Envisioning Oregon Planning Toward Cooperative Collection Development in Oregon’s Historical Repositories Prepared by Gabriele G. Carey, Ph.D. History Associates Incorporated ENVISIONING OREGON Planning Toward Cooperative Collection Development In Oregon’s Historical Repositories Funding provided by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act administered in Oregon by the State Library August 2009 Prepared by: Gabriele G. Carey, Ph.D., Senior Archivist/Senior Historian History Associates Incorporated Project Team Members: James D. Fox, Head Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Lawrence A. Landis, University Archivist University Archives, Oregon State University Douglas M. Erickson, Head Special Collections and Archives, Lewis & Clark College MaryAnn T. Campbell, Director of Research Services Oregon Historical Society Project Advisors: Timothy L. Ericson, Senior Lecturer Emeritus School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee John A. Fleckner, Senior Archivist, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution On the cover: Frank N. Smith and C.L. Andrews under the Camera Cloth, 1905 Photograph courtesy of University of Oregon Libraries Envisioning Oregon Town Hall Meeting, November 19, 2008 Photograph courtesy of Gabriele G. Carey CONTENT INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT SUMMARY 1 PROJECT APPROACH 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 3 WHERE ARE WE NOW? 5 LEARNING ABOUT OREGON’S HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS AND PROGRAMS 5 OREGON’S COLLECTING CONTEXT 5 GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT OREGON’S REPOSITORIES 6 REPOSITORY SURVEY 6 TOWN HALL MEETINGS 7 POTENTIAL LEADERS IN COLLABORATION 10 OREGON STATE HISTORICAL RECORDS ADVISORY BOARD (SHRAB) 11 OREGON STATE ARCHIVES 12 OREGON STATE LIBRARY 13 OREGON HERITAGE COMMISSION 13 NORTHWEST DIGITAL ARCHIVES (NWDA) 14 HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? 15 PREPARING FOR COOPERATIVE ACTION 15 INCENTIVES FOR COLLABORATION 15 COLLABORATIVE MODELS 17 REGIONAL NETWORKS 18 SHARED REGIONAL STORAGE FACILITIES 18 SHARED REGIONAL DIGITAL ARCHIVES 19 AD HOC COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS 19 SHARED PRACTICES MAKE COLLABORATION POSSIBLE 20 GUIDELINES FOR SHARED COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 20 GUIDELINES FOR PROCESSING AND DESCRIPTION 21 GUIDELINES FOR CONNECTING USERS TO COLLECTIONS 22 WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? 24 A PLAN FOR COOPERATIVE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT 24 A PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING COOPERATIVE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT 24 SHORT-TERM GOALS 25 LONG-TERM GOALS 34 CONCLUSION 37 i Table of Contents ii APPENDICES 38 APPENDIX 1 - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 38 SHORT-TERM GOALS 38 LONG-TERM GOALS 43 APPENDIX 2 - RESOURCES FOR REPOSITORIES 45 FRAMEWORK FOR TOPICAL ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY HISTORY SOURCES 45 ENVISIONING OREGON REPOSITORY SURVEY FORM LINK 48 OREGON HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL AGENCY AND INFORMATION LINKS 48 COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE LINKS 48 ARCHIVES “HOW-TO” LINKS 49 PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION LINKS 49 MAJOR GRANTING AGENCY LINKS 50 NORTHWEST DIGITAL ARCHIVES BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINE LINKS 50 ADDITIONAL BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINE LINKS 51 SAMPLE FINDING AID LINKS 51 APPENDIX 3 - REFERENCES 52 LIST OF SOURCES 52 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 52 [1] Oregon farm scene with Mt. Hood in background, Benjamin A. Gifford, photographer, 1904, Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries INTRODUCTION Project Summary Oregon celebrated its sesquicentennial in February 2009. Oregon’s historical organizations have used this milestone to reflect on where they are and to plan for the future as part of the Envisioning Oregon project. The vision that guided Oregon’s development and growth is documented in collections of historical materials that fill many hundreds of local government offices, archives, libraries, historical societies, and museums throughout the state. The goal of Envisioning Oregon is to identify the tasks needed to establish collaboration and cooperative collecting so that the state’s historical materials remain safe and accessible into the future as a testament to the people and events that have shaped Oregon. This report details that effort and also seeks to provide guidelines for the development of collaborative and cooperative collecting activities by Oregon repositories. The report is divided into sections that: • analyze the context for historical records collecting in Oregon • discuss best practices for preparing collections for access • connecting collections to users • guide the development of collaboration and of cooperative collection plans in Oregon’s repositories. For the past 150 years, Oregon has benefited from people of vision who have worked to collect historical materials and establish repositories. In recent years, these repositories have begun to collaborate in formal and informal ways for the good of historical collections and researchers. Collaboration is now more important than ever, as Oregon’s repositories respond to decreasing resources coupled with growing volumes of records and researchers. Although a lack of resources is a familiar challenge for historical repositories, the extent of the current problem is unprecedented. A number of organizations, including the Oregon Historical Society, have had to reduce the size of their 1 Introduction 2 staffs and the hours they are open for research. For other repositories such as the Southern Oregon Historical Society, the situation is so dire that they are struggling to remain open at all. Envisioning Oregon sees collaboration between repositories and cooperative collection development as a strategy to help Oregon’s repositories support one another by sharing the responsibility of documenting and providing access to Oregon’s history. The plan for cooperative collection development and inter-repository collaboration describes the activities needed to implement and sustain collaborative collecting. Recommendations include the following: ƒ Leadership - Identifying and securing ongoing program leadership and advocacy. ƒ Connections - Connecting with repositories, local government records keepers, tribal governments, and under-represented communities. ƒ Collection Analysis - Analyzing existing collections to identify strengths and weaknesses and deciding on future documentation needs. ƒ Collection Development Policies - Assisting repositories to write/update and share collection development policies. ƒ Training and Support - Communicating systematically with repositories and providing them with training and support them. ƒ Uniform Description - Promoting access to records through basic arrangement, description, and publicizing of collections. ƒ Networks and Shared Storage - Planning and implementing cooperative archives research networks and regional collection storage centers. If Oregon’s repositories implement cooperative collection development and ongoing collaboration, the result will be greater efficiency and mutual support between repositories large and small. Then repositories can begin to work together to meet their real goal – documenting Oregon’s history and making that history available to researchers. The challenges now facing Oregon’s repositories provide them with a unique incentive to collaborate so that Oregon’s citizens can continue to access their history and use it to tell their stories. Project Approach Envisioning Oregon was supported by a grant from the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) through funds distributed by the Institute of Museum and Library Services to the University of Oregon in collaboration with Oregon State University, Lewis and Clark College, and the Oregon Historical Society. At project initiation, the University of Oregon contracted with History Associates Incorporated, represented by Dr. Gabriele G. Carey, to work in collaboration with project team members and project advisors to complete project tasks. Participating institutions were each represented on the project team by a staff member. James D. Fox (University of Oregon), Lawrence A. Landis (Oregon State University), Douglas M. Erickson (Lewis and Clark College), and MaryAnn T. Campbell Introduction 3 (Oregon Historical Society [OHS]).1 The project team also included two nationally renowned senior archivists to act as project advisors and provide guidance to the project consultant and team in the completion of project tasks. Project advisors were Timothy L. Ericson of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and John A. Fleckner of the Smithsonian Institution. The Envisioning Oregon project consisted of several interrelated tasks. The first was the development and distribution of a questionnaire in October 2008 to Oregon’s repositories asking about repository mission statements, collection development policies, historic collection strengths, repository objectives and service plans, staffing levels, and budgets. The second task consisted of developing and participating in two series of town hall meetings for representatives of historical repositories in various parts of Oregon. The first series of town hall meetings was held November 17-20, 2008, and included meetings in Portland, Pendleton, Bend, and Philomath. The second series of town hall meetings was held June 15-19, 2009, and included meetings in Portland, The Dalles, Bend, Corvallis, and Ashland. The information gathered by the questionnaires and at the town hall meetings supported the creation of a plan for statewide collaboration and cooperative collection development for documentary materials (manuscripts, moving images, still photography, sound recordings) among repositories in the State of Oregon and the development of best practices guidelines for organizing and describing collections and for connecting users to those collections. Project Background As Oregon celebrates its sesquicentennial year, Oregon’s flagship historical organization, the Oregon Historical Society, struggles to continue offering access to the state’s history. The OHS has been on the brink of financial disaster since March, when most of the society’s librarians and archivists were laid off. Researchers now have only limited access to the society’s vast collections of Oregon history. Although the state recently voted to provide modest funding to “Oregon is in a budget crisis that greatly effects access to archives. Oregon Historical Society has cut back it's library hours and laid off workers, Southern Oregon Historical Society has done the same as have the many smaller historical societies. Local government in Jackson County privatized its legally mandated records and archives making them less accessible and more costly to the public. The internet creates the illusion of sound historical records but many times neglects the primary sources. Alternative routes to primary documents are becoming more and more necessary. Through Envisioning Oregon, I will be able to save time and money knowing where particular collections are located.” Jan Wright, Head (former) Talent County Historical Society [2] “Library,” Alpine Tavern, Alpine, Oregon, 1968 Courtesy of University of Oregon Libraries 1 The Oregon Historical Society and its representative, MaryAnn Campbell, withdrew from the Project Team half way through the project when the OHS reduced its staff and open hours due to funding issues. Introduction 4 the OHS, this amount is significantly less than previously and represents only a temporary reprieve – the society remains on shaky financial ground. Other Oregon repositories are also experiencing financial stress and concerns about their long-term survival. The Southern Oregon Historical Society has had to lay off a significant portion of its staff to balance the budget. Given the financial instability of these and many other Oregon repositories, the Oregon historical community and the state of Oregon need to think carefully about what will happen to the state’s documentary heritage if historical repositories and organizations significantly reduce access to collections or even close their doors. Adding to these dire circumstances, Oregon’s records keepers know that a lack of coordination in what is collected and ever-changing records keeping technologies are responsible for documentation gaps in our cultural institutions. Repositories traditionally collect without regard for what other repositories are collecting. This has led to a situation where some collections are eagerly sought by many, while other equally important collections are not sought at all. Electronic records present an even greater challenge to repositories. The vast majority of records are now being created in electronic formats that present challenges even to large and well-funded repositories. Preserving such records requires specialized equipment and staff with expertise that is difficult to find. Finally, because of limited funds and an absence of best practices guidelines, many of the collections that repositories acquire are stored in unprocessed backlogs and are not available to researchers. These issues are not unique to Oregon. Historical records organizations around the country are dealing with the same concerns. One answer that an increasing number of states and regions are exploring is that of collaboration among historical records repositories and with other cultural heritage organizations. For example, Arizona has recently conducted a project similar to that of Envisioning Oregon and found the outcomes to be encouraging enough to warrant further collaborative effort.2 As is the case in Arizona, the Envisioning Oregon project is finding collaboration to be a viable response to the challenges facing Oregon’s records organizations. [3] Vista House, photographed by Ralph Gifford, 1940 Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries 2 Telephone conversation with Linda Whitaker, Arizona Historical Foundation, August 7, 2009 and Mary Melcher, “Arizona Archives Summit, Jan. 29-30, 2009,” no date. Where Are We Now? 5 WHERE ARE WE NOW? LEARNING ABOUT OREGON’S HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS AND PROGRAMS Collaboration is at the core of the Envisioning Oregon project. Envisioning Oregon seeks to build the foundation for collaboration between the state’s repositories and sketch out methods for sustaining that collaboration. But before Envisioning Oregon could construct a framework for collaboration between repositories, the project team needed to learn and think about the current status of historical records programs in Oregon. Learning involved research into the context that has shaped historical collecting in Oregon. Learning also involved a survey of repositories and face-to-face town hall meetings with repository representatives from all over Oregon to better understand how their institutions are faring and to begin forging connections between them. Finally, learning included consideration of possible leaders and partners in the campaign to establish collaboration through cooperative collection development. The following section details these steps in the learning process. Oregon’s Collecting Context [4] Map of the State of Oregon, General Land Office, 1876 Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries Hundreds of repositories located throughout Oregon collect, organize, preserve, and make historical records accessible to researchers. Oregon’s repositories include public agencies, private institutions, and non- profit