The Society of American Archivists
SAA Logo

Log in / Log out

Join SAA

Contact us


Society of
American Archivists

17 North State Street
Suite 1425
Chicago, IL 60602-3315
tel 312/606-0722
fax 312/606-0728
toll-free 866/722-7858

 

 

SAA Foundation Board of Directors Meeting Minutes (1/28/11)

Society of American Archivists
Council Meeting
January 27 30, 2011
Chicago, Illinois

Agendas and background materials for SAA Council meetings are available
via the SAA website at: http://www2.archivists.org/governance/reports

 

President Helen Tibbo called the meeting to order at 5:15 pm on Thursday, January 27.  Present were Vice President/President-Elect Gregor Trinkaus-Randall; Treasurer Aimee Felker; Executive Committee Member Brenda Lawson; Council members Scott Cline, Thomas Hyry, Donna McCrea, Dennis Meissner, Deborra Richardson, Rosalye Settles, and Kate Theimer; and SAA Executive Director Nancy Beaumont, Publishing Director Teresa Brinati, Education Director Solveig De Sutter, Member and Technical Services Director Brian Doyle, Finance/Administration Director Tom Jurczak, and Program Coordinator René Mueller. Council member Tom Frusciano was absent due to weather-related delays.  He joined the meeting on Friday, January 28.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27

I. COUNCIL BUSINESS

I.A.  Adoption of the Agenda 

Tibbo introduced the agenda.  Lawson described modifications proposed by the Executive Committee. The Council adopted the agenda as modified.

Move:  Felker
Second:  Cline
PASSED (unanimous).

I.B.  August 2010 Minutes

Tibbo noted that the August 2010 meeting minutes were adopted by online vote of the Council in October 2010 and posted on the SAA website immediately.  SAA members were notified of availability of the minutes via In the Loop and the website.

I.C.  Review of August 2010 “To Do” List

Council members reviewed the August 2010 “To Do” List and provided updates on completed and pending action items. The group also reviewed, provided updates to, and suggested a restructuring of the entire “To Do” List.

II. STRATEGIC PLANNING

At its winter meeting each year the Council devotes time and attention to the Society’s Strategic Plan as a whole or to one or more of the priorities outlined in the Plan. At this meeting, the group focused on Technology Desired Outcome #3: “SAA will make increasingly effective use of current and emerging technology in order to enhance communication with internal and external audiences and stimulate collaboration among its constituents.  [Internal Radar Screen]”

Council members revisited the origin of the desired outcome, reviewed the activities that had been developed for FY 2010 – 2013 in support of the outcome, and suggested new ideas that might be incorporated into the activities. Individual members were assigned to refine the ideas (including conduct of a gap analysis by the Communications Technology Working Group and establishment of a “Technology Futures” group separate from the CTWG) and to prepare a consolidated revision for online Council review, discussion, and vote prior to the May 2011 Council meeting.

III. ACTION ITEMS
                
III.A. “Guidelines for a Graduate Program in Archival Studies” (GPAS)

According to the five-year review cycle established for GPAS, the Committee on Education submitted proposed revisions of the document to the Council in May 2010. A subgroup of Council members added revisions in August 2010 that the Committee on Education then sent to interested groups for comment. Those comments were incorporated into another revision for Council consideration at this meeting.

Several Council members objected to a shift in the document from a focus on archivists to a focus on “records professionals.”  After determining that the current GPAS draft elicited enough objections to warrant another revision, the Council assigned to a subgroup of Council members and staff (McCrea, Cline, Hyry, Trinkaus-Randall, and De Sutter) the task of revising the document to reflect the changes discussed by the Council and to present a revision for online discussion and vote. Results of the electronic vote will be announced to the membership immediately (with a link to the adopted document on the SAA website) and recorded in the Executive Committee report presented at the May 2011 Council meeting.

III.B. Code of Ethics Revision 

In February 2010 the Council approved a Committee on Ethics and Professional Conduct work plan for soliciting member feedback and preparing a draft revision of SAA’s Code of Ethics for Archivists. Since then the Committee had compared the existing Code with previous versions; reviewed the codes of ethics of other relevant associations; conducted an open forum at the 2010 Annual Meeting; announced the impending revision to SAA sections and roundtables; and reviewed and incorporated concepts from the draft “Core Values of Archivists” statement and SAA’s “Statement on Diversity.”

MOTION 1

THAT the draft revision of the SAA Code of the Ethics for Archivists, as prepared by the Committee on Ethics and Professional Conduct and submitted to the Council at its January 27–30, 2011, meeting, be distributed for member comment, with a deadline for comment of April 4, 2011; and

THAT a final draft of the SAA Code of Ethics for Archivists that incorporates member feedback be submitted by the Committee for Council consideration at its May 23–26, 2011, meeting.

Support Statement:  Given that a Code of Ethics is central to a profession and that feedback about the SAA Code of Ethics has been received over a period of several years, the Committee and the Council believe that this revision is ready for a final round of member review and comment prior to adoption.

Fiscal Impact:  None.

Move:  McCrea
Second:  Cline
PASSED (unanimous).

SAA Code of Ethics for Archivists
Draft Revision 12/20/2010

[NOTE: The following is a revision of the 2005 text. Proposed deletions appear as strikethroughs; proposed additions appear in italics.]

Preamble   
 
The Code of Ethics for Archivists establishes standards for the archival profession. It introduces new members of the profession to those standards, reminds experienced archivists of their professional responsibilities, and serves as a model for institutional policies. It also is intended to inspire public confidence in the profession.
This code provides an ethical framework to guide members of the profession. It does not provide the solution to specific problems.

The term “archivist” as used in this code encompasses all those concerned with the selection, control, care, preservation, and administration of historical and documentary records of enduring value. 

I. Purpose
The Society of American Archivists recognizes the importance of educating the profession and general public about archival ethics by codifying ethical principles to guide the work of archivists. This code provides a set of principles to which archivists aspire.

I. Introduction

Archivists support standards that bring fairness and transparency to their professional responsibilities and that inspire public confidence in the profession. Because archival holdings make possible alternative narratives toward the path of truth seeking, archivists seek to ensure that the power of archives will be open equally and fully to all members of society.

The Society of American Archivists is a membership organization comprising individuals and organizations dedicated to the engagements that arise between researchers and documents past, present, and future. Archivists are defined here as those individuals who are concerned with the selection, control, care, preservation, and administration of historical and documentary records of enduring value for the benefit of current users and future generations. Archivists endeavor to ensure that the materials in their care will be available and reliable as evidence of human activity.

The Society endorses this Code of Ethics as standards for the profession. This Code is linked with the “Core Values for Archivists” within the context of providing guidance to archivists, and of serving as an introductory overview of the archival enterprise to the rest of society.

This Code exists to increase awareness of ethical issues among archivists, their colleagues, and users. It also validates guidelines that members may consult for reflection on actions and decisions that occur within the profession and that influence the authenticity of the archival evidence that belongs to every community, state, and nation.  As advocates for documentary collections and cultural objects under their care, archivists aspire to carry out their professional activities with justice and equity. 

II. Professional Relationships 

 Archivists select, preserve, and make available historical and documentary records of enduring value. Archivists cooperate, collaborate, and respect each institution and its mission and collecting policy. Respect and cooperation form the basis of all professional relationships with colleagues and users.

Archivists cooperate, collaborate, and respect other archivists and other archivists' institutions’ missions and collecting policies. In their professional relationships with colleagues and users, archivists are fair, unbiased, respectful, honest, and courteous.

III. Judgment 

 Archivists should exercise professional judgment in acquiring, appraising, and processing historical materials. They should not allow personal beliefs or perspectives to affect their decisions.

Archivists exercise professional judgment in acquiring, appraising, and processing collections to ensure their preservation, authenticity, diversity, and enduring cultural and historical value. Archivists should carefully record their collections-related decisions and activities to make their role in the selection, retention, or creation of the historical record transparent to researchers. Archivists should consult with colleagues, relevant professionals, and communities of interest to ensure that multiple perspectives inform their actions and decisions.

IV. Trust

Archivists should not profit or otherwise benefit from their privileged access to and control of historical records and documentary materials. They execute their work knowing that they must ensure proper custody for the documents and records entrusted to them. Archivists should demonstrate professional integrity and avoid potential conflicts of interest with their institutions. They strive to balance the sometimes competing interests of various archival stakeholders.

V. Authenticity and Integrity 

Archivists strive to preserve and protect the authenticity of records in their holdings by documenting their creation and use in hard copy and electronic formats. They have a fundamental obligation to preserve the intellectual and physical integrity of those records.
Archivists may not alter, manipulate, or destroy data or records to conceal facts or distort evidence.

Archivists ensure the authenticity of records in their holdings by documenting and protecting the identities of records and guaranteeing that the intellectual and physical integrity of records is not compromised by tampering or corruption. Archivists may not willfully alter, manipulate, or destroy data or records to conceal facts or distort evidence. They document any actions that may cause changes to the records in their holdings.

VI. Access 

Archivists strive to promote open and equitable access to their services and the records in their care without discrimination or preferential treatment, and in accordance with legal requirements, cultural sensitivities, and institutional policies. Archivists recognize their responsibility to promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives. Archivists may place restrictions on access for the protection of privacy or confidentiality of information in the records.

Recognizing that use is the fundamental purpose of keeping archives, archivists promote open and equitable access to the records in their care by minimizing restrictions and obstacles and maximizing access tools. Archivists work with donors and originating agencies to ensure that any restrictions are appropriate, well documented, and equitably enforced, and that they contain an end date. Archivists minimize psychological barriers to access by providing timely and helpful reference service. Archivists know their own holdings well enough to formulate and disseminate institutional access policies and strategies that maximize responsible use.

VII. Privacy 

Archivists protect the privacy rights of donors and individuals or groups who are the subject of records. They respect all users’ right to privacy by maintaining the confidentiality of their research and protecting any personal information collected about them in accordance with the institution’s security procedures.

Archivists recognize that privacy is sanctioned by law but protected in practice by their own actions. Archivists review records carefully to protect the interests of the donors, individuals, and groups whose public and private lives are recorded in them. As appropriate, archivists place access restrictions on collections to ensure that privacy and confidentiality are maintained, particularly for individuals and groups who have no voice or role in their creation, retention, or public use. Archivists promote the respectful use of culturally sensitive materials in their care by encouraging researchers to consult with communities of origin, recognizing that privacy has both legal and cultural dimensions. Archivists respect all users’ rights to privacy by maintaining the confidentiality of their research and protecting any personal information collected about them in accordance with their institutions’ policies.

