Download our Logo
Vol. 30:4 ISSN 0160-8460 December 2002
Transcending State Boundaries in New England
by Bill Milhomme
Introduction
Intrastate collaboration between state historical records advisory boards and the historical records community remains a long-time goal of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. But interest in interstate collaboration among state historical records advisory boards is more recent, and becoming more viable in terms of planning and fundability.
Recently, representatives of the six New England State Archives, state historical records advisory boards (SHRABs), and NARA's Northeast Region attended a retreat to initiate planning for regional collaborative projects.
Concept
The idea for the retreat came out of a casual meeting between Ann Newhall (former NHPRC Executive Director) and Massachusetts SHRAB (aka MHRAB) members John Warner, state archivist, and Bill Milhomme, field archivist. The meeting took place between Christmas and New Year's in December 2000. Newhall was home in Connecticut for the holidays and was visiting colleagues in Boston. She was asked, "What projects is the NHPRC interested in funding?" To paraphrase Newhall's answer, "projects that document underdocumented communities/subjects and/or projects that encourage interstate cooperation."
A few weeks later, in January 2001, the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (COSHRC) held its annual meeting in Washington, DC. The idea of a Massachusetts-managed administrative grant to bring together the New England SHRABs to plan for regional documentation was discussed several times and encouraged.
In September 2001, Richard Cameron, NHPRC Director for State Programs, was contacted regarding the concept of an administrative grant to promote regional interstate documentation planning. Cameron encouraged the application and advised the MHRAB of the recent NHPRC-funded collaborative project, "Documenting Change in Minnesota and North Dakota." Milhomme contacted James E. Fogerty at the Minnesota Historical Society, who generously provided developmental insight and project reports.
Encouraged by the success of the collaborative SHRAB projects of Nevada and California and Minnesota and North Dakota, and accompanied by letters of support from the state archivists and historical records coordinators of all the New England states, the MHRAB submitted a 2-year administrative grant application to the NHPRC. The application was approved in December 2002.
Consultant Diane Strock-Lynskey facilitates the September 2002 retreat in Amherst, Massachusetts. From National Archives Record Group 42.
Planning
The grant is funding two documentation-planning retreats. The first retreat was held September 27-28, 2002, at the Warren Inn and Conference Center in Ashland, Massachusetts. The depth and diversity of experience and interest of the participants representing the six New England states guaranteed interesting dynamics for the retreat. The facilitator for the meeting was Diane Strock-Lynskey, chair/program director, Social Work Program, Siena College, New York. The several months leading up to the September meeting afforded time to prepare the dynamics that would enable participants to identify and prioritize potential collaborative regional projects.
The information gathered and employed in the planning process was a liberal collection of expectations, data, and statistics. A four-question survey was sent to participants: What is the greatest documentation issue/challenge facing your state? What is your state's uniqueness as it pertains to documentation? What are the documentation successes of your state? What are your expectations/hopes for this retreat?
Past NHPRC funding (1980-2002) for each New England SHRAB was also compiled and compared. Copies of the all the New England states' strategic plans were examined with attention to expectations, goals, and activities. COSHRC research and reports were analyzed regarding the New England states. These reports included Maintaining State Records in an Era of Change: A National Challenge A Report on State Archives and Records Management Programs (1996); Where History Begins: A Report on Historical Records Repositories in the U.S. (1998); National Forum on Archival Continuing Education (NFACE) Project (2000-2002); and Connecting the Archival Community: Report of the Archival Education and Information Web Needs Assessment (July 2002). Additionally, the New York State Archives' A Manual for Documentation Planning in New York and New York Documentation Topics Framework were referenced for planning methodology.
Process/Dynamics
The group entered the process with openness and hopes for success. The expectations were high, but the territory was uncharted. During the first work session, the consultant gently, but firmly, facilitated contributions and insight from each attendee. The forthcoming remarks, suggestions, and expectations were listed by state. The meeting room walls gradually became papered with multiple colorful sheets of comments.
By the following morning's session, the consultant had distilled and collated the information into a list of suggestions for regional cooperation efforts. The task for the second meeting was to prioritize, select, and commit to several "doable" and "sustainable" activities. The success of this session was the result of the skillfulness, experience, and confidence of the facilitator. Truthfully, most participants were surprised (frightened?) by the scope of involvement and resources necessary to further regional collaboration of the identified and prioritized activities. But the facilitator prodded and guided the group along until a consensus of several activities was finally agreed upon.
Results
Clearly, the group unanimously agreed that the planning process itself is necessary to promote and sustain regional cooperative planning. The group acknowledged and appreciated the support of the NHPRC and the leadership and facilitation of the consultant who participated in the process. The aggregate identified areas of consideration for potential collaborative efforts were (1) Archival Education and Training; (2) Interstate/New England Records Collections; (3) Electronic Clearinghouse/Data Pooling/Access; (4) Visibility /Awareness/Promotion/Advocacy (For Profession/SHRABS); (5) Partnerships /Collaborative Work with Other Professions/Non-Archivist Community(s) (Communication/Resource Sharing/Funding); (6) Electronic Records Preservation and Management; (7) Best Practices/ Assessment /Outcomes /Evaluation Models and Tools (Accountability/Viability/Documentation of Impact of Work); (8) Documentation of Underrepresented Groups/Communities; (9) Use of Archives in the Schools (Interstate Projects/Collaboration); (10) New England Consortium/Development and Support /Coordination; and (11) Disaster Preparedness.
From this list, five areas were selected as priorities, and a proposed work plan for October 2000-September 2003 established. The focus of the efforts of these work groups is on data collection, information gathering as it relates to what types of resources are currently available from each state in each priority area, ways to begin to organize and to consolidate and catalogue information (curriculum, models, materials, frameworks, etc. currently being utilized). The areas and work groups include (1) Electronic Clearinghouse-ME; (2) Archival Education and Training-MA, CT; (3) Records Collections-Naturalization Records-NH, MA, CT, NARA; (4) Disaster Preparedness-VT, MA, ME; and (5) Documentation of Under-Represented Groups and Communities-RI, CT, Institute Asian Studies.
Conclusion
The recent effort by the New England SHRABs is evidence that where there is openness and acceptance among colleagues, whether within our institutions, intrastate, or interstate, there is a mutual commitment to achieving common goals.
Bill Milhomme is the field archivist of the Massachusetts Historical Records Advisory Board.