organizations of all sorts and sizes. The diversity of Oregon’s repositories reflects the diversity of the state itself. Oregon’s population is not evenly distributed, since approximately three-quarters of Oregon’s residents live in the one-quarter of Oregon that is west of the Cascades. Oregon’s population is concentrated in the Willamette Valley and in the Portland Metro regions. As might be expected, the older, larger, and better-funded historical repositories are located in the more densely populated areas of Oregon. Because the major repositories were for many years located west of the Cascades, Oregon’s historical documentation tended to flow westward. This collecting pattern is now changing as repositories located in communities throughout central, southern, and eastern Oregon are competing to collect their own histories. Whatever their location and their size, however, Oregon repositories share the same concerns about insufficient resources and the need to collect the materials that document Oregon’s history before it is gone. Where Are We Now? 6 Gathering Information about Oregon’s Repositories Oregon’s repositories developed in a context shaped by population settlement patterns that encouraged competition over collections. For Envisioning Oregon to succeed in overcoming this entrenched approach to the business of collecting, the project team first needed to better understand Oregon’s repositories. The project team’s intent was to use the process of learning about Oregon’s repositories as a way of reaching out and forging connections between them. The written survey and face-to-face town hall meetings detailed below were designed to begin this course of action. Repository Survey In late October 2008, James Fox, Envisioning Oregon’s project leader, sent survey questionnaires to repositories around Oregon. To expand the reach of the survey, he also posted the questionnaire on the project website (see Appendix 2 for a sample survey form). For each repository, the survey form requested information concerning repository type and location, collection focus, collection policy implementation, researcher access to collections, staffing level, and storage facility. About fifty repositories had returned completed surveys prior to the writing of this report, but additional completed surveys continue to trickle in to the University of Oregon. Surveys came from every region of Oregon and from various types of repositories including academic archives and special collections departments, historical societies, museums, public libraries, local government records centers and archives, and even from one neighborhood association. Several general conclusions can be drawn from the survey. [5] Special Collections & Archives Courtesy of University of Oregon Libraries ƒ Collections run the gamut across all types of materials and topics. The significance of collections is not dependent on the size, funding, staffing levels, or geographic location of repositories. ƒ Written collecting policies exist in all types of repositories, but unwritten collecting policies are more common. Even where written collecting policies exist, they are frequently out of date and lack a clear focus. ƒ Duplication in collecting focus is common among repositories. A contributing factor is that repositories usually cannot easily share their collection policies – whether written or unwritten – with other repositories. Repositories would be better able to avoid unnecessary duplication in their collecting efforts if they had access to one another’s policies. The Envisioning Oregon project team learned much from the survey, but two major limitations mean that the survey’s conclusions cannot be considered statistically valid. The first limitation was the incomplete nature of survey distribution. The project team developed a detailed mailing list of repositories in Oregon and sent surveys to those repositories, as well as distributing the questionnaire through various museum, library, and archives list serves. However, the project team was unable to obtain a mailing list for local government agencies before sending out the survey forms. As a result, Where Are We Now? 7 keepers of local government records were not included in the mailing. A second limitation was the relatively low number of repositories that returned completed surveys. There were no surveys returned by tribal archives, for example. The project team also found that it is challenging to connect with records keepers for under-represented communities, because it is difficult to learn who and where they are. Despite these limitations, the survey fulfilled its primary objective by providing the project team with a way to reach out to and connect repositories that usually do not work together. For the Envisioning Oregon project, the survey process was thus of greater importance than the survey response. This is especially true since the preservation survey planned by the Oregon Museums Association, the Oregon Heritage Commission, and other historical records program partners (with grant funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services) will systematically collect information about the status of Oregon’s repositories during the coming year. Town Hall Meetings “The two ‘town meetings’ of the Envisioning Oregon project that I've attended, and the project itself, are full of promise, certainly, and I think all involved feel a sense of timeliness, even urgency, in terms of valuable materials out in the hinterlands of Oregon that are increasingly at risk, without realistic prospects for archiving them.” Jarold Ramsey, President, Jefferson Co. Historical Society The town hall meetings held in November 2008 and June 2009 were at the heart of Envisioning Oregon. The meetings were designed to provide attendees the opportunity to express their views on the Envisioning Oregon project. Instead of following the more typical pattern of statewide meetings that require attendees to drive hundreds of miles to Portland, the Envisioning Oregon project team opted to hold the meetings at repositories in every region of the state. By so doing, the project team hoped to encourage a larger attendance and show that Envisioning Oregon is committed to cooperation, not to top-down direction. Team members also believed that face-to-face meetings would more effectively further the cause of collaboration – especially in the project’s early stages. Although attendance was fairly small at a number of meeting sites, some attendees came from far away in an effort to attend – even with dispersed meeting locations, Oregon is still a big state! Even more than was true for the survey, the town hall meetings provided a forum for representatives of the state’s repositories to discuss concerns and to share information with one another and with the members of the project team. The meetings gave the project team the opportunity not only to gather information about the challenges facing repositories, but also to discuss how cooperation might help repositories overcome these challenges. Attendees represented the full range of Oregon’s archival repositories – large and small; well- funded and not; public and private; urban and rural; professionally-staffed and volunteer-operated. The November meetings were structured as guided discussions, while the June meetings focused on training and general discussion about cooperative collection development and the status of Oregon’s repositories. The discussion at each town hall meeting differed in character due to the meeting’s Where Are We Now? 8 geographical location and the types of repositories represented, but attendees agreed on the following concerns and hopes they hold for the future of collecting in Oregon: Concerns: ƒ Oregon’s documentary heritage is at risk - resources. Participants agreed that Oregon’s citizens, as well as local and state governments, need to understand that the situation facing historical and cultural collections is dire. Materials are threatened by a lack of resources including stable and sufficient funding, trained staff, and adequate and appropriate space. As a result, many collections are neither adequately preserved, processed in a timely manner, nor fully accessible to researchers. This situation affects both government records and private collections, placing both at risk. ƒ Oregon’s documentary heritage is at risk – electronic records. Meeting attendees were concerned about their ability to document Oregon’s twenty-first century history because they lacked the skills to acquire and preserve the increasing quantity of modern records that are being created in electronic formats. ƒ Oregon’s documentary heritage3 is at risk – Donor issues. Participants feared that the lure of eBay has convinced some potential donors to offer their historical materials for sale, rather than donate them to repositories that cannot afford to purchase collections. Thus a portion of Oregon’s history is flowing into the hands of private collectors where it will not be available to researchers. Other collections – both public and private – are being permanently lost to dumpsters and recycling centers because their historical significance is not recognized by those who hold them. [6] Computer Lab, 1990-1999 Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries ƒ Collecting issues are a problem for repositories. Repository representatives explained that they need help deciding what to collect and how to deal with worthwhile collections that do not fit within their collecting scope. A number of attendees shared stories about collections in their repositories that are not relevant to their missions, yet require the expenditure of precious resources. They also wondered how to ensure that donors know which repositories collect related materials and how to deal with competition between repositories for the same collections (representatives of small repositories were particularly fearful that large repositories would end up with the best collections). Where Are We Now? 9 ƒ Collections management is also a problem. Meeting attendees also expressed concern about the difficulty of hiring trained staff or providing training for current staff. They asked what actions repositories should take to make collections available to researchers in a timely manner and how to provide better access to collections. They also worried about the lack of adequate facilities and resources, and about isolation between repositories. Hopes: ƒ Communication between repositories will become a priority. Attendees hoped for regularly scheduled meetings either face-to-face or virtually, both to share information about collections and to offer training opportunities. They suggested that communication about collections might take the form of shared collection databases, links to research tools, or an electronic bulletin board that could serve as a tool for collection referrals. ƒ Cooperation between repositories will help to protect Oregon’s historical resources. Participants agreed that cooperation between repositories is imperative. Representatives of both large and small repositories saw cooperation as being especially important in the current economic climate. Attendees suggested several types of cooperation that would be most welcome, including shared collection storage space, networking structures and opportunities, sharing of information and expertise, collection sharing (perhaps in digital form), and developing cooperative collecting policies. ƒ Cooperative collection development will identify areas/topics in need of documentation. Meeting attendees believed that cooperation in their collecting activities would help to ensure [7] “Bucking a Spruce,” Gifford and Prentiss Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries Where Are We Now? 10 that historically significant materials find a home and that underrepresented materials are documented. Participants suggested as particular collecting needs those records documenting local governments and geographic areas, tribal records, and records documenting Oregon’s major industries. They also hoped that an outgrowth of the Envisioning Oregon project will be help by larger repositories for the collecting efforts of smaller repositories. ƒ Cooperative deaccessioning will consolidate collections and free up storage space. Although cooperative collecting will help prevent out-of-scope collecting in the future, meeting attendees spoke about deaccessioning as a way to remove or relocate out-of-scope collections already in their repositories. If worthwhile collections could be transferred to other repositories where they fit within the collecting scope, it would both assist researchers by consolidating collections and free up space for additional collections. ƒ Digitization projects will help make records more accessible. Participants hoped that digitization would help repositories and researchers in eastern and central Oregon regain access to those portions of their history that currently reside in western Oregon’s repositories. Attendees believed that a constituency for collaborative, multi- institutional digitization projects will help in the effort to develop grants and other funding. ƒ Leadership will help move cooperative collection development forward. Meeting participants also hoped that leadership for sustainable collaboration will emerge within statewide institutions such as the State Historical Records Advisory Board, the State Archives, the Oregon Heritage Commission, and the Oregon Museums Association. The discussions outlined above proved to be the most important part of the town hall meetings. They gave project team members the chance to listen to meeting participants talk about how their repositories are faring and how Envisioning Oregon can help. The connections made at the meetings and the information learned from attendees shaped the project and provided its direction forward. [8] Envisioning Oregon Town Hall Meeting, 2008 (G. Carey) Potential Leaders in Collaboration Connecting repositories in Oregon and forging a consensus that collaboration is worthwhile is a necessary first step toward implementing cooperative collection development and other ventures. But without sustained leadership, ongoing collaboration between repositories will not happen. Sustainable collaboration will require the leadership of an engaged and interested group of individuals working under the auspices of an agency or organization that can provide legitimacy, support, resources, and advocacy. A group of potential leaders already exists in Oregon in the persons of a number of archives, Where Are We Now? 11 library, and museum professionals who are deeply invested in collaboration between repositories. The Envisioning Oregon project team thus used the information they had learned through the surveys and the town hall meetings to consider which among the many historical and cultural programs and historical records repositories in Oregon have the potential to lead the implementation of cooperative collection development and to sustain collaboration over the long term. These programs and repositories are described below. Oregon State Historical Records Advisory Board (SHRAB) The Oregon State Historical Records Advisory Board (SHRAB) promotes and supports identification, preservation, and access to the state’s historical records. The Board consists of members appointed by the governor. According to National Historical Publication and Records Commission (NHPRC) guidelines, the majority of the SHRAB’s members must have experience in the administration of historical records or in a field of research that uses historical records. One of the Board’s goals is to promote, publicize, and encourage participation in the NHPRC grant program. The Board is also responsible for assessing the needs of the state’s historical