VIII. Security and Protection 

Archivists protect all documentary materials for which they are responsible and guard them against defacement, physical damage, deterioration, and theft. Archivists should cooperate with colleagues and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and prosecute thieves and vandals.

Archivists protect all documentary materials for which they are responsible. They take steps to minimize the natural physical deterioration of records and guard them against accidental damage, vandalism, and theft. Archivists cooperate actively with colleagues and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and prosecute vandals and thieves.

IX. Law   

Archivists must uphold all federal, state, and local laws.

 

III.C. “Statement of Core Values of Archivists”

Although the agenda called for review of the “Statement of Core Values for Archivists,” the Council did not take up this action item because the Values Task Force charged with drafting it had not yet completed the work of incorporating member comments solicited from August to October 2010.  The Task Force will submit a revised draft for the Council’s online review and discussion at the end of February 2011.

III.D. Mosaic Program Work Plan

In October 2010 SAA President Helen Tibbo appointed a task force of the Diversity Committee to develop a proposal for expanding the Mosaic Scholarship program per SAA’s Strategic Plan (Diversity, Desired Outcome 1):  “The Mosaic Scholarship will evolve into a program that encompasses a broad set of activities, including conference attendance, enhanced mentoring, and cohort development, and the number of Mosaic Scholarships that SAA (and/or the SAA Foundation) offers will increase to ten by FY 2013.”  The task force was charged specifically to 1) develop a proposal regarding what the Mosaic Program might be and 2) prepare a work plan for achieving that vision.

The task force met at SAA Headquarters in November 2010 to develop a proposal. That proposal calls for expansion of the program to “provide financial support for prospective and emerging archivists at three levels of education: undergraduate internships, graduate student (master’s-level) scholarships and travel awards, and doctoral student travel awards. In addition, the program would include a mentoring component and an annual Mosaic Symposium.” The work plan outlines steps to ensure “Effective administration of the program, including grant reporting and preparation, systems development and tracking, recruitment and retention activities, and communication and marketing.” The Council’s discussion included potential funders, the proposed new staff position of grant officer, existing models, and other details of the work plan.

MOTION 2

THAT the “Vision for the Mosaic Program” and work plan prepared by the Mosaic Task Force of the Diversity Committee (0111-III-D-MosaicPlan) serve as the basis for a grant proposal to be submitted to potential funders by December 2011; and

THAT the Executive Director be charged to determine the most effective means of preparing a timely and successful proposal and, with Executive Committee approval, to implement the grant preparation and submission process.

Support Statement:  The purpose of SAA’s Mosaic Program would be to promote diversification of the American archives profession by providing meaningful financial and mentoring support and leadership development to individuals who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups and who have an interest in pursuing a career in archives.  An important objective of the program would be to attract and retain individuals who demonstrate excellent potential for scholastic and personal achievement and who manifest a commitment both to the archives profession and to advancing diversity concerns within it.

The Mosaic Program would provide financial support for prospective and emerging archivists at three levels of education:  undergraduate internships, graduate student (master’s-level) scholarships and travel awards, and doctoral student travel awards.  In addition, the program would include a mentoring component and an annual Mosaic Symposium. Given the scope of the envisioned program, grant support will be necessary to launch, and likely to sustain, the program. Initial funding would be sought from one or more granting agencies; ongoing funding might involve grants as well as support through SAA operations and/or the SAA Foundation.

Fiscal Impact:  Fiscal impact will depend on the method chosen for preparing the grant proposal.  Grant preparation costs could range from approximately $1,200 (for an honorarium paid to a committed member-volunteer) to $5,000 or more for a professional grant writer.  Meeting expenses for a small group of members to prepare a draft would total approximately $2,250.

Move:  Lawson
Second:  Hyry
PASSED (unanimous).

III.E. Standards Committee

III.E.1. Encoded Archival Context – Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC-CPF)

Based on its review of a submission package from the Encoded Archival Context Working Group, the SAA Standards Committee recommended that the SAA Council adopt Encoded Archival Context – Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC‐CPF) as a formal SAA standard.  The Council discussion focused on the relationship between EAC-CPF and Encoded Archival Description (EAD), the need to maintain the two standards in tandem, the proposed hosting and maintenance plan for EAC-CPF, intellectual property issues, and the level of acceptance of EAD and EAC-CPF by the international community.

MOTION 3

THAT Encoded Archival Context – Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC‐CPF) be adopted as a formal SAA standard.

Support Statement:  SAA’s long-standing support of the EAD standard makes the strongest possible argument for likewise adopting and maintaining the EAC-CPF standard.  The standards are two sides of the same descriptive coin (in fact, they share data elements in common), and it is logical that they be supported and overseen by the same agency so that they may evolve in tandem. The EAC-CPF schema has been developed and tested carefully and has passed a rigorous review by an international encoding community.  Its developers are committed to seeing rigorous maintenance of the standard.

Fiscal Impact:  The immediate cost will be production and printing of the EAC-CPF Tag Library, if the Council and the Publications Board believe that a print version is warranted.  Up-front costs may approach $10,000, which is likely recoverable via sales. Future costs would include supporting periodic review cycles, each of which might warrant a hosted meeting apart from SAA Annual Meetings.  The EAC Working Group would hope to secure grant funding for any such meetings.

Move:  Trinkaus-Randall
Second: Felker
PASSED (unanimous).
 
III.E.2. Charge/Description for TS-EAC-CPF

SAA’s EAC Working Group had been charged with oversight of the intellectual and technical development of Encoded Archival Context (EAC). The Standards Committee recommended that, if EAC-CPF were adopted, the EAC Working Group be disbanded and (per Standards Committee procedures), a technical subcommittee be charged to maintain the EAC-CPF standard.

MOTION 4

THAT the EAC Working Group be disbanded with thanks; and

THAT a Technical Subcommittee on Encoded Archival Context–Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families be created and charged as follows:

Technical Subcommittee on Encoded Archival Context –
Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (TS-EAC-CPF)

Reports to: Standards Committee
Established: January 2011 

I. Purpose

The Technical Subcommittee on Encoded Archival Context – Corporate bodies, Persons, and Families (TS-EAC-CPF) of the SAA Standards Committee is responsible for overseeing the timely and ongoing intellectual and technical maintenance and development of Encoded Archival Context – Corporate bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC-CPF). EAC-CPF is the internationally accepted XML (Extensible Markup Language) standard for the transmission of descriptions of the corporate, personal, and familial creators and subjects of archival records. EAC-CPF is compatible with ISAAR (CPF): International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families, 2nd ed. (International Congress on Archives, 2004). EAC-CPF is an SAA-adopted standard; documentation is hosted by the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin at http://eac.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/.

II. Committee Selection, Size, and Length of Term
TS-EAC-CPF shall be charged for the equivalent of five years, beginning in 2011, with the charge expiring at the 2015 SAA Annual Meeting.  TS-EAC-CPF will complete a review of the Encoded Archival Context – Corporate bodies, Persons, and Families according to the SAA Standards Committee's Procedures for Review and Approval of an SAA-Developed Standard before its charge expires.  After the review is completed, if EAC-CPF continues to be an adopted standard of SAA, the TS-EAC-CPF may be re-charged for a subsequent review cycle.

The members and chair(s) of the TS-EAC-CPF shall be appointed for a full five-year term. The technical subcommittee shall be composed of at least five individuals who are members of SAA and shall include sufficient international membership to ensure effective representation of EAC-CPF professional communities outside of the United States. All members shall demonstrate significant knowledge of and experience with archival description generally, and with EAC-CPF specifically.

TS-EAC-CPF shall have a chair who is a member of the Society of American Archivists. The technical subcommittee is encouraged to have a co-chair from among its international members.

The SAA members of the TS-EAC-CPF shall be recommended by the Standards Committee for appointment by the Vice President. International members who are able to represent other professional EAC-CPF-using communities effectively shall be appointed at the recommendation of the TS-EAC-CPF chair(s), who is/are responsible for ensuring appropriately diverse international representation. Members and chairs may be reappointed to the TS-EAC-CPF for consecutive review cycles, but at least one new SAA member must be appointed per review cycle.

Ex officio members of the Technical Subcommittee for EAC-CPF shall include the following if they are not regular members of the subcommittee:

  • Co-chairs of the Standards Committee;
  • Chair(s) of the Technical Subcommittee for Encoded Archival Description;
  • Chair of the EAD Roundtable;
  • Liaison from the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin;
  • Liaison from OCLC Research.

III. Reporting Procedures

The chair(s) of TS-EAC-CPF shall report at least annually to the chair of the SAA Standards Committee at the SAA Annual Meeting. If extramural funding is obtained by the SAA, the chair(s) shall provide all necessary narrative reports to the SAA office in order that reporting requirements of SAA and funding source are met.

IV. Duties and Responsibilities

To fulfill this mission internationally, the TS-EAC-CPF is specifically charged to:

    • Carry out a review of EAC-CPF at least every five years and revise as needed.
    • Revise the EAC-CPF tag library and other official documentation as necessary.
    • Promote the understanding and use of EAC-CPF internationally.
    • Support educational efforts related to EAC-CPF by SAA and international communities.
    • Develop members of the archives profession who are capable of promoting and maintaining EAC-CPF over time.
    • Communicate its activities to relevant SAA components and EAC-CPF-using communities internationally.
    • Collaborate as needed with the Schema Development Team to maintain the relevant EAC-CPF schemas.

    VI. Meetings

    The TS-EAC-CPF shall carry out its charge primarily via electronic mail, regular mail, and conference calls. It may meet at the SAA Annual Meeting and as necessary provided that SAA Council-approved funding is available.

Support Statement:  The SAA Council’s approval of this technical subcommittee charge establishes TS-EAC-CPF as a standing body with a formal charge and provides useful information to the membership regarding the subcommittee and its current assignment to maintain the existing standard.

Fiscal Impact:  Nominal for annual meeting space and conference calls.

Move:  Hyry
Second: Lawson
PASSED (unanimous).

FRIDAY, JANUARY 28

III.E.3. Description of Standards Committee Development and Review Teams

The Standards Committee description and charge, revised in February 2010, specifies that development and review teams (DRTs) “are ad hoc and re-chargeable annually.” Because this language could be interpreted to mean that DRTs are charged for one year with the possibility of renewal, and based on the Committee’s experience of drafting the Schema Development Team charge, the Standards Committee proposed that it should have the option to charge DRTs for longer terms if appropriate, both to acknowledge how long certain tasks may require and to lessen the annual burden on the SAA Vice President and staff.

