email: phowells@cwf.org.
>
> Item #3 - Comments Sought on NARA NHPRC Guidelines:  NARA has published a
> proposed rule for public comment in the February 6, 2002, Federal Register,
> on page 5542 concerning the National Publications and Records Commission
> (NHPRC) grant regulations (36 CFR Part 1206).  The proposed rule updates
> and clarifies the NHPRC regulations by removing outdated information and
> expanding sections for greater clarity and conformity with NARA's current
> guidelines. It will affect all NHPRC grant applicants and grantees.
> Comments on the proposed rule are due by April 8, 2002.  The text of the
> proposed rule is to be posted on NARA's website; please tap into: http://
> www.nara.gov/nara/pubcom.html.
>
> ARTICLES OF INTEREST
> This weeks pick article is "Stop, Historians! Don't Copy That Passage!
> Computers Are Watching" which appeared in the January 26, 2002 issue of the
> New York Times. It describes a variety of software programs designed to
> rout out copycats with maximum efficiency with a minimum effort that have
> recently flooded the market. Tap into:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/26/arts/26TANK.html
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * *
> NCC invites you to redistribute the NCC Washington Updates.  A complete
> backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCC's web page at
> <http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~ncc>.
> To subscribe to the "NCC Washington Update," send an e-mail message to
> listserv@h-net.msu.edu according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCC
> firstname lastname, institution.  To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to
> listserv@h-net.msu.edu according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCC.

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>