records, reviewing/recommending legislation related to records administration, and promoting archival awareness and cooperation. Given its charge, the SHRAB is the logical organization to provide leadership for cooperation in the acquisition and management of historical documentary collections in Oregon. Until recently, the SHRAB had exhibited limited leadership for the promotion and protection of historical records in Oregon. While SHRABs in the neighboring states of Washington and California have been quite active in recent years, this has not been the case in Oregon. One example of this is the fact that Oregon’s SHRAB has not worked to bring grant funding to Oregon at the level of neighboring states. In the past five years, the NHPRC has awarded $70,493 in grant funds to Oregon projects. Neighboring Washington, with twice as many residents as Oregon, received $420,000 (six times as much) in grant funds from the NHPRC in the same five-year period. Even Idaho, with fewer than half as many residents as Oregon, received $255,000 (more than 2.5 times as much) between 2004 and 2009.3 [9] Archive Records, 1970-1979 Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries However, the SHRAB has become more active during the past few years – perhaps due to the imminent threat of closure for some of Oregon’s historical records repositories. There is a growing 3 National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), “Grants Organized by State and Territory,” , August 2009. Where Are We Now? 12 awareness in the State Archives (which administers the SHRAB) that the board needs to become more proactive in advocating against the closing of historical records organizations. One current outcome of the SHRAB’s changing attitude is a joint meeting planned between the SHRAB and the Oregon Heritage Commission regarding the funding crisis of the OHS and the issue of maintaining access to public records when they are in the collections of private organizations like the OHS. Another example of the SHRAB’s increasing vigor is the board’s recent application for and award of an NHPRC State and National Partnership (SNAP) grant in the amount of $19,988 to support the work of the SHRAB and to provide funding for a series of twenty archives and records management workshops in five regions of Oregon. This builds on a series of basic archives workshops that the SHRAB conducted in 2007 around the state. The first of the new series will be done in conjunction with the Washington SHRAB at the national Tribal Archives, Libraries and Museums Conference in Portland, Oregon in October 2009. The state’s historical records repositories will benefit not only from the training that the SHRAB will provide as part of its SNAP grant, but also from the leadership that the SHRAB can provide in supporting sustained communication between the state’s repositories. Oregon State Archives The Oregon State Archives, a division of the Secretary of State's Office, provides access to the permanently valuable records of Oregon government. The division houses some of the state's oldest documents, including records from the provisional and territorial governments, the Oregon Constitution, and extensive holdings from all three branches of state government. In addition, under the Oregon Administrative Rules, the Oregon State Archives oversees the retention and disposition of both state and local government records and may accession local government records.4 Along with its jurisdiction over state records, the State Archives thus functions as a repository of last resort for the local government records of thirty-six counties, 242 incorporated municipalities, and numerous special districts.5 Each of these entities creates and holds records documenting Oregon’s history. Although the Oregon State Archives has authority to accession local government records if necessary, these records remain primarily the responsibility of the local governments. While Multnomah County and Portland have formal archives programs, many of Oregon’s local governments have archives/records programs administered by the city or county clerk. [10] Courtesy of Oregon State Archives 4 According to Section 166-020-0010, paragraph 1, of the Oregon Administrative Rules, “state and local agencies are responsible for public records in their official custody, wherever deposited, until the public records have been transferred to the official custody of the State Archivist or otherwise disposed of as authorized by law…” 5 In addition to serving as a repository of last resort for local government records, the State Archives conducts periodic surveys of county records and provides basic information about them on its website at . Where Are We Now? 13 In addition to its primary responsibilities for state and local government records, the State Archives provides administrative support for the SHRAB and the State Archivist serves as the SHRAB coordinator. Because of its connection to the SHRAB and its jurisdiction over some of Oregon’s most significant historical records, the State Archives is in a position to be a leader in implementing cooperative collection development and collaborative projects. Oregon State Library Along with the State Archives, the State Library is an agency with statewide responsibilities and an official role on the SHRAB (the state librarian is a member of Oregon’s SHRAB). The State Library also serves as a repository for published Oregon government documents, collects photographic materials that document Oregon’s history, as well as other types of published and manuscript materials documenting Oregon’s history. The State Library has a formal connection to Oregon’s 210 public libraries through its charge to provide leadership, grants (such as the LSTA grant funding the Envisioning Oregon project), and other assistance to improve local library service in Oregon. The state’s public libraries are located in every county and in most cities. They serve a crucial role in bringing communities together with their histories. Although collecting historical materials is usually not their main focus, public libraries hold important historical documentation for local communities. They also have assets such as their online public access catalogs (OPACs) that could be used to make other community historical collections more accessible. In providing support to public libraries, the State Library could serve an important function in fostering collaboration with other types of repositories. For these reasons, the State Library would be a valuable partner with the SHRAB and the State Archives in implementing cooperative collecting in Oregon. [11] Oregon State Library Courtesy of Oregon Blue Book, 2009 Oregon Heritage Commission Established by the Oregon Legislature in 1995, the Heritage Commission is comprised of nine gubernatorial appointees and eight ex-officio members. The Oregon Heritage Commission supports heritage efforts in Oregon through advocacy, education, grants and coordination. It also maintains the inventory of the former Oregon Historic Properties Commission, declares statewide heritage celebrations, and participates in Asian-American Heritage Month. In addition to launching the planning of the Oregon statehood sesquicentennial, the Heritage Commission is one of five statewide cultural partners of the Oregon Cultural Trust and works in support of its activities. The Heritage Commission supports and advocates for cultural repositories in Oregon. While many of these repositories collect three-dimensional objects, some also collect documentary materials. In the coming year, the Heritage Commission will partner with the Oregon Museums Association and other Oregon historical records organizations (with grant funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services) to conduct a Where Are We Now? 14 comprehensive preservation needs survey of Oregon’s libraries, museums, and archives. In addition to the survey, this project will hold five regional meetings to gather further data and conduct a leadership summit that will include representatives from the state’s major library, archives, and museum organizations to collaboratively create a statewide preservation plan. The Oregon Heritage Commission should also be included as an active partner in the implementation of cooperative collection development and management in Oregon. Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA) The Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA) provides access to archives and manuscript collections in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. The NWDA was initially funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the NHRPC, but is now a program of the Orbis Cascade Alliance. The NWDA’s primary product is a union database of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) finding aids created and submitted by member institutions. In addition to the online finding aids, the NWDA plans to expand its services through a digital services initiative that will enable NWDA members and affiliates to create, share, enhance access to, and preserve digital content. Members currently consist of twenty-nine institutions (nine from Oregon) including colleges and universities, historical societies, municipal archives, and museums. Members of the NWDA, can take advantage of consortium benefits such as training opportunities on topics including archival processing, description, and encoding such as EAD Best Practices, Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) requirements, and minimal processing (also known by archivists as MPLP or “more product, less process”). Because the NWDA is already involved in collaboration between several of Oregon’s repositories, it would be a valuable partner in expanding the scope and intent of cooperative action in Oregon. [12] Northwest Digital Archives Home Page Screen Shot, 2009 How Do We Move Forward? 15 HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? PREPARING FOR COOPERATIVE ACTION Implementing collaboration will require more than just understanding Oregon’s collecting context and repositories and identifying potential leaders. Implementation will also require other preliminary actions. These include clarifying the incentives for collaboration for repositories, identifying existing collaborative programs that can serve as models for Oregon, and providing guidelines for collecting, arranging, describing, and publicizing collections. The following section discusses each of these areas. Incentives for Collaboration Incentives for collaboration include more efficient use of resources, better documentation of Oregon’s history, a better-trained staff and more effective service to researchers. Repositories thus stand to gain a great deal through collaborative efforts not only in collection development, but also in processing and describing collections and publicizing their availability to researchers. Some of these benefits are described below: Incentives for Cooperative Collection Development: ƒ Collection Analysis – Repositories that engage in cooperative collection development have the opportunity to study their own holdings to gain a better understanding of their collections’ strengths and weaknesses. This assessment allows them to better direct their own future collecting efforts and also helps repositories to manage their existing collections by identifying relevant, as well as out-of-scope materials. Collections assessments provide repositories with the information they need to decide which collections deserve to share in limited resources and staff attention. Once repositories have identified collections that are not relevant, repository staff can develop a deaccessioning plan to remove such collections and to reclaim storage space for collections that better serve the repository’s researchers. Because the assessment process engages professional staff and volunteers in planning the future of the repository, this kind of engagement can be energizing for the entire organization. [13] Student Organizing Records, 1970-1979, Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries ƒ Information Sharing and Cooperation – When the repository completes a collections assessment it can begin sharing the information it has learned with other repositories and begin to work toward cooperative collecting strategies. Through ongoing cooperation, repositories can also begin to benefit from targeted collecting that uses limited resources more effectively. With How Do We Move Forward? 16 cooperative collecting in place, repositories will no longer need to collect broadly or accept out- of-scope collections just to make sure such documentation is preserved. Likewise, repositories will not be as tempted to compete with one another over collections. Instead, they can focus on bringing collections together in locations that better serve researchers. Most importantly, such cooperation will help Oregon’s repositories to identify under-represented aspects of Oregon’s history and to fill gaps in the historical record. Incentives for Collaborative Collections Processing: ƒ Collaborative Processing Approaches – Collaborative processing depends on the adoption of common processing approaches by repositories. Minimal processing (or MPLP in “archivist- speak”) is one such approach.6 In minimal processing the focus is on making records accessible to researchers as quickly as possible through collection-level description and minimal preservation actions. These shortcuts help repositories to reduce their unprocessed backlog of collections and make those collections known to other repositories and to researchers. ƒ Cooperative Processing – Most examples of cooperative processing involve large organizations that use their greater expertise and resources to assist smaller organizations to arrange, describe, and make collections available. Such collaboration benefits researchers associated with both types of repositories, because documentation that would otherwise be locked away and unknown is made accessible. Incentives for Collaborative Collections Access and Publicizing: ƒ Shared Collections Descriptions – Collections descriptions work best when they are shared as widely as possible, a process that has been immeasurably helped by the existence of the Internet. The Internet has allowed repositories to inform the world about the treasures in their collections. Researchers (and other repositories) now have access to collections that would otherwise have languished in storage because no one knew they were there. ƒ Digitization of Collections – Digitization allows repositories to share not only information about their collections, but the collections themselves. By digitizing collections, repositories holding materials that also relate to the history of another Oregon “Talent Historical Society did not have the resources to copy the entire 1851-1893 diaries of Welborn Beeson housed at the University of Oregon Special Collections library. Using grant monies and the filming capacity of the U of O, we were able to "repatriate" every page of the diaries back to Talent for transcription. U of O keeps the originals, THS has a microfilm copy, and the public gets a searchable transcription which generates multiple copies and greater access to the valuable local accounts contained in the diaries.” Jan Wright, Head (former) Talent County Historical Society 6 Greene and Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing” American Archivist 68 (Fall/Winter 2005). How Do We Move Forward? 