MOTION 5

THAT the Standards Committee charge and description be revised by striking “Development and review teams are ad hoc and re-chargeable annually” and substituting “Development and review teams are ad hoc and will be charged for an appropriate period of time as determined by the Standards Committee (not to exceed three years), with the possibility of renewal.”

II. Committee Selection, Size, and Length of Term: Development and Review Teams
[Strikethrough indicates deletion(s); underlining indicates addition(s).]

Development and review teams
. The Standards Committee may form (and disband) development and review teams around a project to develop a specific standard or a particular topic (such as description or preservation). All groups that are researching and developing a standard are given a development and review team designation. When the Standards Committee identifies areas that require specialized or technical expertise in which the number of standards, the degree of technical expertise required, and the speed of change in the standards landscape are such that the Standards Committee by itself could not keep pace, it appoints a development and review team to monitor and review these standards. Development and review teams might also be built around a particular topic to study the need for standards in that area. Development and review teams are ad hoc and re-chargeable annually Development and review teams are ad hoc and will be charged for an appropriate period of time as determined by the Standards Committee, not to exceed three years, with the possibility of renewal.

For all approved standards development projects, the Standards Committee assigns a development and review team to be responsible for developing the standard, which will most often be the group that proposed the original project. Development and review team chairs shall be appointed by the SAA Vice President and serve as regular or ex officio members of the Standards Committee.

Support Statement: Revision of the Standards Committee charge to allow discretion in the term of development and review teams allows for more realistic terms for development and review teams and eliminates an unnecessary burden on SAA leaders and staff.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Move:  Trinkaus-Randall
Second:  Settles
PASSED (unanimous).

III.E.4. Charge and Description for Technical Subcommittee on Archival Facilities Guidelines (TS-AFG)

Since the restructuring of the Standards Committee and the creation of technical subcommittees in February 2010, it has been assumed that a Technical Subcommittee on Archival Facilities Guidelines (TS-AFG) would be created to oversee maintenance and revision of “Archival and Special Collections Facilities: Guidelines for Archivists, Librarians, Architects, and Engineers,” adopted by the Council as an SAA standard in February 2009. The Standards Committee sought to revise the temporary charge to make it consistent with other technical subcommittee descriptions and to update the responsibilities of the TS-AFG to incorporate assignments from the Standards Committee.  The Council discussed the possibility of moving the standard forward as a national or multi-national model, and encouraged the Standards Committee to consider how this might be done.

MOTION 6

THAT the following charge and description for the Technical Subcommittee on Archival Facilities Guidelines, including the Standards Committee charge to the group for a 2010-2013 review cycle, be adopted:

Technical Subcommittee on Archival Facilities Guidelines (TS-AFG)

Reports to: Standards Committee
Established: February 2010

I. Purpose

The Technical Subcommittee on Archival Facilities Guidelines (TS-AFG) of the SAA Standards Committee oversees the ongoing maintenance and development of Archives and Special Collections Facilities:  Guidelines for Archivists, Librarians, Architects, and Engineers (“Facilities standard”), a standard adopted by SAA.  The technical subcommittee also investigates the feasibility of expansion of the Facilities standard to a national standard and/or a multi-organizational standard.

II. Committee Selection, Size, and Length of Term

TS-AFG shall be charged for five years, beginning August 2010, or until revisions to the Facilities standard are completed as described in the “Procedures for Review and Approval of an SAA-Developed Standard.” After revision work is completed, if the Facilities standard continues to be an approved standard of SAA, the TS-AFG shall be re-charged for a subsequent review cycle.

The members and chair(s) of the TS-AFG shall be appointed for the length of time necessary to complete revisions to the Facilities standard, which shall not exceed five years.

The technical subcommittee shall be composed of three to six individuals, including the chair(s), to be recommended by the Standards Committee for appointment by the Vice President.  The chair(s) and at least one other member of the subcommittee shall be a member of SAA with demonstrated experience in archival facility issues. However, the technical subcommittee may include one to four members from other professions who have significant knowledge of and experience with archival facilities. 

Ex officio members of the TS-AFG shall include the following:

  • Co-chairs of the Standards Committee;
  • Liaison from Association of Canadian Archivists.

III. Reporting Procedures

The chair(s) of the TS-AFG shall report at least annually to the chair(s) of the SAA Standards Committee at the SAA Annual Meeting.  If extramural funding is obtained by the SAA, the chair(s) shall provide all necessary narrative reports to the SAA office in order that reporting requirements of SAA and funding source are met.

IV. Duties and Responsibilities

To fulfill its mission as described above, the TS-AFG is specifically charged to:

  • Carry out the maintenance and development of Archives and Special Collections Facilities:  Guidelines for Archivists, Librarians, Architects, and Engineers, an SAA standard, in accordance with the schedules laid out by the charges and SAA’s Procedures for Review and Approval of an SAA-Developed Standard.
  • Investigate expansion of the Facilities standard to a national standard in conjunction with the American National Standards Institute.  A report and recommendations will be submitted to the Standards Committee in 2013.
  • Investigate expansion of the Facilities standard to a multi-organizational standard in conjunction with Association of Canadian Archivists.  A report and recommendations will be submitted to the Standards Committee in 2013.

V. Meetings

The TS-AFG shall carry out its charges primarily via electronic mail, regular mail, and conference calls. It may meet at the SAA Annual Meeting and as necessary provided that SAA Council-approved funding is available.

Support Statement: Adoption of this formal charge and description provides useful information to the membership regarding the technical subcommittee and its current assignments to review, and perhaps revise, the existing publication.

Fiscal Impact:  Nominal costs associated with annual meeting space and conference calls.  Publication of a revised edition of the Facilities standard would require expenditures of approximately $10,000, which would be recouped in sales.

Move:  Lawson
Second:  Felker
PASSED (unanimous).

III.E.5. Charge and Timeline for Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard (TS-DACS) 

In conjunction with revision of the Standards Committee’s mission, charge, and description in February 2010, the DACS Working Group was reconstituted as the Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard (TS-DACS) to conform to the administrative structures of the other technical subcommittees. The Standards Committee recommended a revision in the TS-DACS charge and description to make them consistent with other technical subcommittees and to re-establish a timeline for the 2010-2013 DACS review cycle adding language that the TS investigate expansion of the standard to a national standard. The Council also charged the Standards Committee broadly to examine bringing other SAA standards to a national level, as appropriate. The Council discussed the possibility of moving DACS forward as a national standard in conjunction with American National Standards Institute and added language to the charge/description to encourage exploration of this possibility.

MOTION 7

THAT the following charge, description, and review cycle for the Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard be adopted:

Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard

 

Reports to: Standards Committee
Established: February 2010

I. Purpose

The Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard (TS-DACS) of the SAA Standards Committee is responsible for overseeing the timely and ongoing intellectual and technical maintenance and development of Describing Archives: A Content Standard. DACS is an output-neutral set of rules for describing archives, personal papers, and manuscript collections and can be applied to all material types. DACS is compatible with ISAD(G): General International Standard Archival Description, 2nd ed. (International Congress on Archives, 1999). DACS is an SAA-approved standard; documentation for DACS is available through the Society of American Archivists at http://www.archivists.org/governance/standards/dacs.asp.

II. Committee Selection, Size, and Length of Term

The TS-DACS shall be charged for five years, beginning August 2010. After five years, if Describing Archives: A Content Standard continues to be an approved standard of SAA, the TS-DACS shall be re-charged for a subsequent review cycle.

The members and chair(s) of the TS-DACS shall be appointed for the length of time necessary to complete a revision of DACS, which shall not exceed five years. The technical subcommittee shall be composed of no less than five individuals who are members of SAA. All members shall demonstrate significant knowledge of and experience with archival description generally, and with DACS specifically.

SAA members of the TS-DACS shall be recommended by the Standards Committee for appointment by the Vice President. Members and chairs may be reappointed to the TS-DACS for consecutive review cycles, but at least one new SAA member must be appointed per review cycle.

Ex officio members of the Technical Subcommittee for DACS shall include the following if they are not regular members of the subcommittee:

  • Co-chairs of the Standards Committee
  • Chair of the Description Section

III. Reporting Procedures

The chair (or co-chairs) of the Technical Subcommittee for DACS shall report at least annually to the chair(s) of the SAA Standards Committee on the occasion of the SAA Annual Meeting. If extramural funding is obtained by SAA, the chair (or co-chairs) shall provide all necessary narrative reports to the SAA office in order that the reporting requirements of SAA and the funding source are met.

IV. Duties and Responsibilities

To fulfill this mission, the TS-DACS is specifically charged to:

  • Carry out a review of Describing Archives: A Content Standard at least every five years and revise as needed.
  • Promote the understanding and use of DACS by the American archives community.
  • Support educational efforts related to DACS by SAA.
  • Develop members of the archives profession who are capable of promoting and maintaining DACS over time.
  • Communicate its activities to relevant SAA components.
  • Foster communication among other entities developing standards related to DACS.
  • Work to ensure that DACS is compatible with other national and international descriptive standards.
  • Investigate expansion of the DACS standard to a national standard in conjunction with the American National Standards Institute.  A report and recommendations will be submitted to the Standards Committee in 2013.

VI. Meetings

The TS-DACS shall carry out its charge primarily via electronic mail, regular mail, and conference calls. It shall meet at the SAA Annual Meeting and as necessary, provided that SAA Council-approved funding is available.

Proposed Timeline for Revising Describing Archives: A Content Standard

October 29, 2010: 

Submit new charge and proposed revision timeline to the Standards Committee and the SAA Council for approval.

Nov.- Dec. 2010:

Teleconference of TS-DACS.

January 3, 2011:

Issue call for public comment on DACS (open 3 months, until March 2011).

June 2011:

Teleconference of TS-DACS

August 2011:

Meeting of TS-DACS at SAA Annual Meeting Forum for discussion at SAA Annual Meeting

October 2011:

Teleconference of TS-DACS.

Spring 2012:

Working meeting of TS-DACS (subject to funding)

August 2012:

Meeting of TS-DACS at SAA Annual Meeting Forum on proposed revisions at SAA Annual Meeting.

October 2012:

Teleconference of TS-DACS.

November 2012:

Release of draft of proposed revisions to DACS/Solicitation of comments on proposed revisions (open 3 months, until February 2013).

