State archives in 1997: Diverse conditions, common directions

American Archivist

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 132-151

  Walch, Victoria Irons ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49749135812     PISSN: 03609081     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17723/aarc.60.2.c23x46177063p14x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ernst Posner, American State Archives (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 19.
2. H.G. Jones, "The Pink Elephant Revisited," American Archivist 43 (Fall 1980): 481.
3. Posner, American State Archives, 30.
4. Jones, "Pink Elephant Revisited," 476.
5. See also the 1997- 98 NAGARA workplan in NAGARA Clearinghouse 13 (Fall 1997): 6-7. The URL for the NAGARA homepage is http://www.nagara.org/.
6. The first decade of the council is described in Richard E. Lynch, Preserving Yesterday While Planning for Tomorrow: A View from the States, Biennial Report of the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (Phoenix, Ariz., 1991)
7. Larry Hackman, "A Perspective on American Archives," Public Historian 8 (Summer 1986): 20.
8. Hackman that the first twenty assessment reports were reviewed in a summary for the 1983 meeting of State Historical Records Coordinators, published as Lisa B. Weber, ed., Documenting America: Assessing the Condition of Historical Records in the States (Albany, N.Y.: National Association of State Archives and Records Administrators, 1984).
9. Several documents have systematically analyzed and described the individual program and functional components of a state archives and records program. The most recent and comprehensive set was prepared by Howard Lowell in the form of benchmarks, published in "Elements of a State Archives and Records Management Program," ARMA Quarterly 21 (October 1987): 3-14, 23.
10. NAGARA statistical reports have appeared in the following issues of NAGARA Clearinghouse: 6 (Spring 1990): insert following p. 8; 7 (Spring 1991): 6-17; and 8 (Summer 1992).
11. FY 1994 data were published in a separate volume. The two COSHRC reports were Victoria Irons Walch, Recognizing Leadership and Partnership: A Report on the Condition of Historical Records in the States and Efforts to Ensure Their Preservation and Use (Des Moines, Iowa, April 1993)
12. and Walch, Maintaining State Records in an Era of Change: A National Challenge (St. Paul, Minn., April 1996).
13. A recent issue of NAGARA Clearinghouse asked the states to report specifically on their use of "dedicated funding streams," NAGARA Clearinghouse 12 (Fall 1996): 13 + . Other data is from the 1993 COSHRC report.
14. The trust is discussed in Larry J. Hackman, "Facing the Challenge of Scarce Archival Resources: Archives Partnership Trust," Archival Outlook (March 1993): 20.
15. Howard Lowell, Preservation Needs in State Archives (Albany, N.Y.: NAGARA, 1986), 1.
16. "Camp Pitt Working Group: The Role of Archivists and Records Managers in Information Resources Management," NAGARA Crossroads (1997-2): 1.
17. Bruce Dearstyne, "Government Information Policy: A Framework for Records and Information Management in the Public Sector," The Records and Retrieval Report 13 (February 1997): 2.
18. National Association of State Information Resource Managers, State Information Resource Management Organizational Structures (Lexington, Ky., 1996), 3.
19. Bruce Dearstyne, "Changing Contexts for Records and Information Management," NAGARA Clearinghouse 13 (Winter 1997): 2.
20. Dennis Neilander, "Presentation to the Legislative Commission's Subcommittee to Study the Laws Governing Public Records and Books: Comparisons of State Public Records Laws," [Nevada] Legislative Counsel Bureau (10 January 1992).
21. This appeared to be something of an improvement over the situation documented by George Bain in his 1983 analysis of state archival law. At that time, twenty-four states had detailed and explicit definitions, sixteen had detailed but ambiguous definitions, eight had only oblique or summary coverage, and two had no definitions at all. George Bain, "State Archival Law: A Content Analysis," American Archivist 46 (Spring 1983): 164-67.
22. Hawaii and Louisiana were the two with no definitions in 1983. Hawaii passed legislation containing a definition in 1988; Louisiana did not respond to the survey. The eight found to have inadequate definitions in 1983 were Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. Only two have amended their laws since then: Maryland (1984 and 1994), and New Hampshire (1995).
23. See discussions of these concepts in David Bearman, "The Electronic Office," in Electronic Evidence: Strategies for Managing Records in Contemporary Organizations (Pittsburgh: Archives and Museum Informatics, 1994): 148-49;
24. and Terry Cook, "It's 10 O'clock: Do You Know Where Your Data Are?" Technology Review 52 (January 1995): 51-52. The Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping, developed by the University of Pittsburgh, and related documents, are available from the university's website, .
25. New York State Archives and Records Administration, Building Partnerships for Electronic Recordkeeping (Albany, N.Y.: New York State Archives and Records Administration, 1995).
26. Delaware's guidelines are described in NAGARA Clearinghouse 13 (Winter 1997): 13.
27. The NAGARA web site (http://www.nagara.org) has links to all active state archives home pages.
28. Meribah Mansfield, "Ohio's OPLIN: The Future of Library Service?" Library Journal 122 (October 1, 1997): 47.