17 region can provide access to far-away researchers through an Internet website. The mass digitization of collections would make Oregon’s history accessible to all. Incentives for Cooperative Funding: ƒ One final incentive for collaboration may well be the increased likelihood of receiving grant funding. For example, the NHPRC encourages collaborative grant projects that “assist archives through a network of state partners.”7 Collaborative projects involving several repositories, or even the repositories in several regions or states, will have a much greater effect and will potentially provide access to thousands of collections in hundreds of repositories. Other granting agencies such as the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) have a similar interest in funding collaborative projects. If the very real benefits of collaboration are to lead to cooperative action in Oregon in the face of existing obstacles such as distance and geography, lack of knowledge by repositories of their own and other’s collections, resource availability, jurisdictional issues, administrative and board priorities, and issues related to deeds of gift and donor preferences, two conditions must be in place. First, Oregon’s historical repositories must commit resources to achieving cooperative goals. Based on discussions at the two sets of town hall meetings in November 2008 and June 2009, it is clear that Oregon’s repositories would not only be willing, but eager to work cooperatively in developing their collections. Those attending the town hall meetings were enthusiastic about the prospect of increased communication, cooperation, and collaboration between historical records repositories. The connections formed between repositories through ongoing communication and collaboration would be needed to implement and sustain cooperative collection development. The second condition that must be met for cooperative action is leadership by an engaged group of individuals. This group can function as an ad hoc committee charged with implementing collaboration and cooperative collection development under the auspices of the SHRAB, and the agencies associated with the SHRAB through membership (the Oregon State Archives, the Oregon State Library, etc.), to give them legitimacy and to assume responsibility for supporting their efforts. Oregon would then be well on the way to a successful program. Collaborative Models Successful collaborative programs exist (including ones in Oregon) that can serve as models for establishing cooperative collection development. These models include regional networks (the Wisconsin Area Research Center Network, Orbis Cascade Alliance), shared regional storage facilities (University of California Northern and Southern Regional Library Facility), and shared regional digital archives (Online Archive of California; NWDA). In addition to these formal collaborative networks and repositories, several ad hoc informal cooperative projects are already occurring in Oregon. 7 NHPRC, “Grant Program,” , August 2009. How Do We Move Forward? 18 Regional Networks Regional archival networks have existed in several states since the 1970s. The oldest of these networks is in Wisconsin. Regional networks such as Wisconsin’s allow archival collections to be made available in dispersed geographic areas, thus eliminating the need for researchers to spend time and money traveling great distances in order to gain physical access to a collection. Networks also benefit participating institutions by increasing the potential use of their collections. Wisconsin’s regional Area Research Center (ARC) network features repositories strategically placed throughout the state to ensure that every county is served. At these ARCs, researchers may use archival collections from other network members through a temporary inter-archival loan provision that makes use of a courier service. A similar network exists in the states of Oregon and Washington. The Orbis Cascade Alliance is made up of thirty-six college, community college, and university libraries located throughout these two states. Its member libraries consist of public and private institutions-some large and some small. According to its website, the goal of the Alliance is to “develop the combined collections of member institutions as one collection.” Alliance members contribute records of their holdings to a union catalog currently consisting of about 9.2 million titles representing 28.7 million items. To facilitate borrowing among institutions, the Alliance administers a courier program. At present, the Alliance’s cooperative goal only pertains to libraries and library materials. However, if this ready-made system were enlarged to include other types of organizations (such as historical societies), it would provide Oregon with the same sort of archival network as exists in Wisconsin. Shared Regional Storage Facilities Shared regional storage facilities allow participating members to benefit from cooperative collections storage. These facilities, often located offsite, provide space where collections can be stored by several institutions. This is a cost effective solution for many institutions, particularly for those that lack access to space that meets temperature, humidity, and security needs. For many institutions, building additional storage space is not an option. In addition to ample storage space, shared facilities often provide improved storage conditions because they are intended primarily for storage, as opposed to public use. Temperature and relative humidity can often be set closer to their ideal values. Shared spaces also are frequently used to house collections that are used infrequently or those whose access is currently restricted. Several models exist, including two facilities operated by the University of California (UC): the Northern Regional Library Facility (NRLF) and the Southern Regional Library Facility (SRLF). Both facilities are funded by the state and contain archives and manuscript collections, as well as journals, monographs, newspapers, and other items. Non-UC library materials are also included. If one or more geographically-dispersed shared storage facilities were established in Oregon, perhaps in conjunction with the Orbis Cascade Alliance, the Oregon Historical Society, and/or the Oregon State Archives (especially for local government records), Oregon would be well on the way to sustainable cooperative collection development. How Do We Move Forward? 19 Shared Regional Digital Archives Shared regional digital archives allow participating members to provide collections descriptions to users. This increases the potential use of collections and gives researchers the benefit of being able to search across institutions. Like the NWDA, the Online Archive of California (OAC) provides online access to descriptions of materials housed in archives, historical societies, libraries, museums, special collections, and other institutions throughout the state of California. Members of both the NWDA and the OAC use Encoded Archival Description (EAD) as their archival description standard. In addition to posting finding aids, the OAC also posts a selection of digital images/documents from the described collections. Although the NWDA does not host digital content at this time, locally hosted digital content is available through links in finding aids. Ad Hoc Collaborative Projects The above cooperative programs show what is already occurring in Oregon, as well as what is possible. But there are ad hoc examples as well. Two Oregon examples of cooperative action relate to cooperation in records processing and records access. The first is a project involving a collection of early ranch life documenting the history of the Hay Creek Ranch in Central Oregon. The collection had been in private hands for over 150 years and now belongs to the Madras Historical Society in Jefferson County. Since Madras Historical Society does not have any trained archivists, there has been no opportunity to process and access this collection. Lewis & Clark College Special Collections is now working in partnership with the Jefferson County Historical Society to process the collection. Work will take place at Lewis & Clark College. The project provides students with the opportunity to appraise, process, and describe an actual collection. It also helps the Madras Historical Society. When this work is completed, the collection will return to Madras and be housed in the Jefferson County Historical Society, where it will be accessible to researchers and scholars. “The connection we've been able to make with Doug Erickson and the Lewis and Clark Library for the cataloguing and archival preparation of the Hay Creek Ranch files is really gratifying, and advantageous to both Doug and his graduate students who will do the work, and to the Jefferson County Historical Society. I would hope that the connection indicates the good consequences both direct and indirect that can come from the "Envisioning" project once it is up and running--and involving more people out here who know where such treasures are, and also know how vulnerable they are!” Jarold Ramsey, President Jefferson Co. Historical Society The second project involved an emeritus professor of history at Oregon State University, who needed to conduct research in a large collection located eighty-five miles away in Portland, Oregon. He inquired whether the OSU Archives could borrow the collection from the Oregon Historical Society so that he would no longer need to make weekly trips to Portland. Both OSU and OHS agreed to a temporary loan with OSU paying the costs for transporting the fifty-box collection. The professor used the collection at OSU for three months, whereupon it was promptly returned to “At the beginning of this process, Bill stated that it [not having to drive 170 miles round trip each week to conduct research] would "add 5 years to my life." By the end of his research, he had changed that to ten years.” Lawrence Landis, University Archivist Oregon State University How Do We Move Forward? 20 OHS. This arrangement proved to be a good experience for all parties involved, particularly in light of budgetary restrictions placed on OHS during the course of this arrangement. Shared Practices Make Collaboration Possible Collaboration in documenting, preserving, and making Oregon’s history accessible to all requires that Oregon’s repositories share information about their collections and implement realistic written collection development policies. Collections will also need to be organized and described at least at a basic level. Finally, repositories will need to publicize their collections, collecting scopes, and access guidelines. For a cooperative collection program to function over the long term, Oregon’s repositories need to agree on shared guidelines for the collecting, processing, describing, and enhancing access to archival collections. The guidelines outlined below are intended to assist Oregon’s historical records repositories as they work to efficiently arrange and describe their manuscript, archival and photography collections and connect the collections with those who want to use them. Guidelines for Shared Collection Development Policies Cooperative collection development is built on the recognition that in any geographical area there is too much material for any one repository to collect and process. Thus each repository needs to develop clear policies that limit and define the scope of its collecting. Equally important, because of the abundance of materials and the limited and ever-shrinking resources available to cultural institutions in Oregon, repositories must collaborate in collecting, so as to eliminate inefficient overlap, costly competition, and fill gaps in the historical record, especially in regard to under-documented communities. The consensus among repositories seems to be that cooperation by means of shared collection development is a good thing to do – but difficult because it requires a deep understanding of the organization’s mission, the users it serves, and that analysis and planning must precede collecting. The information collected during the analysis phase is used by repositories to: ƒ analyze the strengths and weaknesses of their collections, ƒ adequately describe those collection strengths and weaknesses, ƒ share the collections information gathered during the analysis with other repositories, and ƒ develop collecting policies based on the analysis of existing holdings and on information about the holdings of other repositories. The process of developing collection policies depends on collaboration at several levels. Once repositories know what is in their own collections, they must share that information with other repositories. Records creators and users should also play a role in the development of shared collection policies. Records creators such as agencies of local government, non-profit organizations, businesses, and private individuals can provide information about documentation that is currently being created. This will help repositories plan for the future acquisition of such material. Collaboration between repositories and researchers is also helpful, since researchers may have valuable insight into what historical topics need to be documented. How Do We Move Forward? 21 Developing a written collecting policy provides repositories with significant benefits. These include: ƒ better focused collections with greater research value than haphazard collections are likely to have, ƒ the prevention of collections of related materials at widely scattered repositories, and ƒ decreased competition between repositories, as well as an increased rate of collection referrals. The collection policies and the shared collection development they make possible are important and will be of great help to repositories. Even more important, however, is the fact that by collaborating in their creation, repositories have the opportunity to establish a network of like-minded individuals and organizations committed to working toward the documentation of Oregon’s history. Guidelines for Processing and Description It was clear from Envisioning Oregon’s town hall meetings that virtually all repositories in Oregon have backlogs of unorganized collections that are not available to researchers. These “hidden collections” are at greater risk of being lost or stolen and they are inaccessible to researchers thus depriving Oregonians of access to their heritage. The fact that most repositories lack trained staff to process collections makes this situation even worse. For repositories to make their collections accessible, they need clear guidelines on how to process collections efficiently, training workshops to teach minimal processing, and support for smaller organizations from larger organizations. Archival processing consists of the actions archivists take to make collections ready for researchers. Such actions include going through the collection boxes to learn what is in them, arranging collection materials so that researchers can more easily use them, and describing the collection contents so that it is possible for staff and researchers to find what they need. Depending on the collection and the archivist, each of these actions can be completed at a basic level or to the nth degree. Processing collections results in many benefits to the staff who care for and make them accessible, as well as to patrons who want to use them. Processing collections helps repositories because: ƒ the collections occupy less space since duplicates and low-value materials have been removed, ƒ materials that need special care due to value or condition have been identified, ƒ finding aids describe collections and help staff members find the information needed to help researchers. Despite its benefits, traditional processing is labor intensive and time-consuming. Since staff time for processing is often limited backlogs of unprocessed collections are common. This helps explain why many archivists are rethinking their processing methodology and turning toward “minimal” processing that focuses on making collections accessible to researchers as quickly as possible. While minimal processing remains controversial among archivists and is best suited for twentieth century collections that are reasonably well organized when acquired, it has become an increasingly attractive processing option for archives that lack support for adequate staffing and supplies. How Do We Move Forward? 