August 2013:

Meeting of TS-DACS to discuss plan for publicizing revised edition of DACS and creating revised DACS trainings. Publish revised version of DACS.

Support Statement:  Approval of this revised charge and description provides useful information to the membership regarding the subcommittee and its current assignment to maintain the existing standard.

Fiscal Impact:  Nominal for annual meeting space and conference calls.

Move:  Trinkaus-Randall       
Second:  Frusciano
PASSED (unanimous).

MOTION 8

THAT the Standards Committee description (IV. Duties and Responsibilities) be amended to include the following:  “Investigate for all SAA-developed standards the feasibility of adoption by the American National Standards Institute as a national standard.”

Support Statement:   In discussing other matters of business regarding SAA standards and the Standards Committee, the question emerged as to why SAA-promulgated standards, which are all national-level standards serving the U.S. archival community, were not also ANSI standards. Clearly, SAA’s Standards Committee and its standards-creating groups had never had that as a defined objective, and it was never seriously pursued.  The Council discussion strongly supported pursuing this question with regard to all existing SAA standards, to see whether it was possible and advisable to seek ANSI adoption/certification on a standard-by-standard basis, since it was generally felt that ANSI certification would accomplish at least a couple useful ends: 1) it could imbue the standards with a stamp of authority that might play well with the larger U.S. community of information professionals; 2) it would publicize SAA’s standards more effectively and widely.

Fiscal Impact:   $4,000 one-time fee for application by SAA to seek accreditation as a standards developer, $500+ yearly ANSI membership fee, and nominal costs for meeting space and conference calls.

Move:  Meissner
Second:  Trinkaus-Randall
PASSED (unanimous).

III.F. Rescind Primary Contact Eligibility to Hold Office

At the August 9, 2010 meeting, the Council asked the Membership Committee to take a closer look at the nature of institutional membership and the benefits extended to institutional primary contacts.  The Membership Committee discussed the issue at its DC 2010 meeting and via conference call in November.  To inform its deliberations, the Membership Committee solicited input from such stakeholders as the Committee on the Selection of SAA Fellows and the Fellows Steering Committee. The Membership Committee as a whole concurred with the Committee on Selection of SAA Fellows that there is an inconsistency in the policies that allow primary contacts of institutional members to hold office yet do not permit them to be nominated as SAA Fellows.

Although all committee members and stakeholders affirmed that eligibility to serve on committees is an appropriate benefit for primary contacts of institutional members, a majority of the committee members also held that eligibility to hold elected office and to be nominated as an SAA Fellow are not appropriate benefits for primary contacts. By a 6-2 majority, the committee recommended “that the SAA Council recommend at the Society’s Annual Membership Meeting in August 2011 a constitutional amendment rescinding the right of institutional member primary contacts to hold elected office.”  

After extensive discussion, the Council acknowledged the complexity of the issue(s) and resolved that the ideas generated in discussion should be further examined by the Membership Committee. The Council tabled the Membership Committee’s recommendation indefinitely and charged the Membership Committee to continue discussing the issue.

MOTION 9

THAT the recommendation put forward by the Membership Committee to rescind primary contact eligibility to hold office be tabled indefinitely; and

THAT the Membership Committee be charged to reconsider the inconsistency of primary contacts’ eligibility to hold office but not to be nominated as Fellows given the ideas put forward by the Council in discussion of Agenda Items III.F. and IV.D.

Support Statement: After extensive discussion, the Council acknowledged the complexity of the issue(s) and resolved that the ideas generated in discussion should be further examined by the Membership Committee. The Council tabled the Membership Committee’s recommendation indefinitely and charged the Membership Committee to continue discussing the issue.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Move:  Meissner
Second:  Trinkaus-Randall
PASSED (unanimous).

N.B.: The Membership Committee’s recommendation was later moved and voted on, effectively superseding the resolution above. (See Agenda Item IV.D.)

III.G. Council Subcommittee on Voting Methods

At its August 2010 meeting the Council discussed several questions arising from the recent review of member dues concerning provisions in SAA’s constitution for voting.  Several members consulted by the Finance Committee had raised concerns that a majority vote on dues changes taken at the annual meeting disenfranchises those members who are unable to attend the meeting.  This concern was raised on the floor of the August 2010 Membership Meeting during the discussion about dues.

The Council created an ad hoc group of three Council members and one staff person  “to consider the voting process for constitutional amendments, dues increases, and other issues of broad interest to the membership, including how any potential changes would be implemented and the resources necessary for implementation….” In its report, the group discussed referendum voting versus full participation in parliamentary deliberation, identified several models for changing SAA’s voting methods, and recommended what it believes to be the most practical and well-balanced approach.  Council members had an in-depth discussion of the benefits, timeline, and process for implementing online voting on referenda.

MOTION 10

THAT a call for member comment be issued on the following draft recommendation and that consideration of the motion be postponed to an interim meeting of the Council to take place electronically no later than May 19, 2011:

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION

THAT the following constitutional amendments to Article IV, Article IX, and Article X be presented at the Society’s August 2011 business meeting:

IV. DUES

A member shall be enrolled upon the first payment of dues and shall receive benefits during the period for which dues have been paid. All dues shall be payable in advance. Membership in good standing shall cease when dues are 28 days in arrears. Changes in membership dues shall be determined by a majority vote of those members present and voting at the annual business meeting in a referendum conducted according to the bylaws of the Society.

IX. BYLAWS

The Council is authorized and directed to prepare, adopt, or amend such bylaws as may be desirable to regularize the administrative practices of the Society. Adoption or amendment of bylaws may be made either by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of the Council or by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of those members present and voting at the annual business meeting in a referendum conducted according to the bylaws of the Society. Amendments to the bylaws may be recommended by a majority vote of the Council or proposed in writing by at least 5% of the eligible voting members of the Society. All amendments must be filed with the Executive Director at least sixty (60) days prior to the Annual Meeting. Copies of the proposed amendments shall be mailed by the Executive Director to all members at least thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be presented. A copy of the current constitution and bylaws shall be published in the Society's membership directory on the Society’s website and shall be available to any member upon request to the Executive Director.

X. AMENDMENTS

Amendments to this constitution may be recommended by a majority vote of the Council or proposed in writing by at least twenty-five (25) 5% of the eligible voting members of the Society. All amendments must be filed with the Executive Director at least one hundred (100) days prior to the Annual Meeting. Copies of the proposed amendments shall be mailed by the Executive Director to all members at least sixty (60) days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be considered presented. If approved by the Council, a Amendments may be adopted by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of thethose members present and voting at the annual business meeting. in a referendum conducted according to the bylaws of the Society. If not approved by the Council, amendments may be adopted by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of the members present and voting at the annual business meeting of the Society.

Support Statement: Referring motions on dues changes and amendments to the Society’s constitution and bylaws from the annual business meeting to member referenda constitutes a practical and well-balanced approach to increasing member participation in SAA governance. It is within SAA’s means, both financially and organizationally. If approved, details regarding the administration of member referenda would be specified in forthcoming proposed amendments to the bylaws. Other procedural changes affected by this recommendation include: more consistent notification requirements; explicit provisions regarding the proposal of bylaws amendments; and modification to the number of members required to propose amendments (due to the recent growth in members).

In practice, proposals for dues changes and amendments will be generated as they are now and will be presented at the annual business meeting for discussion. However, the quorum at the business meeting will no longer be empowered to amend, approve, or decline such motions. In addition to debate at the annual business meeting, the Society would provide members with an electronic forum by which all eligible voters would be able to debate the motion(s). Following the annual business meeting, according to a schedule that would be specified in the bylaws, the electronic referendum would be conducted.

Fiscal Impact: SAA staff has negotiated an option with our e-ballot vendor to add, upon demand, an additional asynchronous voting event at the cost of $1,500 per year.

Support Statement: In light of the complex and potentially sensitive nature of these changes, it is appropriate that the Council solicit broad member input prior to making its final resolution on the constitutional amendments in question.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Move:  Hyry
Second: Trinkaus-Randall
PASSED (unanimous).

MOTION 11

THAT a call for member comment be issued on the following draft recommendation and that consideration of the motion be postponed to an interim meeting of the Council to take place electronically no later than May 19, 2011:

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Council recommend the following constitutional amendment to Article VI.2 at the Society’s August 2011 business meeting:

Resolutions passed at the annual business meeting, or submitted in writing and signed by 1% of the eligible voting members, which request the Council to take a specific action must be formally considered and voted upon by the Council in a timely fashion. The membership shall be notified of the results of that deliberation in the first communication sent to the membership following the Council's vote. If ten (10) percent of the membership disagrees with the Council's decision and files a petition to that effect with the executive office within ninety (90) days of the U.S. Postal Service postmark of the Council's notification, to that effect with the executive office, a mail ballot special referendum shall be conducted through the next mailing to the membership within one hundred and eighty (180) days and the results of a majority vote of the members voting on in this ballot referendum shall be binding provided that at least thirty (30) percent of the eligible members shall have voted.

Support Statement: In light of the complex and potentially sensitive nature of these changes, it is appropriate that the Council solicit broad member input prior to making its final resolution on the constitutional amendments in question.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Move:  Trinkaus-Randall
Second: Felker
Aye:  Cline, Felker, Frusciano, Lawson, McCrea, Meissner, Richardson, Settles, Theimer, Trinkaus-Randall
Abstain:  Hyry
PASSED.

MOTION 12

THAT the Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Voting Methods be charged to:
1) analyze member input received from the call for comments on the draft  constitutional amendments detailed in Motion 10; 2) revise the draft constitutional amendments as needed and report the subcommittee’s revised recommendation(s), if applicable, at the Council’s interim online meeting scheduled to take place prior to May 19, 2011; and 3) prepare draft bylaws amendments for review and consideration at the Council’s May 2011 meeting.

Support Statement: The draft constitutional amendments detailed in the recommendations above would result in the administration of member referenda “conducted according to the bylaws of the Society.” Those provisions need to be drafted, pending member feedback.

Procedural details concerning the bylaws to be considered by the subcommittee are referenced in the Appendix of the subcommittee’s January 2011 report to the Council.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Move:  Trinkaus-Randall
Second:  Lawson
PASSED (unanimous).

III.H. SAA Investment Policy 

The Finance Committee’s responsibilities include providing oversight of SAA’s investment program. During a December 2010 conference call with SAA’s investment advisor that included discussion of investment performance, portfolio diversification, and SAA’s investment policy, the Committee determined that SAA’s investment policy should be changed to allow the purchase of investment-grade securities (BBB or better) and to indicate that bonds and notes within a bond mutual fund be, on average, investment grade (BBB or better).