22 As this phrase implies, the archivist targets the collection as a whole and spends time studying the collection to understand its scope and its context. The archivist maintains the collection’s original order whenever possible and avoids any unnecessary rearrangement of materials or item-level handling. Minimal processing also affects how an archivist describes a collection. Collection descriptions are prepared with an eye toward getting collection information out to researchers as quickly as possible. Such descriptions focus on the broader scope and context of a collection – on its strengths and weaknesses as documentation, rather than on the individual bits of evidence or information in the collection (see Appendix 2 for a sample MPLP processing manual). Guidelines for Connecting Users to Collections Ultimately, repositories collect historical materials so that researchers can use them. Connecting users to collections of interest is therefore as important to repositories as processing and describing collections. The primary way that researchers find collections is by searching for information about them on the Internet. Without an Internet presence, collections remain invisible to most users. Since repositories must often justify their right to funding with user statistics, connecting researchers with collections is crucial. Marketing collections is associated with several benefits, including the following: “While archives, repositories and access to primary sources don't usually make front page news, the contents of many news stories involves the use of such resources. The local papers regularly call Talent Historical Society for background information on stories ranging from veterans, to mountain trails, ghost towns, to orchards. The society does not always have the references needed to provide the media with accurate information. Envisioning Oregon creates the connection to other resources and provides a way to find out who might have the needed information.” Jan Wright, Head (former) Talent County Historical Society ƒ It brings more users to the repository. Researchers find out about collections that might be of interest to them and contact or visit the repository to conduct research. ƒ It results in referrals of researchers or collections by other repositories. Other repositories find out about collections and use this knowledge to refer researchers or donors with similar collections. ƒ Funding may depend on it. Resource providers (administrators, granting agencies and foundations, and private donors) find out about the repository’s interesting collections and increasing number of users and maintain or increase existing funding levels. Repositories can inform users about their collections in a number of ways, not all of them Internet-based. Traditionally, repositories attempted to attract users to their collections by means of verbal or print announcements such as speaking to local groups or issuing press releases, printed flyers, or bookmarks. Although these methods are still effective – especially for small local repositories – they will not reach as many people as outreach via the Internet. Repositories that do not have Internet access can partner with other organizations to inform potential users about their collections. One approach that will enable a repository to become “visible” to online searches is to partner with the community library and post collection summaries on the library’s OPAC (online public access catalog). How Do We Move Forward? 23 Repositories that have computer access can post collection information on their organization’s website. They can also post collection information online by becoming a member of an online digital archives like the Northwest Digital Archives (see best practices guidelines for the NDWA at the URL included in Appendix 2). Another approach to connecting collections with their potential users is to digitize some or all of a collection and post the resulting digital content online. Oregon’s repositories may choose to showcase their digital collection content in an online exhibit on their website. Or they can provide access through links in finding aids they have posted on the NWDA. The digitization of entire collections is one way that Oregon’s repositories can share collections with one another and make them accessible to researchers despite geographic barriers. [14] Bridge on Columbia Riverat Celilo Falls, Courtesy of University of Oregon Libraries Where Do We Want To Go? 24 WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? A PLAN FOR COOPERATIVE COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT The individuals staffing Oregon’s repositories understand that careful analysis and planning must precede collecting both at individual repositories and in a cooperative environment. Sustained collaboration requires that interested individuals come together to provide leadership and to define workable programs and manageable boundaries. The ultimate goal is a comprehensive cooperative collecting system consisting of such elements as increased inter-regional access to collections through large-scale digitization, regional archival networks, and shared regional storage facilities. The funding needed to achieve these objectives is not yet in place, but will emerge incrementally if each collaborative effort builds on those already completed and anticipates those yet to come. The vision of Oregon’s repositories working in concert to preserve history and to serve the public through cooperative collection development is still in the future, but it will only happen if Oregon’s repositories commit to working collaboratively to make that vision a reality. The intent of Envisioning Oregon is to provide a framework that will guide and support the development of cooperative collecting by the state’s historical records repositories. [15] Master Plan for Yaquina Marine Science Laboratories, Hewlett & Jamison Architects, 1963, Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries A Plan for Implementing Cooperative Collection Development The plan for implementing a cooperative collection development program in Oregon is organized into short-term goals that can be accomplished within the next two years, with minimal funding, and long-term goals for implementing ongoing collaboration between repositories. The intent is that this plan will propose several options for implementing inter-institutional collaboration and propose a framework for a continuing discussion between Oregon’s repositories regarding which of those options to pursue. Where Do We Want To Go? 25 Short-term Goals Work on the following goals should begin in year one. Implementation of these goals and objectives will range from years two through four. Goal 1 – Identify and secure ongoing program leadership and advocacy [completion in year one]. Cooperative collection development and management will only succeed in Oregon, if it evolves from a short term project to a sustainable program. For this to happen, the cooperative collection program needs to become the ongoing responsibility of an engaged and interested group of individuals under the auspices of an agency or organization that is in a position to provide support, resources and advocacy. Since the SHRAB is the one organization in Oregon that is charged with supporting all types of historical records repositories and has a membership that represents many of the major archives programs in the state, it is the most logical candidate to lead the state’s historical repositories toward cooperative collecting in the short term. [16] Governor Mark O. Hatfield and Oregon State Legislators, 1961, Courtesy of Oregon State Univ. Libraries Objective 1 – Establish leadership and advocacy for inter-repository collaboration and cooperative collection development. A group of potential leaders has already emerged from Oregon’s archives, library, and museum communities. These individuals are committed to collaboration between repositories. With administrative support and the mantle of legitimacy that the SHRAB and its member agencies can provide, this group can serve as an ad hoc committee charged with implementing collaboration and cooperative collection development in Oregon. Activities ƒ Form the core leadership group for inter-repository collaboration from the Envisioning Oregon project team. ƒ Expand the membership of the leadership group to include representatives of other Oregon cultural and historical organizations such as the Oregon Museums Association, the Oregon Heritage Commission, the State Archives, the State Library, and other appropriate organizations. ƒ Establish a regular meeting schedule. ƒ Appoint each member of the leadership group to serve as liaison to a category of repository. Repositories can be divided either regionally or by type (i.e., academic, local government, historical society, museum, tribal archives, etc.). Where Do We Want To Go? 26 Objective 2 - Obtain support and cooperation from the SHRAB and the Oregon State Archives. Two members of the SHRAB are on the Envisioning Oregon project team and form a core group of potential leaders in statewide repository collaboration. Given that the SHRAB is responsible for promoting and supporting the identification, preservation, and access to the state’s historical records, the board is the logical organization to provide administrative support to the leadership group. Since the Oregon State Archives provides administrative support for the SHRAB and has a statutory role in the collection and management of both state and local government records in Oregon, and because many of the state’s private repositories hold public records over which the State Archives has jurisdiction, it is equally important for the State Archives to provide support to the SHRAB and to the leadership group. Activities ƒ Envisioning Oregon project team requests that the SHRAB commit to providing administrative support to the leadership group. ƒ SHRAB and the Envisioning Oregon project team request that the State Archivist assume responsibility for coordinating with the SHRAB and the leadership group on matters concerning cooperative collection development and inter- repository collaboration. Alternately, the State Archivist might delegate that responsibility to a State Archives staff person. Objective 3 – Obtain support and cooperation from the Oregon State Library. The Oregon State Library’s mission is “to provide quality information services to Oregon state government…and to provide leadership, grants, and other assistance to improve local library service for all Oregonians.” Given this mission, and the fact that the State Librarian is a member of the SHRAB, it is appropriate that the State Library also participate in providing leadership and advocacy for cooperative collection development in Oregon. Activities ƒ The leadership group and the SHRAB request that the State Library provide expertise to the cooperative collection program based on the fact that libraries have a far longer history and a greater depth of experience in cooperative collection development than do archives or historical societies. ƒ Request that the State Library assist in advocating for inter-repository collaboration. Where Do We Want To Go? 27 Objective 4 - Obtain support and cooperation from the Oregon Heritage Commission. The Oregon Heritage Commission supports heritage efforts and cultural repositories in Oregon through advocacy, education, grants and coordination. Given its mission, the OHC would be a valuable partner in implementing collaboration between Oregon’s repositories. Activities ƒ The leadership group and the SHRAB request that the Heritage Commission provide support for inter-repository collaboration. ƒ Request that the Heritage Commission assist in advocating for inter-repository collaboration. Goal 2 – Partner with the Oregon Museums Association (OMA) on its Preservation Needs Survey and Workshops [completion in year one]. Coordinate with the Oregon Museums Association to connect with repositories through the preservation needs survey to be completed in 2010. Use this as an opportunity to renew or establish contact with local libraries, local governments, tribal archives, and other repositories that were missed by the Envisioning Oregon survey and town hall meetings. Objective 1 – Work with OMA to include collection development as a survey topic. The leadership group and the SHRAB should work with the OMA to complete the following tasks needed to collect information from repositories regarding their collection development practices. Activities ƒ Develop questions concerning collections development to include on the survey. ƒ Compile survey information and post on Envisioning Oregon website. Objective 2 – Prepare a workshop on planning for the protection of historical records and keeping them accessible in the event that a repository closes. The leadership group and the SHRAB should work together to develop and implement a workshop on the importance for repositories of developing a plan for what they will do with their collections if the repository should close. Development of such a plan is directly related to the issue of preservation, since it involves the long-term preservation of historical materials. Activities ƒ Coordinate with the OMA on the planning and implementation of their project workshops. ƒ Participate in one or more workshops. [17] Box of Records, 1970-1979 Courtesy of Oregon State Univ. Libraries Where Do We Want To Go? 28 ƒ Post elements to be considered when a repository closes on the Envisioning Oregon website. Goal 3 – Engage local governments and additional repositories in collaboration [planning in year one; implementation ongoing]. The Envisioning Oregon project team was not able to connect with local government repositories outside the Portland Metro area during the project period; nor was the project team successful at connecting with more than a handful of Oregon’s tribal repositories or repositories representing other under-documented communities. Connecting with local government records keepers, with tribal repositories, and with repositories for other under-documented communities should be a priority for the leadership group and the SHRAB in the immediate post-project period. Objective 1 – Connect with local government records keepers and repositories. The Envisioning Oregon project team has focused on a “collecting model” in planning for inter- repository collaboration. The team has anticipated that the work of documenting history will be done by repositories and will be an outgrowth of their collecting efforts. This may not be the case when it comes to local government records. For many (perhaps even most) local governments, historically significant public records are retained by the governmental agency that created them. Collaborating with local governments will mean providing support and expertise to governmental records keepers; it will mean engaging them in collaboration without acquiring their records. Activities ƒ Leadership group compiles a list of contact information for local government agencies in Oregon. ƒ Leadership group, the State Archives representative, and the SHRAB, work with Oregon’s city and county clerks, county recorders, and other local government records keepers in managing and providing access to local government records. ƒ Working together with local government records keepers, the leadership group and the SHRAB gather information about the types of support and collaboration that