MOTION 13

THAT the following revisions to the Asset Standards section of the SAA Investment Policy that relates to Fixed Income Securities be adopted:

Investment Policy

[Strikethrough indicates deletion(s); underlining indicates addition(s).]

Fixed-income securities: The quality rating of bonds, notes, and bond mutual funds bonds and notes must be "A" or better (as rated by Standard & Poor's or Moody's) investment grade (BBB or better, as rated by Standard & Poor's or Moody's). Bonds and notes within a bond mutual fund must, on average, be investment grade (BBB or better, as rated by Standard & Poor's or Moody's). The portfolio may consist of only traditional principal and interest obligations (no derivatives) with maturities of seven years or less, or bond funds with average maturities of seven years or less.

Support Statement:  Allowing the purchase of fixed income securities that extend beyond those issued by the U.S. Treasury will provide a greater rate of return while taking on minimal risk.

Fiscal Impact:  The fixed income portion of SAA’s investment portfolio had a December 31 market value of $204,823.94 with an average interest rate of less than 2.9%. For every 0.1% increase in interest, income realized by the portfolio would increase by almost $220 while not adding a material degree of risk.

Move:  Lawson
Second:  Cline
Aye:  Cline, Felker, Frusciano, Hyry, Lawson, McCrea, Meissner, Settles, Theimer, Trinkaus-Randall
Abstain:  Richardson
PASSED.

III.I. “Presidential Early-Career Award”

SAA Vice President / President-Elect Gregor Trinkaus-Randall proposed that the Council create an award to recognize archivists early in their careers who have shown exceptional promise and who have already made significant contributions to the profession. The Council embraced the spirit of the award but noted some concerns about the criteria for and implementation of such an award. A subgroup of Council members agreed to rework the idea for consideration by the Council in time to present an award in 2012.

III.J. Component Bylaws

III.J.1. Issues and Advocacy Roundtable

At its August 11, 2010, annual meeting the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable decided to create bylaws for its governance and function.  The proposed bylaws were approved by a majority of IART members in October 2010. As is required, the Roundtable submitted its draft bylaws for Council review and approval.

MOTION 14

THAT the bylaws of the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable be approved:

Bylaws of the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable

 

I. Mission

Provides a forum for discussion of critical issues that the archives profession faces that are not the primary focus of another SAA group.

II. Governance

A. Steering Committee
The Steering Committee is composed of between six and eight members who are willing to serve, including the officers (two Co-Chairs). 

The Steering Committee directs and coordinates the activities of the Roundtable and approves appointments made by the Co-Chairs if vacancies occur. Committee members establish projects to work on through the year, help to plan the annual business meeting, and endorse SAA program sessions presented to the Roundtable. A member of the Steering Committee shall serve as secretary at the annual Roundtable meeting and take minutes.

B. Officers
The Co-Chairs serve as joint officers of the Roundtable. Only individual members of SAA and the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable may hold these positions. 

The Co-Chairs direct and report the activities of the Roundtable, organize and conduct the annual meeting of the Roundtable, chair the steering committee, act as liaisons for the Roundtable to other bodies, appoint Roundtable committees as needed, and handle administrative matters, including, but not limited to, annual reports to the SAA Council.

C. Committees and Task Forces
Committees and special task forces may be appointed by the Co-Chairs upon recommendation of the Steering Committee or by action of the membership at its annual meeting.

D. Website Editor
A website editor shall be appointed by the Steering Committee as needed and will serve as a member of the Steering Committee. The website editor should not serve concurrently as Co-Chair of the Roundtable.

The website editor is responsible for maintaining and updating the Roundtable website as needed and for negotiating all website matters with the SAA office as appropriate.

E. Endorsing Proposals for the Annual Meeting
Endorsements may be given to sessions submitted to SAA’s Program Committee and the Roundtable by the appropriate proposal deadline dates. SAA’s rules and guidelines for endorsement shall be followed. Priority will be given to proposals submitted by Issues and Advocacy Roundtable members or those sessions dealing directly with the Roundtable’s mission. Steering Committee members will review the proposals and respond with either a yes or no vote for endorsement. The proposals receiving the most affirmative votes will be endorsed. In the event of any ties, the Steering Committee will reconsider. If the tie is not broken, the decision will be made by the Co-Chairs. One of the Co-Chairs will forward the Roundtable’s endorsement(s) to SAA by the appropriate endorsement deadline.

Members of the Steering Committee who are participating in the proposals are not eligible to vote on the endorsement.

F. Elections and Terms
The Co-Chairs solicit candidates for the next year’s Steering Committee and/or Co-Chair officer positions as needed, using the Roundtable’s listserv and website, and receive the names of volunteers or persons recommended. They then prepare an appropriate slate of candidates and their statements for vote by the general Roundtable membership.

Roundtable Co-Chairs and Steering Committee members are elected via electronic vote in accordance with SAA’s Governance Manual.

As officers, Co-Chairs serve two-year terms, and if re-elected may serve as Co-Chair for a total of four years. Each is expected to attend the annual meeting.  Their terms are to be staggered so that no year will bring in two brand new Co-Chairs (i.e. 2009-2011 and 2010-2012); in this way an experienced Co-Chair will share leadership at all times.

Steering Committee positions are one-year terms and must be voted on each year.  Each Steering Committee member is expected to attend the annual meeting or be involved virtually as needed.

The Steering Committee will ensure that there are at least two nominees for Co-Chair and four nominees for Steering Committee. All candidates for election must be individual members of SAA and the Roundtable and must provide a statement for their election; it is recommended that Steering Committee members attend the annual meeting, but it is not required. The Committee will publicize the candidates on the Roundtable website via the Issues and Advocacy and Archives and Archivists discussion lists at least one month preceding the annual meeting. The Committee will prepare a ballot and conduct an election in accordance with the SAA Governance Manual. Only members of the Roundtable may vote; members may vote only once. Candidates with the highest number of votes shall be elected. New leadership assumes office at the conclusion of the annual meeting of the Roundtable.

The Steering Committee shall make appointments to fill any vacancies arising from unexpired terms of elected positions, after which a normal election shall occur.

III. Meetings
The Roundtable will meet at least once during the Society of American Archivists’ annual meeting and at other times as deemed appropriate by the Steering Committee.
Meetings of Issues and Advocacy Roundtable members – and those interested in the concerns of the Roundtable – are encouraged at the meetings of regional archives organizations.

IV. Communication
The Roundtable will submit information to SAA’s Archival Outlook, the Issues and Advocacy List, and the Archives and Archivists List. The Roundtable also will disseminate information about its work via its website.

V. Roundtable Leaders and the SAA Council
As appropriate, Issues and Advocacy Roundtable leaders may meet with SAA Council representatives to discuss matters of mutual concern.

VI. Enactment and Amendments
These bylaws were first approved and enacted by a majority vote of the membership in December 2010. These bylaws shall be reviewed by the Steering Committee at least every three years.

Proposed amendments to the Bylaws must be published on the website at least one month preceding the annual meeting. Amendments must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Steering Committee and must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the total votes cast by members of the Roundtable. A copy of the Bylaws shall be available to any member via the Roundtable’s website and upon request to the Steering Committee.

Support Statement:  The Issues and Advocacy Roundtable mission and bylaws outline an important role for the Roundtable, as well as sound principles for the group’s governance.

Fiscal Impact:  None.

Move:  Hyry
Second: Felker
PASSED (unanimous).

III.J.2. Lesbian and Gay Archives Roundtable

In 2009, the Lesbian and Gay Archives Roundtable (LAGAR) membership expressed a concern to the Steering Committee that the Roundtable bylaws language did not fully represent its members.  In 2010, the Roundtable formed a committee to explore more inclusive language, and LAGAR members unanimously approved the suggested changes to the bylaws during the group’s August 2010 annual meeting.  As is required, the Roundtable submitted its proposed bylaws revisions for Council review and approval.

MOTION 15

THAT the following changes to the Lesbian and Gay Archivists Roundtable (LAGAR) bylaws be approved:

Lesbian and Gay Archives Roundtable Bylaws

[Strikethrough indicates deletion(s); underlining indicates addition(s).]

Article 1. Name.
The name of this roundtable shall be the Lesbian and Gay Archives Roundtable of the Society of American Archivists (SAA), hereinafter referred to as LAGAR.

Article 2. Objectives.
A. Bring together people who are concerned about the collection, preservation, description and research use of archival materials documenting lesbians, gay men, and their institutions. LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual/Ally) people and their communities.

B. Keep lesbian and gay-male LGBTQIA issues in archives and history more visible within SAA.

C. Educate archivists about the importance of identifying and preserving historical records documenting the lives, accomplishments, and culture of lesbians and gay men LGBTQIA people.

D. Act as a liaison between SAA and community-based lesbian and gay-male LGBTQIA archives. Encourage and facilitate the participation of lesbian and gay-male LGBTQIA  archivists in SAA activities and the professional archival community.

E. Exchange information with other lesbian and gay-male LGBTQIA professional groups.

Article 3. Membership.
A. Membership is open to any person who shares the objectives of LAGAR.

Article 4. Officers.
A. LAGAR shall be guided by two co-chairs. They, with any committee chairs that may be functioning at the time, shall make up the Steering Committee.

B. Terms of Office.
1. The two co-chairs, one female and one male of different gender identities, shall each serve staggered terms of two consecutive years. [It is recommended, though not mandated, that chairs be rotated at least every three terms.]

2. The newly elected co-chair shall assume office at the close of the annual LAGAR meeting at which they are elected and shall serve until their successor has taken office.

3. Committee chairs and members shall be elected for a term of two consecutive years with no stipulation on consecutive terms.

C. Nomination and Election.
1. Nominations will be taken from the floor of the annual LAGAR meeting. All nominations must be seconded and consent of the nominee is required.

2. Elections for each office shall be by a show of hands. A simple majority shall elect an officer. If there is any contest, the election shall be retaken by secret ballot with a simple majority rule.

3. Vacancies in office shall be filled by a Steering Committee member in the case of a co-chair and appointed jointly by the co-chairs in the case of a committee member.

D. Duties of the Officers.
1. The co-chairs shall facilitate the LAGAR meetings with the advice and assistance of the Steering Committee. The co-chairs appoint Committee chairs, liaisons and the Newsletter Committee; submit the Three-Year Plan and summary to SAA Council; submit budget requests to SAA Council; and turn over the records of their administration to the new co-chair and non-current records to the SAA Archivist.

2. Newsletter Committee shall produce at least two issues of the LAGAR Newsletter and record the minutes of any meetings.

3. Committee Chairs shall ensure the progress of the committee's work as directed at the annual meeting or by the Steering Committee and keep a co-chair appraised by report.

Article 5. Business

A. Meeting times. LAGAR shall meet once a year at the time of the annual meeting of the SAA. The time and agenda will be announced in the LAGAR Newsletter immediately preceding the meeting.

B. Other meetings. Additional LAGAR meetings may be scheduled during the annual meeting of the SAA. Such meetings shall be announced in the LAGAR Newsletter immediately preceding the annual meeting, if possible, or before the end of the annual LAGAR meeting.

C. Voting. All decisions of the LAGAR shall be determined by a plurality of members voting at the annual meeting.

Article 6. Parliamentary Authority.
Any meeting shall be facilitated by the senior co-chair. Robert's Rules of Order, the latest edition, shall govern the proceedings of the LAGAR meetings, except as otherwise provided for in the by-laws of the LAGAR, or in the constitution, bylaws, or special rules of the SAA.

Article 7. Amendments to the Bylaws.
A. Notice and form.
1. Amendments to these by-laws may be proposed by any LAGAR member.

2. Such amendments must be submitted in writing to a LAGAR co-chair sixty days prior to the annual meeting.

3. The proposed amendments shall be mailed to the membership with the LAGAR Newsletter immediately preceding the annual meeting and available at the annual meeting. A discussion of the proposed amendment will take place at the annual LAGAR meeting.

B. Adoption of amendments.
1. After the appropriate notice has been given, amendments shall be voted on at the annual LAGAR meeting immediately following the mail notification.

Support Statement:  These bylaws changes provide an opportunity to expand the Society’s efforts to advocate for diversity by stressing the inclusivity of the Lesbian and Gay Archives Roundtable.

Fiscal Impact:  None.
 
Move:  Hyry
Second: Lawson
PASSED (unanimous).

III.J.3. Archivists’ Toolkit™ Roundtable

The Archivists’ Toolkit™ Roundtable (ATRT) was formed to bring together archivists from all types of repositories to support the use of this open-source archival management system.  At the Roundtable’s inaugural meeting in 2009, the Archivists’ Toolkit development team announced the “AT/Archon Integration Project” that would result in a merger of the Archivists’ Toolkit™ with Archon™ (also an open-source archival collections management system).  The resulting merged product was expected to be called ArchivesSpace. ATRT members present at that 2009 meeting expressed a desire to expand the Roundtable’s scope to encompass the support of Archon™ users.  The newly elected steering committee developed draft revisions for the mission, goals, and title in advance of the ATRT’s August 11, 2010, meeting. The revisions were reviewed at the August 2010 meeting, finalized, reviewed again by the ATRT membership, and submitted for the Council’s approval.

MOTION 16

THAT the following revisions to the mission and goals of the Archivists’ Toolkit™ Roundtable, including renaming it the Archivists' Toolkit™ / Archon™ Roundtable, be adopted:

Archivists’ Toolkit / Archon Roundtable
[Strikethrough indicates deletion(s); underlining indicates addition(s).]

Mission of the Archivists' Toolkit/ Archon Roundtable

The Archivists' Toolkit™ / ArchonTM Roundtable of the Society of American Archivists provides a forum for archivists from all types of repositories to identify and discuss key issues relevant to the use, development, and sustainment of the Archivists' Toolkit™ (AT) and Archon™ software tool for:  archive management applications and the integration of ATand Archononce that product becomes available. Particular concerns of the roundtable membership include:

  • Recording archival descriptions in the software products;
  • Managing the life cycle of archival collections in a broad spectrum of archival functions;
  • Promoting efficient processing and description, minimizing backlogs; and
  • Facilitating access to archival collections through EAD finding aids and, collection-level MARC records, and Web publishing of descriptions and digital objects.

Goals of the Archivists' Toolkit/ Archon Roundtable

  • Organize and participate in activities that increase the utility and availability of AT™ and Archon to the archives profession.
  • Identify and document additional features and functions needed to manage archival collections and output additional products to support access, use, and preservation of archival materials. Communicate with both community developers and the AT, Archon™, and ArchivesSpace development teams about such needs.
  • Share knowledge and expertise in using the software products among its members to achieve the ability to utilize At’s the features and functions of these tools to its their full potential.
  • Facilitate and provide a forum for communication among AT, Archon, and ArchivesSpace user communities.
  • Evaluate the Roundtable's ability to provide continued support to ATand Archonusers once the integrated product becomes available.

Support Statement:  The revised mission and goals appropriately reflect the expanded scope of the Roundtable to include ArchonTM users and to prepare for a merger of the two tools into ArchivesSpace.

Fiscal Impact:  None.

Move:  Hyry
Second:  Felker
PASSED (unanimous).

III.J.4. Metadata and Digital Object Roundtable

Beginning at the Metadata and Digital Object Roundtable (MDOR) meeting in 2009, members discussed adding “digitization” to the topics covered by the Roundtable because responses from the group suggested that information about digitization was in great demand, followed by information about digital objects and about metadata. MDOR discussed future directions for the Roundtable at its August 2010 annual meeting and then surveyed the leaders and the websites of the Description Section, Electronic Records Section, and EAD Roundtable to determine whether any group already was addressing “digitization.” MDOR also reviewed its listserve and the Archives and Archivists List, concluding that digitization is one of the most popular topics. Thus MDOR sought to revise its mission statement to include “digitization.”   As is required, the Roundtable submitted its proposal for a revised mission to the Council for review and approval.

MOTION 17

THAT the following revisions to the Metadata and Digital Object Roundtable’s mission statement be adopted: 

Metadata and Digital Object Roundtable
[Strikethrough indicates deletion(s); underlining indicates addition(s).]

The Metadata and Digital Object Roundtable promotes discussion, education, and collaboration among archivists who are interested in digitization, digital archival objects, and the metadata that enables their access, management, and preservation of digital objects.

Support Statement:  Addition of the term “digitization” to the Metadata and Digital Object Roundtable’s mission provides a venue for SAA members to discuss and exchange ideas related to digitization issues.

Fiscal Impact:  None.

Move:  Meissner
Second:  Hyry
PASSED (unanimous).

III.K. Appoint Members to Fellows Selection Committee

At its annual winter meeting, the SAA Council elects three individuals to serve on the Committee on the Selection of SAA Fellows.  The Committee is composed of the five most recent past presidents of the Society and three Fellows who are elected by the Council.  Past presidents, current members of the Council, and Society staff members are not eligible for election.  Per a change in procedure adopted at the February 2010 Council meeting, the past president who has served longest on the Committee serves as its chair. The Council identified 14 potential candidates, conducted a vote, and gave a list of five nominees to the Executive Director, who was charged to make contact with the nominees and obtain consent to serve. The Council will conduct an online vote to appoint nominees. Results of the electronic vote will be recorded in the Executive Committee report to the May 2011 Council meeting.

III.L. Other Action Items from Council Members

No other action items were brought forward.

III.M. Executive Session

IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS

IV.A. Annual Review of Equal Opportunity/Nondiscrimination Policy

The SAA Council reviewed and revised SAA’s Equal Opportunity / Non-Discrimination Policy in February 2009 and, in February 2010, determined that the policy should be reviewed annually at the winter Council meeting. Council members reviewed the policy and made no changes.

IV.B. Gottlieb Proposal Re: “Unification” of Archives Organizations

Immediate-Past President Peter Gottlieb, in his August 2010 Presidential Address, presented the notion of “unification” of archives associations as a means of strengthening the profession’s voice and the organizations’ collective resources.  Gottlieb had asked the Council to consider several questions stemming from his address:  Do Council members think that there is anything to be gained from “unification” in the profession?  If so, is unification of archives associations sufficiently important – on its own terms and in relation to SAA’s strategic priorities – to justify SAA’s time and efforts?  Does the SAA Council wish to pursue the notion of “unification” of the profession?  If so, what information would the Council like to have available at the May 2011 Council meeting (or before) to assist in further consideration of the idea?

Respectfully, the Council concluded that it does not wish to pursue formal unification efforts, but does support – and sees real opportunity in – project-by-project collaboration with affiliated organizations to build relationships “from the ground up.”

IV.C. “Summit” Meeting with National Organizations

Vice President / President-Elect Gregor Trinkaus-Randall proposed convening a conference of national organizations in the information professions to discuss coordination of efforts and collaboration on issues that might benefit everyone. His discussion paper noted potential funding sources, ideas for organizations that might participate, and acknowledgement that creating such an initiative and ensuring follow through would involve “substantial commitment on the part of SAA officers and staff.”

Council members discussed whether SAA should approach other organizations about initiating such a program, what the benefits to SAA would be in initiating such a discussion, what role the Council should play in this process, and whether this is a way to focus the discussion ahead of time with questions and discussion points when meeting with other organizations. As with the previous agenda item related to “unification” of archives organizations, Council members favored an informal approach to collaboration, decided against seeking grant funding for a summit meeting, and suggested that the executive director should arrange meeting with her counterparts in Chicago- and Washington-based organizations in related information fields.

IV.D. Institutional Membership: Long-Term Development Strategies

Following its August 2010 meeting, the SAA Council referred to the Membership Committee two questions regarding institutional membership. The Committee’s recommendation regarding the first question, primary contact eligibility to hold office, was presented to the Council as Agenda Item 0111-III-F.  This discussion item (IV.F.) dealt with the second question:  What changes to SAA’s member development strategies – including recruitment, retention, and provision of services – may be required to serve the needs and interests of SAA’s institutional members better?  Council members reviewed and discussed the institutional member statistics presented in the report, as well as the Membership Committee’s ideas for gathering information about member needs and expectations.

Council members returned to the previously discussed  action item (III.F.) concerning whether the eligibility of primary contacts of institutional members to become SAA Fellows and to be slated for elected office (i.e., President, Vice President/President-Elect, Treasurer, Council member, Nominating Committee).  A suggestion that fellowship become an honor not requiring SAA membership status was brought forward. The Fellows on the Council (i.e., Trinkaus-Randall, Frusciano, Meissner, and Tibbo) were assigned to investigate this possibility further and issue a recommendation to the Council by May 19, 2011. The latter question of holding office was taken up in a Council motion.

MOTION 18

THAT the SAA Council recommend at the Society’s 2011 Annual Membership Meeting a constitutional amendment that eligibility to run for elected office requires that the candidate be an individual member when slated and throughout the individual’s term in office.