would be welcomed and helpful to local government agencies attempting to preserve and make their records available to users. Objective 2 – Connect with tribal repositories. One Envisioning Oregon town hall meeting was held at a tribal repository, the Museum at the Tamástslikt Cultural Institute in Pendleton. A tribal representative attended a second town hall meeting. Since tribal history is a key aspect of Oregon history, it is important that additional tribal repositories become part of this collaborative effort. Where Do We Want To Go? 29 Activities ƒ Leadership group compiles contact information for tribal governments and repositories in Oregon. ƒ One or more members of the Leadership group attend the Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums National Conference in Portland, Oregon, in October 20-22, 2009. ƒ Leadership group works with the SHRAB, a representative of the OHC and the OMA, and tribal records keepers to plan a tribal records workshop for 2010. ƒ Working together with tribal records keepers, the leadership group and the SHRAB gather information about the types of support and collaboration that would be welcomed and helpful to tribes attempting to preserve and make their records available to users. Objective 3 – Connect with repositories representing under-documented communities. The Envisioning Oregon project team attempted to identify and connect with repositories representing under-documented communities in Oregon. However, the project team did not reach many records keepers and repositories associated with under-documented communities. It is important that additional such repositories be identified for this collaborative effort. “The project certainly had the ability to benefit the historical and archival resources of Oregon by bringing disparate groups together. Tribes are some of those organizations and will greatly benefit from working closely with regional coalitions.” David G. Lewis, PhD Manager, Cultural Resources Department Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde [18] Japanese children, Courtesy of University of Oregon Libraries Activities ƒ Leadership group identifies records keepers and repositories representing Oregon’s under-documented communities and compiles contact information. Where Do We Want To Go? 30 ƒ Working together with records keepers, the leadership group and the SHRAB gather information about the types of support and collaboration that would be welcomed and helpful to under-representative communities attempting to preserve and make their records available to users. Goal 4 - Assist repositories to write/update, share, and implement collection development policies [planning complete in year one; implementation during years one and two]. Analysis and policy creation must precede cooperative collecting. Writing new or updating existing collection development policies is an essential step in all collecting activities. Objective 1 – Plan collection analysis and collection policy preparation workshops. The leadership group should work with the SHRAB to plan a series of five one-day workshops on analyzing collections and writing collection development policies, to be held in different regions of Oregon. Funding is available to the SHRAB to support these workshops through a SNAP grant for 2010 for a series of twenty archives and records management workshops in five regions of Oregon. Activities ƒ Request by the leadership group that the SHRAB allocate funding from its 2010 SNAP grant to support one workshop in each of the five Oregon regions identified in the grant. ƒ Identify the workshop locations and instructors and develop a workshop curriculum and materials. One handout should be a collection assessment worksheet; another should be a collection development policy template that can be posted on the Envisioning Oregon website. ƒ Identify and invite repository representatives to attend each workshop. ƒ Request that each attendee analyze collection holdings and complete the collection policy upon returning to his/her repository. ƒ Request that each attendee submit a copy of his/her repository collection policy for posting on the Envisioning Oregon website. ƒ Post all workshop materials on the Envisioning Oregon website. Objective 2 - Support Oregon’s repositories in the completion of a collections analysis. The leadership group and the SHRAB should work together to support Oregon’s repositories as they conduct an analysis of their collections. Each repository should be asked to determine the subject areas documented by their holdings, analyze their collections’ strengths and weaknesses, and detail the volume and condition of the collection materials. Activities ƒ Option 1 - Work with the OMA to make the collections analysis part of their survey questionnaire. Where Do We Want To Go? 31 ƒ Option 2 - If a separate questionnaire is necessary, use SurveyMonkey to develop, publicize, distribute, and compile the collections analysis questionnaire. ƒ Design the questionnaire to include a checklist of historical topics that will help repositories to identify which aspects of Oregon history are documented by their collections. Repositories would simply check the topics that apply. ƒ Compile and post the survey results on the Envisioning Oregon website. Objective 3 – Obtain copies of repository collection development policies from Oregon’s repositories and make them publicly available. The leadership group and the SHRAB should request that Oregon’s repositories submit copies of their completed collection development policies for posting on the Envisioning Oregon website. Activities ƒ Contact workshop attendees and obtain a copy of the collection development policy each wrote following the workshop. ƒ Contact repositories that did not attend the workshop; provide them with workshop materials by mail/email and ask them to complete and submit collection development policies. ƒ Compile index to topical areas in collection development policies and post index and policies on the Envisioning Oregon website. ƒ Advertise the availability of the posted policies in archives and museum listservs. Objective 4 – Assist repositories to implement cooperative collection policies. The leadership group should support repositories as they implement their cooperative collection development policies through ongoing coordination between repositories to find appropriate homes for new collections and more appropriate homes for existing collections. Repositories must establish a regular program of reappraisal and deaccessioning. Activities ƒ Encourage repository staff to consult the topical index and the collection development policies of other repositories posted on the Envisioning Oregon website and to refer potential donors to appropriate repositories if collections are out-of-scope. “I think we have good working relationships [with other museums]. I have sent things to others when they pertain to their area of the state and it doesn't fit into our collection policies. I have also received post cards and pictures from several museums for the same reason.” Jan Cupernall, Volunteer Harney Co. Historical Society ƒ Ask repository staff to regularly (every year or two) review, update, and share their collection policy. Remind repositories to review their collections at the same time to identify any that are out-of-scope. Where Do We Want To Go? 32 ƒ Advise repositories seeking to deaccession out-of-scope collections and assist them in locating repositories to which such collections could be transferred. Goal 5 – Develop a schedule of regular face-to-face meetings between representatives of Oregon’s repositories [planning complete in year one; implementation ongoing]. Collaboration requires face-to-face meetings, not just virtual meetings. Holding these meetings regularly will be crucial for the sustainability of the program, since cooperation is a by-product of trust and regular face-to-face meetings will facilitate the building of trust between the various repository constituencies in Oregon. The meetings will also permit representatives of Oregon’s repositories to discuss and learn about collection development and other issues of interest. Objective 1 – Determine who will administer the meetings and how they will be funded. The leadership group should work under the auspices of the SHRAB to develop a program of regular face-to-face meetings for repository representatives. [19] Envisioning Oregon Town Hall Meeting 11/2008 (G. Carey) Activities ƒ The leadership group and the SHRAB, working with the Oregon Heritage Commission, should take the lead in organizing and sustaining these meetings. ƒ The leadership group, the SHRAB, and the Oregon Heritage Commission, should develop funding to support the meetings. The future of collaboration between repositories rests on finding the funds to underwrite such meetings. Objective 2 – Develop a regular meeting schedule; plan and implement the meetings. The leadership group, working with the SHRAB and the Oregon Heritage Commission should develop a regular meeting schedule, beginning with at least one yearly meeting in each region of Oregon (similar to the town hall meetings held as part of Envisioning Oregon). Some of these meetings could be held in conjunction with the meetings of potential partner organizations such as the Northwest Archivists, the OMA, the OHC, and the Oregon Library Association. Activities ƒ Work with the SHRAB, the State Library, the OHC, the OMA, and other appropriate agencies to develop a list of repository representatives and local government records keepers who should be invited to the meetings. ƒ Partner with the OHC to develop a system of regional coordinators to assist in planning the regional meetings and to urge their colleagues in the local region to attend. Where Do We Want To Go? 33 ƒ Identify regional meeting locations and develop meeting agendas and materials. ƒ Supplement face-to-face meetings with virtual access for those unable to attend in person. ƒ Develop a meeting evaluation form and ask attendees to complete an evaluation following the meeting. Use the evaluations to improve subsequent meetings. Goal 6 – Develop and implement ongoing training and support for new archivists [planning complete in year one; implementation ongoing]. The need for training and support for those working in Oregon’s archival repositories was a constant theme at the town hall meetings in November 2008 and June 2009. Such support is particularly necessary for volunteer archivists without access to professional training. Objective 1 – Partner with the SHRAB in developing archives and records management workshops in Oregon. The leadership group should coordinate with the SHRAB as it plans and implements the workshops funded by its 2010 SNAP grant. These twenty workshops are intended to provide archives and records management training throughout Oregon’s five regions. Activities ƒ Assist the SHRAB in developing workshop topics and planning workshop logistics. ƒ Assist the SHRAB in developing a standard curriculum and PowerPoint slides that can be presented live at each meeting site and can be repurposed for future use. ƒ Assist the SHRAB in leading workshops. ƒ Encourage the SHRAB to tape the workshops and repurpose them as webinars. ƒ Request that the SHRAB post the webinars on both the SHRAB and the Envisioning Oregon website and publicize them. Objective 2 – Develop a Visiting Archivist program. The leadership group should work with the SHRAB, the State Archives, the Northwest Archivists, the Oregon Heritage Commission, and other appropriate organizations to develop a Visiting Archivist program in Oregon. The Visiting Archivist would be available to visit repositories throughout the state to provide archival assessments, consultation, training, and other such assistance. Activities ƒ Plan the Visiting Archivist program by determining what services would be included and developing a program scope of work. Projects might include conducting a simple collections needs assessment, [20] Circuit Rider Statue, Oregon State Capitol Grounds, Oregon Blue Book, 2009 Where Do We Want To Go? 34 developing archival policies and procedures, or providing targeted training in archival processing or description. ƒ Decide how the Visiting Archivist program will be staffed. Two options are to staff the program with a rotating group of experienced Oregon archivists willing to volunteer the occasional day to help repositories in need, or to fill this position with one paid archivist. Develop funding. ƒ Publicize the program and engage one or more archivists. Long-term Goals Work on the following goals should begin in year one. However, achievement of these goals will require years of effort. The implementation of the following long-term goals is projected to occur in years five through ten. Goal 7 – Plan and implement cooperative archives research networks [planning begins in year one, implementation complete by year five]. The leadership group should partner with the SHRAB, the Orbis Cascade Alliance, the State Archives, and other appropriate organizations to plan and implement cooperative archives research networks in Oregon. The infrastructure needed to establish cooperative archives research networks already exists in Oregon in the Orbis Cascade Alliance. Expanding the purview of the Alliance to include the “inter- repository loan” of archival collections through the existing courier operations would be a reasonable first step. The archival collections of Alliance members would then be available for “borrowing” by other members of the Alliance, providing borrowing institutions meet certain basic requirements related to collections security, environmental conditions, and funding. Objective 1 – Build on the Orbis Cascade Alliance courier system to develop a plan to provide courier service for the archival collections of member repositories. Activities ƒ Develop security and environmental requirements that must be met by borrowing repositories. ƒ Adapt existing procedures for the borrowing of published materials between member institutions to the borrowing of archival materials. [21] Bill Hayward and a Templar Automobile, 1919, Courtesy of University of Oregon Libraries Objective 2 – Implement the inter-repository loan of archival collections. Where Do We Want To Go? 35 Goal 8 – Initiate planning for regional collection storage centers [begin lobbying in year one, conduct planning in years one through three, implement program in years four through ten]. Regional collection storage centers would provide Oregon’s historical records repositories with much more than storage for their archival records. They would provide both ample and optimum storage conditions to enhance records preservation; they would provide trained staff to conduct central records appraisal, processing, preservation, digitization, and description at a much lower cost than would be possible for individual, small repositories. Such centers could consist of new construction or the repurposing of existing storage facilities. For the sake of expediency, one such regional storage facility could be implemented as an additional function of the Orbis Cascade Alliance. A second facility might be associated with the Oregon Historical Society. Although the centers would be built one at a time, the master plan should call for geographic dispersal of regional collection storage centers. Such centers could also be developed in conjunction with the courier system. The storage centers would make natural stations on the archival “pony express” where people could come to pick up collections they wanted to borrow or to which they could return borrowed collections. Objective 1 – In year one (and ongoing), begin work on building a consensus in favor of regional collection storage centers. Consensus building will involve discussion and collaboration