Support Statement: Rescinding the right of institutional member primary contacts to hold elected office provides a clarification and uniformity in the process of selecting SAA leaders and Fellows.  The nature of primary contacts is essentially representing an institution’s interest in SAA and the profession, which manifests itself in the right to vote and the eligibility to serve on committees and taskforces. This inconsistency has proven to be problematic when dealing with issues of eligibility for elected office and as an SAA Fellow. The role of an institutional primary contact is to represent the institution’s best interest; therefore, electing the primary contact of would mean that the membership is electing that institution to serve, not the individual. 

Fiscal Impact:  None.

Move:  Lawson
Second:  McCrea
Aye (7):  Felker, Lawson, McCrea, Meissner, Settles, Theimer, Trinkaus-Randall
Nay (3):  Cline, Frusciano, Hyry
Abstain (1):  Richardson
PASSED.

IV.E. Privacy and Confidentiality Roundtable

1. Privacy and Confidentiality Roundtable “Advice Blog”/Online Forum 

The Privacy and Confidentiality Roundtable asked the Council for feedback about its idea to host an online forum on which SAA members could pose questions on privacy-related topics that would be answered by members of the Roundtable’s steering committee or by invited guests. The “anonymized” questions and answers would be made public with an active comment feature so that other archivists could participate in the discussion.  The Council discussed the value of the idea to the SAA membership and voiced several concerns, including whether such a project would be considered dispensing legal advice and how the Roundtable might address the scope and variety of privacy laws from state to state.  The Council asked that the Roundtable re-examine the idea in light of their feedback and resubmit a revised proposal.

2. ALA Privacy Week 

The Privacy and Confidentiality Roundtable asked for the Council’s approval to foster a relationship with the American Library Association’s Choose Privacy Week Project, a campaign that invites library users into a national conversation about privacy rights in a digital age. The Roundtable believes that archivists, many of whom are deeply engaged in issues about privacy, could provide an invaluable contribution to this “national conversation.” Further, the Roundtable asked the Council to consider whether it might create a video representing the archives perspective for inclusion on the Choose Privacy Week video gallery. The Council discussed the feasibility of filming privacy-related sessions at SAA’s 2011 annual meeting and whether the Roundtable, on behalf of SAA, could explore creating a video discussing how archives and archivists uphold citizens’ privacy rights. Council encouraged the Roundtable to do additional research regarding creating a video, with the understanding that funds would be needed, that the video would be vetted appropriately and that the finished product would be hosted by SAA.

IV.F. Use of “FSAA” by SAA Fellows  

The SAA Fellows had discussed via the Fellows discussion list the notion that Fellows might use the initials “FSAA” (Fellow of the Society of American Archivists) after their names.  Tibbo had agreed to bring this forward for Council discussion to determine whether the Council believed it to be appropriate and, if so, whether any formal action were necessary. The Council decided that no formal action is required and that the Fellows should be encouraged to publicize this distinction, using initials or spelling it out, in their signature blocks.

IV.G. Possible Role of Immediate-Past President on Council

Trinkaus-Randall presented for discussion the idea that the immediate past president of SAA could serve a vital function by remaining on the Council for one additional year after the presidential term.  Following election, the SAA President serves one year on the Council as Vice President / President-Elect, directs the Council as President for one year, and then rotates off the Council after two years of service, taking his or her accumulated knowledge of SAA’s governance with him/her. Citing the fact that many other organizations’ officers commit to three years of service, which is also consistent with the length of SAA Council members’ terms, Trinkaus-Randall led a discussion about the potential role for this person and the potential benefits of extending the term. Council members agreed that the experience of a past president would contribute positively to the Council but did not agree that such a role should be formalized, especially given the fiscal impact and pending decisions regarding the composition of the SAA Foundation Board of Directors.  (See Foundation Board Agenda Item III.A.)

IV.H. Annual Meeting Schedule and Planning

Tibbo and Beaumont summarized verbally the status of Annual Meeting scheduling and planning, noting potential venues for the all-attendee reception, potential keynote speakers, and other work being done by the Host Committee.

IV.I. Council Exemplary Service Award Ideas

An important function of most professional associations is to motivate and reward its members and supporters by providing professional recognition.  The Council Exemplary Service Award was created in 1980, at the request of the Committee on the Selection of SAA Fellows, to recognize a special contribution to the archives profession (and especially to SAA) that is not eligible for one of the other awards given by the Society.  It is given on an occasional basis at the discretion of the Council or upon recommendation to the Council by the Awards Committee.  Council members took this opportunity to discuss which individuals and organizations have distinguished themselves in 2010-2011 or over time and thus may be appropriate selections for the award. Draft resolution(s) will be considered at the May 2011 Council meeting.

IV.J. Other Discussion Items

Richardson discussed an institutional “connecting and collecting” project that would encourage participation in assembling, recording, and preserving communities’ histories, and she asked for feedback on the concept and SAA’s interest in supporting it.  The Council provided positive feedback and Tibbo agreed to write a letter of support.

V. REPORTS

V.A. Executive Committee

In a written report, Executive Committee Member Brenda Lawson outlined the Council’s interim actions since its August 2010 meeting:
Unanimous approval of the August 2010 Council and Foundation Board meeting minutes;

  • Unanimous approval of an agreement, made in conjunction with the General Commission on Archives and History of The United Methodist Church, to administer the $10,000 Josephine Forman Scholarship Award; and
  • Unanimous approval of an amendment to the Mosaic Scholarship Award description regarding conditions under which the scholarship award may be carried over or shall be returned to SAA.

Acting on behalf of the Council, the Executive Committee had taken the following actions since August 2010:

  • Signed on to an OpenTheGovernment.org thank you letter to U.S. Archivist David Ferriero for re-opening NARA’s investigation into the Central Intelligence Agency’s  destruction of federal records on Guantánamo detainee torture;
  • Reviewed, compiled, and forwarded to the Values Task Force SAA member comments on the draft of “Core Values of Archivists,” with a request that the Task Force consider the comments and submit a final draft for Council review;
  • Solicited input from SAA leaders on the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program and submitted formal comments on NITRD’s draft 2010 Strategic Plan;
  • Endorsed H.R. 1387, the Electronic Message Preservation Act;
  • Declined to comment on NARA’s proposal to revise facilities’ hours of operation after consulting relevant SAA groups;
  • Submitted feedback to the Diversity Committee on its draft plan for the Mosaic Program (see Agenda Item III.D.);
  • Reviewed, approved, and recommended to the SAA Council the creation of a $10,000 Josephine Forman Scholarship Award;
  • Reviewed Trinkaus-Randall’s proposal for a possible IMLS National Leadership planning grant;
  • Reviewed feedback prepared by relevant SAA groups and submitted SAA comments to the Department of Health and Human Services regarding proposed changes in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

In a verbal update, Lawson added that after the second posting of Council material, the Committee approved transmission of a letter from SAA to the U.S. Copyright Office regarding the extension of federal copyright protection to sound recordings created prior to 1972. The Intellectual Property Working Group had drafted the letter with input from the Recorded Sound Roundtable, the Oral History Section, the Native American Archives Roundtable, the Manuscript Repositories Section, the Performing Arts Roundtable, and the Preservation Section.

V.B. President 

Tibbo’s report on her activities noted the following:

  • Appointments to and work with the Digital Archives Continuing Education (DACE) Task Force, which met in Chicago to identify audiences and content, to analyze gaps in SAA’s current education offerings as well as courses provided outside of SAA, to develop a curriculum incorporating the findings, and to develop descriptions of course offerings;
  • Appointments to the Diversity Committee working group charged to develop a work plan for the Mosaic Program, as well as attendance at the working group’s meeting in November;
  • Consultation and drafting of a letter expressing SAA’s concern about certain provisions of §160.103, Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act Proposed Rule;
  • Consultation with SAA groups to gather feedback for ALA on its Traditional Cultural Expressions Report;
  • Work with Beaumont on the Council’s winter agenda; and
  • Weekly calls with Beaumont to discuss various issues and priorities..

V.C. Vice President / President-Elect 

In a written report Trinkaus-Randall detailed his activities, including assembling an Appointments Committee, appointing 2012 Program Committee co-chairs and Mosaic Scholarship Selection Committee members, and discussions with the Executive Committee about hosting and funding a “summit” of national organizations to encourage cooperation and collaboration on a number of fronts.

V.D. Treasurer

Felker presented a financial review of SAA’s performance from July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, indicating that the Society’s net gain was ahead of FY10 actual and  FY11 budget due to unrealized gains on investments and that the economic metrics seem to be stabilizing after two years of turmoil.  Although operational revenue centers were slightly below budget, SAA has been able to make up nearly all of that difference by keeping a very close eye on expenses.

V.E. Staff

V.E.1. Executive Director

Beaumont’s report summarized progress made on activities specified in SAA’s Strategic Plan for 2010 – 2013, including research on virtual conferencing vendors and tools; hosting of the Mosaic Program working group of the Diversity Committee; work done on drafting of a development plan for the Foundation Board’s consideration, including proposed funding priorities; and launch of the I Found It In The Archives! public awareness campaign in October.  She detailed other advocacy and public awareness activities, especially her involvement with the National Coalition for History as incoming chair of its Policy Board; noted governance work supporting the 2011 Program Committee meeting, staffing of the 75th Anniversary Task Force, and ongoing migration of the Governance Manual into SAA’s new Drupal-based content management system; and listed other headquarters activities that included  revising SAA’s Employee Handbook, adjusting employee contributions to help cover a hike in health insurance prices, exploring options for reconfiguring office space, and working with Tibbo on the 2010 Foundation Annual Appeal.

V.E.2. Membership 

Doyle’s report noted that the total number of members surpassed the March 2009 high in May 2010 and that SAA’s membership totaled 5,920 members, 300 members more than were projected for the second quarter of FY11. Growth was most prominent among students, members in the ID1 category (earning less than $20,000k/year), and members in the ID7 category (earning more than $75,000/year). Membership in the ID3 dues category continued to decrease. Appended to the staff report was the Membership Committee annual report, which detailed DC 2010 activities; work on an institutional membership recommendation and survey for the Council’s winter agenda (see Agenda Items III.F. and IV.D.); and mentoring, career center, and key contact program updates.