between all stakeholders (repositories, historical and cultural organizations, users, and resource allocators). Activities ƒ Educate and lobby organizations including the SHRAB, the State Archives, the Orbis Cascade Alliance, the OHS, the State Library, the OHC, the OMA, and the Northwest Archivists to gain their support for regional collection storage centers. Persuade them to express support for the centers to their state legislators. ƒ Educate and lobby representatives of repositories throughout the state to gain their support for regional collection storage centers. Persuade them to express support for the centers to their state legislators. ƒ Educate and lobby state legislators to gain their support for regional collection storage centers. Objective 2 – In years one through three, develop a master plan for the regional collection storage center programs and facilities. The leadership group and its partners will plan location, design, governance, and services of the regional collection storage centers. Activities ƒ Identify a coalition of interested and invested individuals drawn from project stakeholders to assume leadership throughout the planning process. ƒ Decide how many centers Oregon requires for optimum efficiency and cost- savings. Where Do We Want To Go? 36 ƒ Determine whether centers should be new construction or repurposed existing facilities, or a combination of the two. ƒ Obtain funding from planning grants or other sources to hire architects and additional professionals to assist with the planning process. ƒ Determine the programs and services that will be provided by the centers. ƒ By the end of year three, establish a governance structure for the centers. Objective 3 – In years four through ten construct the physical plant for regional collection storage centers. The permanent governance structure will take over and see the centers through to completion and program implementation. Activities ƒ Transition from the original task force to a permanent regional collection storage center governance board. ƒ Develop funding to support construction and program activities. ƒ Construct one center, followed by additional centers in other Oregon regions. Or remodel existing structures for use as a regional center(s). Objective 4 – In years five and ongoing implement regional collection storage center programming. Once they have been constructed and equipped, regional collection storage centers will need to implement programs to store records, preserve records, and make records accessible. Because of their size and the breadth of their collections and funding, these centers will be able to help find solutions for Oregon’s problems with electronic records preservation and access. Mass digitization of entire collections will also be possible at these centers. It will be cheaper to have a few specialized facilities storing electronic records or digitizing collections than to force every repository to solve these problems on its own. Activities ƒ Hire staff and take in collections from other repositories. ƒ Establish electronic records preservation and access services. ƒ Initiate mass digitization projects. [22] Oregon Resource Center for Cooperating Libraries at Adair Village, 1980-1989, Courtesy of Oregon State University Libraries Conclusion 37 CONCLUSION The Envisioning Oregon project is ending, but the real work is only beginning. The project’s attempt to initiate collaboration between Oregon’s geographically, economically, and culturally diverse repositories has shown that cooperative action can work. One very tangible outcome is that the Jefferson County Historical Society will soon have a fully processed and described collection, courtesy of students at Lewis and Clark College – thus helping both partners. Another tangible outcome is that communication between repositories at the town hall meetings was enlightening to all who attended. Although it is too early to tell for sure, Envisioning Oregon has brought repositories together and begun to forge connections between them. The next step will be to translate the communication that took place at the town hall meetings into purposeful communication that leads to action. The planning phase of Envisioning Oregon is complete; now it is time for implementation! “As Americans, we derive our sense of ourselves in part from the contents our nation’s historical documents. But we are not just national citizens. Regional, state, and city documents, as well as those from rural outposts, inform and remind us of who we are, unite us with each other or with a particular geography, and foster continuity and stability in our communities. For these reasons, we must have a system in place to preserve all of our state’s important documents. Moreover, there is nothing quite like the frisson one feels when coming into contact with an important piece of paper from another era: its color, its scent, the particular way its ink lies on the page. Even—and especially—schoolchildren sense these things, and may turn their sensory experience into a love of history or culture or geography. We elders should not deprive them of this experience.” Ellen Santasiero Writer and Adjunct Instructor Oregon State University—Cascades [23] Oregon State Song: Oregon, My Oregon, 1920 Courtesy of University of Oregon Libraries Appendix 1 – Summary of Recommendations 38 APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Summary of Recommendations Short-term Goals Work on the following goals should begin in year one. Implementation of these goals and objectives will range from years two through four. Goal 1 – Identify and secure ongoing program leadership and advocacy [completion in year one]. Objective 1 – Establish leadership and advocacy for inter-repository collaboration and cooperative collection development. Activities ƒ Form the core leadership group for inter-repository collaboration from the Envisioning Oregon project team. ƒ Expand the membership of the leadership group to include representatives of other Oregon cultural and historical organizations. ƒ Establish a regular meeting schedule. ƒ Appoint each member of the leadership group to serve as liaison to a type of repository. Objective 2 - Obtain support and cooperation from the SHRAB and the Oregon State Archives. Activities ƒ Envisioning Oregon project team requests that the SHRAB commit to providing administrative support to the leadership group. ƒ SHRAB and the Envisioning Oregon project team request that the State Archivist assume responsibility for coordinating with the SHRAB and the leadership group on matters concerning cooperative collection development and inter- repository collaboration. Objective 3 – Obtain support and cooperation from the Oregon State Library. Activities ƒ The leadership group and the SHRAB request that the State Library provide expertise to the cooperative collection program. ƒ Request that the State Library assist in advocating for inter-repository collaboration. Appendix 1 – Summary of Recommendations 39 Objective 4 - Obtain support and cooperation from the Oregon Heritage Commission. Activities ƒ The leadership group and the SHRAB request that the Heritage Commission provide support for inter-repository collaboration. ƒ Request that the Heritage Commission assist in advocating for inter-repository collaboration. Goal 2 – Partner with the Oregon Museums Association (OMA) on its Preservation Needs Survey and Workshops [completion in year one]. Objective 1 – Work with OMA to include collection development as a survey topic. Activities ƒ Develop questions concerning collections development to include on the survey. ƒ Compile survey information and post on Envisioning Oregon website. Objective 2 – Prepare a workshop on planning for the protection of historical records and keeping them accessible in the event that a repository closes. Activities ƒ Coordinate with the OMA on the planning and implementation of their project workshops. ƒ Participate in one or more workshops. ƒ Post elements to be considered when a repository closes on the Envisioning Oregon website. Goal 3 – Engage local governments and additional repositories in collaboration [planning in year one; implementation ongoing]. Objective 1 – Connect with local government records keepers and repositories. Activities ƒ Leadership group compiles a list of contact information for local government agencies in Oregon. ƒ Leadership group, the State Archives representative, and the SHRAB, work with Oregon’s city and county clerks, county recorders, and other local government records keepers in managing and providing access to local government records. ƒ Working together with local government records keepers, the leadership group and the SHRAB gather information about the types of support and collaboration that would be welcomed and helpful to local government agencies. Appendix 1 – Summary of Recommendations 40 Objective 2 – Connect with tribal repositories. Activities ƒ Leadership group compiles contact information for tribal governments and repositories in Oregon. ƒ One or more members of the Leadership group attend the Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums National Conference in Portland, Oregon, in October 20-22, 2009. ƒ Leadership group works with the SHRAB, a representative of the OHC and the OMA, and tribal records keepers to plan a tribal records workshop for 2010. ƒ Working together with tribal records keepers, the leadership group and the SHRAB gather information about the types of support and collaboration that would be welcomed and helpful to tribes. Objective 3 – Connect with repositories representing under-documented communities. Activities ƒ Leadership group identifies records keepers and repositories representing Oregon’s under-documented communities and compiles contact information. ƒ Working together with records keepers, the leadership group and the SHRAB gather information about the types of support and collaboration that would be welcomed and helpful to under-representative communities. Goal 4 - Assist repositories to write/update, share, and implement collection development policies [planning complete in year one; implementation during years one and two]. Objective 1 – Plan collection analysis and collection policy preparation workshops. Activities ƒ Request by the leadership group that the SHRAB allocate funding from its 2010 SNAP grant to support one workshop in each of the five Oregon regions identified in the grant. ƒ Identify the workshop locations and instructors and develop a workshop curriculum and materials. ƒ Identify and invite repository representatives to attend each workshop. ƒ Request that each attendee analyze collection holdings and complete the collection policy upon returning to his/her repository. ƒ Request that each attendee submit a copy of his/her repository collection policy for posting on the Envisioning Oregon website. ƒ Post all workshop materials on the Envisioning Oregon website. Appendix 1 – Summary of Recommendations 41 Objective 2 - Support Oregon’s repositories in the completion of a collections analysis. Activities ƒ Option 1 - Work with the OMA to make the collections analysis part of their survey questionnaire. ƒ Option 2 - If a separate questionnaire is necessary, use SurveyMonkey to develop, publicize, distribute, and compile the collections analysis questionnaire. ƒ Design the questionnaire to include a checklist of historical topics that will help repositories to identify which aspects of Oregon history are documented by their collections. ƒ Compile and post the survey results on the Envisioning Oregon website. Objective 3 – Obtain copies of repository collection development policies from Oregon’s repositories and make them publicly available. Activities ƒ Contact workshop attendees and obtain a copy of the collection development policy each wrote following the workshop. ƒ Contact repositories that did not attend the workshop; provide them with workshop materials by mail/email and ask them to complete and submit collection development policies. ƒ Compile index to topical areas in collection development policies and post index and policies on the Envisioning Oregon website. ƒ Advertise the availability of the posted policies in archives and museum listservs. Objective 4 – Assist repositories to implement cooperative collection policies. Activities ƒ Encourage repository staff to consult the topical index and the collection development policies of other repositories posted on the Envisioning Oregon website and to refer potential donors to appropriate repositories if collections are out-of-scope. ƒ Ask repository staff to regularly (every year or two) review, update, and share their collection policy. ƒ Advise repositories seeking to deaccession out-of-scope collections and assist them in locating repositories to which such collections could be transferred. Appendix 1 – Summary of Recommendations 42 Goal 5 – Develop a schedule of regular face-to-face meetings between representatives of Oregon’s repositories [planning complete in year one; implementation ongoing]. Objective 1 – Determine who will administer the meetings and how they will be funded. Activities ƒ The leadership group and the SHRAB, working with the Oregon Heritage Commission, should take the lead in organizing and sustaining these meetings. ƒ The leadership group, the SHRAB, and the Oregon Heritage Commission, should develop funding to support the meetings. Objective 2 – Develop a regular meeting schedule; plan and implement the meetings. Activities ƒ Work with the SHRAB, the State Library, the OHC, the OMA, and other appropriate agencies to develop a list of repository representatives and local government records keepers who should be invited to the meetings. ƒ Partner with the OHC to develop a system of regional coordinators to assist in planning the regional meetings and to urge their colleagues in the local region to attend. ƒ Identify regional meeting locations and develop meeting agendas and materials. ƒ Supplement face-to-face meetings with virtual access for those unable to attend in person. ƒ Develop a meeting evaluation form and ask attendees to complete an evaluation following the meeting. Goal 6 – Develop and implement ongoing training and support for new archivists [planning complete in year one; implementation ongoing]. Objective 1 – Partner with the SHRAB in developing archives and records management workshops in Oregon. Activities ƒ Assist the SHRAB in developing workshop topics and planning workshop logistics. ƒ Assist the SHRAB in developing a standard curriculum and PowerPoint slides that can be presented live at each meeting site and can be repurposed for future use. ƒ Assist the SHRAB in leading workshops. Appendix 1 – Summary of Recommendations 43 ƒ Encourage the SHRAB to tape the workshops and repurpose them as webinars. ƒ Request that the SHRAB post the webinars on both the SHRAB and the Envisioning Oregon website and publicize them. Objective 2 – Develop a Visiting Archivist program. Activities ƒ Plan the Visiting Archivist program by determining what services would be included and developing a program scope of work. ƒ Decide how the Visiting Archivist program will be staffed. ƒ Publicize the program and engage one or more archivists. Long-term Goals Work on the following goals should begin in year one. However, achievement of these goals will require years of effort. The implementation of the following long-term goals is projected to occur in years five through ten. Goal 7 – Plan and implement cooperative archives research networks [planning begins in year one, implementation complete by year five]. Objective 1 – Build on the Orbis Cascade Alliance courier system to develop a plan to provide courier service for the archival collections of member repositories. Activities ƒ Develop security and environmental requirements that must be met by borrowing repositories. ƒ Adapt existing procedures for the borrowing of published materials between member institutions to the borrowing of archival materials. Objective 2 – Implement the inter-repository loan of archival collections. Goal 8 – Initiate planning for regional collection storage centers [begin lobbying in year one, conduct planning in years one through three, implement program in years four through ten]. Objective 1 – In year one (and ongoing), begin work on building a consensus in favor of regional collection storage centers. Activities ƒ Educate and lobby organizations including the SHRAB, the State Archives, the Orbis Cascade Alliance, the OHS, the State Library, the OHC, the OMA, and the Northwest Archivists to gain their support for regional collection storage centers. Appendix 1 – Summary of Recommendations 44 ƒ Educate and lobby representatives of repositories throughout the state to gain their support for regional collection storage centers. ƒ Educate and lobby state legislators to gain their support for regional collection storage centers. Objective 2 – In years one through three, develop a master plan for the regional collection storage center programs and facilities. Activities ƒ Identify a coalition of interested and invested individuals drawn from project stakeholders to assume leadership throughout the planning process. ƒ Decide how many centers Oregon requires for optimum efficiency and cost- savings. ƒ Determine whether centers should be new construction or repurposed existing facilities, or a combination of the two. ƒ Obtain funding from planning grants or other sources to hire architects and additional professionals to assist with the planning process. ƒ Determine the programs and services that will be provided by the centers. ƒ By the end of year three, establish a governance structure for the centers. Objective 3 – In years four through ten construct the physical plant for regional collection storage centers. Activities ƒ Transition from the original task force to a permanent regional collection storage center governance board. ƒ Develop funding to support construction and program activities. ƒ Construct one center, followed by additional centers in other Oregon regions. Or remodel existing structures for use as a regional center(s). Objective 4 – In years five and ongoing implement regional collection storage center programming. Activities ƒ Hire staff and take in collections from other repositories. ƒ Establish electronic records preservation and access services. ƒ Initiate mass digitization projects. Appendix 2 – Resources for Repositories 45 Appendix 2 - Resources for Repositories Framework for Topical Analysis of Community History Sources 1. Art & Architecture • Individual artists, writers, performers, architects • Institutions (foundations, museums, schools) • Entertainment companies & cultural organizations • Architectural and other arts-related businesses 2. Agriculture • Individual farmers • Family farms • Corporate or commercial farming • Agribusiness (processing, marketing, transportation) • Academic research & programs • Lobby & professional groups 3. Business, Industry & Manufacturing • Individuals • Businesses, industries & cooperatives • Business-related associations & chambers of commerce • Professional & occupational associations 4. Communications • Individuals • Print Media • Broadcast Media • Advertising & public relations • Regulatory & watchdog organizations 5. Education • Individual educators • Students • Primary & secondary schools • Colleges & universities • Vocational/continuing education • Regulatory, support, watchdog organizations Appendix 2 – Resources for Repositories 46 6. Labor • Individuals • Labor organizations (unions, employee associations, etc.) • Events (strikes, boycotts, etc.) 7. Medical & Health Care • Individuals (practitioners, researchers, etc.) • Recipients of medical & health care • Businesses & corporations • Professional & promotional organizations • Regulatory, funding & watchdog organizations 8. Military • Individual participants (i.e., combatants) • Civilian participation (i.e., home front) • Military installations, sites, operations • Organizations & veterans’ organizations 9. Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs • Individuals • Industries & businesses • Conservation/environmental organizations & issues • Regulatory & watchdog organizations 10. Politics, Government & Law • Individuals • County & local government agencies • State & federal government agencies • Movements, events & citizen organizations • Law & law enforcement 11. Populations • Individuals • Population groups (women, elderly, children, etc.) • Ethnic & racial organizations & groups • Immigration/migration/emigration Appendix 2 – Resources for Repositories 47 12. Religion • Individuals • Churches & denominations • Special interest & other groups • Events & movements • Sacraments 13. Recreation & Leisure • Individuals • Sports & leisure organizations & activities • Recreation/travel/tourism businesses • Cultural/social/special interest activities 14. Science & Technology • Individuals • Businesses & corporations • Professional associations • Regulatory, funding & watchdog organizations 15. Settlement • Individuals • Land use & planning • Urban & neighborhood organizations • Historical accounts 16. Social Organization & Activity • Individuals & families • Benevolent/charitable/philanthropic organizations • Genealogy • Social action 17. Transportation • Individuals • Businesses & corporations • Facilities, ports, etc. • Regulatory & watchdog organizations Appendix 2 – Resources for Repositories 48 Envisioning Oregon Repository Survey Form Link The survey form sent to Oregon’s repositories in October 2008 http://envisioningoregon.org/Envisioning_Oregon/Collection_Development_Resources_files/LSTA%20Su rvey%20Envisioning%20Oregon%206%2009.doc Oregon Historical and Cultural Agency and Information Links Envisioning Oregon Project Website http://envisioningoregon.org/Envisioning_Oregon/Welcome.html Oregon State Historical Records Advisory Board http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/shrab/shrab_strategic_plan.htm Oregon State Archives http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/index.html Oregon State Library http://www.oregon.gov/OSL/ Oregon Heritage Commission http://www.oregonheritage.org/ Oregon Museums Association http://www.oregonmuseums.org/ Oregon Blue Book http://bluebook.state.or.us/ Collection Development Resource Links Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. Collection Development Training for Arizona Public Libraries. 2008. http://www.lib.az.us/cdt Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. Overview of Collection Development. 2008. http://www.lib.az.us/cdt/collman.aspx Appendix 2 – Resources for Repositories 49 Envisioning Oregon website, Collection Development Resources http://envisioningoregon.org/Envisioning_Oregon/Collection_Development_Resources_files/Documenta tion%20Strategy%20Handout.doc Archives “How-To” Links A Manual for Small Archives http://aabc.ca/msa/0_table_of_contents.htm Yale University Online Tutorial for using archives and manuscripts http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/tutorial/tutorial.htm Sample MPLP Accessioning and Processing Manual from SCRC (Southern Illinois University, Carbondale) http://scrc.swem.wm.edu/wiki/index.php/Accessioning_and_Processing_Manual Copyright Term and Public Domain in the United States http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm National History Day http://www.nationalhistoryday.com/ Wisconsin Council for Local History (general) http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/localhistory/wclh_activities.asp Using Primary Sources on the Web http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/sections/history/resources/pubs/usingprimarysources/index.cfm Using Archives: A Practical Guide for Researchers http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/04/0416_e.html Preservation and Conservation Links Northeast Document Conservation Center http://www.nedcc.org/home.php CoOL Conservation Online: Conservation/Preservation Information for the General Public http://206.180.235.135/bytopic/genpub/ Appendix 2 – Resources for Repositories 50 Regional Alliance for Preservation http://www.rap-arcc.org/index.php National Park Service Conserv-o Grams http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/publications/conserveogram/cons_toc.html Wisconsin Council for Local History (Conservation Corner) http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/localhistory/conserve_corner.asp Major Granting Agency Links National Historical Publications & Records Commission (NHPRC) http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/apply/program.html National Endowment for the Humanities http://www.neh.gov/grants/grants.html Institute for Museum and Library Services (also includes archives) http://www.imls.gov/applicants/applicants.shtm Northwest Digital Archives Best Practices Guideline Links Northwest Digital Archives Best Practices Guidelines (NWDA BPG) for Encoded Archival Description (EAD), Version 3.4, January 2008 http://orbiscascade.org/index/cms-filesystem- action?file=nwda/tools/nwdabpg%20version%203.4%2020080130.pdf Northwest Digital Archives, Best Practices Guidelines for Encoded Archival Description (EAD) (NWDA BPG), Oral History Encoding Guidelines http://orbiscascade.org/index/cms-filesystem- action?file=nwda/tools/nwdabpg2005oralhistappendix.pdf NWDA Browsing Term List http://orbiscascade.org/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=nwda/browsingtermsalphajan302006.pdf NWDA Display Labels for Stylesheets http://orbiscascade.org/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=nwda/tools/nwdalabelsforstylesheets.pdf Appendix 2 – Resources for Repositories 51 Additional Best Practices Guideline Links OAC Best Practices Guidelines for Encoded Archival Description http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/guidelines/bpgead/ EAD Best Practices at the Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/rr/ead/lcp/index.html RLG Best Practices Guidelines for Encoded Archival Description http://www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/past/ead/bpg.pdf University of Maryland Libraries Best Practices Guidelines for Digital Collections http://www.lib.umd.edu/dcr/publications/best_practice.pdf Sample Finding Aid Links Finding aid on the NWDA website for Colegio César Chávez Collection, Oregon State University Archives, Corvallis, Oregon. http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv46531 Finding aid for a minimally processed collection on the NWDA website for the Oregon 4-H Photograph Collection, Oregon State University Archives, Corvallis, Oregon. http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv10621 Appendix 3 - References 52 Appendix 3 - References List of Sources Sidebar Quotation Sources: [1] Jan Cupernall, Volunteer, Harney County Historical Society, Email message, August 9, 2009. [2] Lawrence Landis, University Archivist, Oregon State University, Email message, July 8, 2009. [3] David G. Lewis, Ph.D., Manager, Cultural Resources Department, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Email message, August 7, 2009. [4] Jarold Ramsey, President, Jefferson County Historical Society, Email message, August 6, 2009. [5] Ellen Santasiero, Writer and Adjunct Instructor, Oregon State University—Cascades, Email message, August 12, 2009. [6] Jan Wright, Head (former), Talent County Historical Society, Email message, August 10, 2009. Other Sources: [1] Telephone conversation with Linda Whitaker, Arizona Historical Foundation, August 7, 2009. [2] Mary Melcher, “Arizona Archives Summit, Jan. 29-30, 2009,” no date. [3] National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), “Grants Organized by State and Territory,” August 2009. http://www.archives.gov/nhprc/projects/states-territories/ [4] Greene and Meissner. “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Archival Processing.” American Archivist 68 (Fall/Winter 2005). List of Illustrations [1] Oregon farm scene with Mt. Hood in background, Benjamin A. Gifford, 1904, Item Number P062:Acc95:044, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =1997&REC=19 Appendix 3 - References 53 [2] “Library,” Alpine Tavern, Alpine, Oregon, 1968, Item Number PH263_42-22, University of Oregon Libraries. http://boundless.uoregon.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/Bestof&CISOPTR=530&CISOBOX=1& REC=12 [3] Vista House, Ralph Gifford, October 4, 1940, Item Number P218:RIG #0632, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =291&REC=6 [4] Map of the State of Oregon, General Land Office, 1876, Item Number G4290 1876 U5, Oregon State University Libraries. http://boundless.uoregon.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ormaps&CISOPTR=155&CISOBOX=1 &REC=8 [5] University of Oregon, Special Collections and Archives, August 22, 2009, University of Oregon Libraries (website). http://libweb.uoregon.edu/speccoll/ [6] Computer Lab, 1990-1999, Item Number P94, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =348&REC=2 [7] “Bucking A Spruce,” Gifford and Prentiss, Item Number P217: set 41 no.11, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/archives/full/P217_set41_11.tif [8] Envisioning Oregon Town Hall Meeting, November19, 2008, photograph courtesy of Gabriele G. Carey. [9] Archive Records, 1970-1979, Item Number P169:085, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =2089&REC=1 [10] Oregon State Archives (website), August 22, 2009. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/tour/lobbysummer.html Appendix 3 - References 54 [11] Oregon State Library, Oregon Blue Book (website), 2009. http://bluebook.state.or.us/facts/scenic/dep/dep14.htm [12] Northwest Digital Archives, Home page screenshot, August 22, 2009. http://nwda.wsulibs.wsu.edu/index.shtml [13] Student organizing records, 1970-1979, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =2087&REC=4 [14] Bridge on Columbia River at Celilo Falls, no date, Item Number ORU_PH037_0473, University of Oregon Libraries. http://boundless.uoregon.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/wwdl&CISOPTR=70&CISOBOX=1&R EC=11 [15] Architect's Master Plan for Yaquina Marine Science Laboratories, Hewlett & Jamison Architects, 1963, Item Number RG194, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =1006&REC=2 [16] Oregon State University name change ceremony with Governor Mark O. Hatfield, March 6, 1961, Item Number HC2227, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =572&REC=2 [17] Box of Records, 1970-1979, Item Number P169:101, Oregon State University Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =2085&REC=2 [18] Japanese children, Item Number PH014-20-28, University of Oregon Libraries. http://boundless.uoregon.edu/digcol/gh/ [19] Envisioning Oregon Town Hall Meeting, November19, 2008, photograph courtesy of Gabriele G. Carey. [20] The Circuit Rider statue on the Capitol grounds, Oregon Blue Book website, 2009. http://bluebook.state.or.us/facts/scenic/cap/cap11.htm Appendix 3 - References 55 [21] Bill Hayward and a Templar Automobile, 1919, Item Number A_ATHWLH_F2_0003, University of Oregon Libraries. http://boundless.uoregon.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/uo- athletics&CISOPTR=582&CISOBOX=1&REC=6 [22] “Rod Waldron,” Oregon Resource Center for Cooperating Libraries at Adair Village1980-1989, Item Number P57:7045, University of Oregon Libraries. http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/archives&CISOPTR =125&REC=1 [23] “Oregon State Song: Oregon, My Oregon,” Henry B. Murtagh, 1920, University of Oregon Libraries. http://boundless.uoregon.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/sheetmusic&CISOPTR=364&REC=20