V.E.3. Education

De Sutter’s report summarized year-to-date activities for FY11, including the facts that 50 programs had been scheduled; one Web seminar had been offered (“What Is EAC-CPF?” with 41 sites and approximately 202 participants); 27 face-to-face programs had served 720 attendees; one workshop had been cancelled; and five new co-sponsors had been secured.  In addition, she had hired and trained a new staff person; developed and offered a basic archives workshop at the request of the Illinois State Historical Records Advisory Board; migrated major portions of the Education Catalog to Drupal; increased Education Directory listings to 32; and worked with the Digital Archives Continuing Education Task Force to develop a new digital archives curriculum and with the Committee on Education on further revisions to the “Guidelines for a Graduate Program in Archival Studies” (see Agenda Item III.A.).

V.E.4. Publications 

Brinati’s report noted that FY11 book sales were ahead of FY10 but shy of budget, with three new books in 2010 and 122 titles in the catalog. Two new books were printed in 2011, and three book projects were in various stages of editorial review and scheduled to be published in time for the 2011 Annual Meeting.  Projects in various stages of production covered topics on archives and the digital age, archives for librarians, archives diversity, exhibits, green archives, processing, management of processing, religious archives, succeeding in a small repository, women’s archives, and public relations for archives. SAA has now completed the online posting of the entire back file of 242 issues of The American Archivist. Brinati anticipatedredesign of Archival Outlook with the January/February 2011 issue and summarized content to be included in the digital production of 64 out-of-print SAA titles by the University of Michigan for its library collection and for the HathiTrust trusted digital repository. Finally, the report described an array of 75th Anniversary-related “publication” projects, including magnets, trading cards, a timeline, an anniversary section of the Fall/Winter 2011 issue of American Archivist, and a special online-only supplement with selected content from the anniversary track at SAA’s 2011 Annual Meeting.

V.E.5. Annual Meeting  

In a written report, Beaumont reviewed program development, challenges associated with the conference schedule, Host Committee activities and local events, exhibits and sponsorships, and conference promotion. The Program Committee met in Chicago in November 2010 to evaluate 122 proposals to fill the 72 slots available, plus 13 poster proposal submissions. The conference schedule was in development with a first draft scheduled for early February; despite several offers from individuals who had indicated an interest in suggesting innovations to the conference schedule, no alternative schedules had been received. The meeting planner expressed concern about having a sufficient number of rooms for all of the group meetings on Wednesday and Thursday.  The active Host Committee had met monthly to plan for development of articles, repository tours, and restaurant and shopping guides. A venue for the All-Attendee Reception had been placed on “first-hold” and contacts were initiated for special guests and activities. Evaluation of options for production of a full print Preliminary Program in addition to the online version was in progress, weighing member reaction to the decision to forego printing and mailing of the Preliminary Program for the 2009 annual meeting and the significant cost of the print Preliminary Program. Council members indicated a desire to reinstate some version of the Leadership Forum and suggested that invitations to incoming chairs should be emphasized.

V.E.6. SAA Website Development  

Doyle provided a written update of the status of SAA’s new website, launched in April 2010, reinforcing the ongoing development effort in terms of both technical features and editorial content and indicating that content migration will continue throughout FY11 to allow staff the time to redevelop content and component group leaders the time to learn the new system. Projects in development included the 75th Anniversary timeline, expansion and reconfiguration of SAA President and Presidential Address content types, modifications to the Annual Meeting index page and to “Initiatives” (which will “house” a variety of content, including American Archives Month, MayDay, SAA’s Advocacy Agenda, and A*CENSUS), a standards portal, a comparison matrix within the Directory of Archival Education, a Consultants Directory, component group pages and tools, directories of allied and associated organizations, and improved site search functions. The report detailed the fiscal impact of these projects, including a breakdown of costs per project, funding sources, and capitalization of expenses.

V.F. American Archivist Editor 

Journal Editor Mary Jo Pugh noted activities since July 2010,which included reviewing and revising papers selected for the special issue celebrating SAA’s 75th Anniversary; obtaining papers from the 75th Anniversary track of the 2011 Annual Meeting for inclusion in the first issue of American Archivist Online Occasional Series; work done on a final draft report analyzing readership survey data; completing digitization of the entire run of the journal, now accessible online and preserved by two trusted digital repositories (HathiTrust and JSTOR); adding the journal as a source to Elsevier’s citation database, Scopus; creating a Web space for reviews that include citations to other items of interest and reviews of technical materials not published in the American Archivist; and work done on the Fall/Winter 2010 volume, on the Spring/Summer 2011 volume, and on the review process since July.

V.G. Recruitment of New Journal Editor 

Brinati’s written report indicated that the current editor of The American Archivist will be stepping down at the end of 2011 and that, as stipulated in SAA’s Governance Manual (Section V. Editor Selection Process), the search for a new Editor had begun in January. The Selection Committee was formed and a timetable had been set, with an April 15 application deadline, a specific review period, a decision date, and a timeframe for mentoring of the new editor. A call for applicants had been issued via the website and in the January/February issue of Archival Outlook, detailing the editor’s responsibilities, qualifications, term, and honorarium.

V.H. Publications Editor 

In his written report, Publications Editor Peter Wosh indicated that several projects had been moving forward since his last report and highlighted a few ongoing issues and accomplishments, including NHPRC’s deferment of the Publication Board’s grant proposal, “Fundamental Change,” for consideration at its meeting on February 11, 2011; contact with the HathiTrust preservation repository program, which has digitized approximately 135 past and current SAA publications and can provide SAA with an opportunity to make older publications available electronically and to build a useful online repository of professional knowledge; and a brief summary of five publications to be completed in 2011.

V.I. Diversity Committee 

Chair Terry Baxter submitted a report summarizing the activities of the Diversity Committee during and since its meeting at DC 2010. The report communicated the Diversity Committee’s discussion at the Annual Meeting, including work with the Membership Committee to survey members about needs and desires related to diversity activities, ways in which to increase opportunities for member participation in the activities and governance of SAA, and the Council’s charge related to the Mosaic Scholarship program.  He noted the newly expanded structure of the Diversity Committee and indicated that the Committee had responded to the Council’s charge to prepare a proposal for expansion of the Mosaic Scholarship into a full-fledged program (see Agenda Item III.D.).

V.J. Diversity Committee / Native American Archives Roundtable: Native American Protocols Forum Annual Report

Diversity Committee Chair Terry Baxter had submitted the second of three annual reports on the Native American Protocols Forum covering the planning process of the Forum and the Forum itself. The 2009 Forum reviewed development of the Protocols and issues surrounding their use; the 2010 Forum examined current applications of the Protocols; and the 2011 Forum will look at the future of the Protocols in the archives profession. The working group charged to plan and implement the Forum (composed of members of the Diversity Committee and the Native American Archives Roundtable), with the support of SAA President Peter Gottlieb, had invited three speakers who had presented a session on the Plateau People’s Web Portal (PPWP) at the second Western Roundup meeting in Seattle to repeat their presentation at the 2010 Forum. Two speakers presented the material, including a number of issues related to the use of the Protocols in the development of the PPWP.

V.K. Committee on Ethics and Professional Conduct (Annual Report)

Chair Timothy Pyatt’s report noted that although two sessions proposed by the Committee on Ethics and Professional Conduct (CEPC) were not selected for the 2010 Annual Meeting program, one proposal was presented at a roundtable’s meeting and the other became a lunchtime forum to collect feedback on the proposed revision of the SAA Code of Ethics. The report also anticipated the future of CEPC after the Code of Ethics revision and included minutes of the August 2010 CEPC meeting.

V.L. Standards Committee (Annual Report)

Immediate Past Chair Polly Reynolds had submitted an annual report of the Committee’s activities, including submission of comments on Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (DCRM) and on areas of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) that did not adequately address the description of archival materials, revision of various subcommittee charges, and other ongoing and completed projects. Also included were annual reports from the SAA representative to the Canadian Committee on Archival Description; the De-accessioning and Reappraisal Development and Review Team, which reported outstanding interest in development and the beginnings of a first draft of a guidelines document; the Encoded Archival Context Working Group, which released the final draft of EAC-CPF in August 2009, hosted two webinars during the EAC-CPF review period, and submitted the standard for consideration by the Council (see Agenda Item III.E.1.); the SAA representative to the International Council on Archives; the SAA representative to the National Information Standards Organization; the Technical Subcommittee on Encoded Archival Description, which held its inaugural meeting in August 2010 and had just begun to discuss how to revise EAD; and the Technical Subcommittee on Facilities Guidelines, which reported that Archival and Special Collections Facilities: Guidelines for Archivists, Librarians, Architects, and Engineers received SAA’s Preservation Publication Award in 2010 and that NARA had adopted the book and was using it in its archives training courses. The Council also received a verbal report from Council Liaison Dennis Meissner updating the group on TS-DACS activities and requests, on the development of a new ISO standard on audit and certification of trustworthy digital repositories, and on the flow of information within the Standards Committee.

V.M. Intellectual Property Working Group 

In a written report, Chair Heather Briston detailed Annual Meeting activities, noting discussions about an OCLC Research document entitled “Well-intentioned Practices for Digitizing Large Manuscript Collections” (with guest Merrilee Proffitt); the Association for Research Libraries’ (ARL’s) document on large-scale vendor digitization projects and its Fair Use Guide for Research Libraries project (with guest Brandon Butler); liaison opportunities with the Cultural Property Working Group; and activities associated with the American Library Association’s Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCE) discussions (with guest Christian Dupont). The report also summarized completed, ongoing, and new projects and activities, such as providing input as requested by the SAA Council on Copyright Office issues ALA’s TCE document.

V.N. Cultural Property Working Group 

Chair Jeannette Bastian’s written report highlighted the group’s first face-to-face meeting at DC 2010; described the group’s ongoing work, such as the bibliography of cultural property literature and development of a set of culturally sensitive best practices for archives; and indicated that the group is pursuing methods to confer with the Intellectual Property Working Group and other groups with which CPWG overlaps to discuss similar initiatives, with the possibility of hosting a joint meeting of all overlapping groups at the 2011 or 2012 annual meeting.

V.O. Preserving the American Historical Record (PAHR) Task Force

In a report distributed at the meeting, PAHR Task Force Liaison Brenda Lawson provided a brief review of the status of the PAHR legislation in the 111th Congress, noting that H.R. 2256 (introduced on May 5, 2009) had 64 sponsors and that S. 3227 (introduced on April 19, 2010) had nine sponsors.  The 111th Congress took no action on the bill before adjourning in December 2010.  The Task Force will work to introduce the bill in the 112th Congress and currently is discussing directions and options given the significant changes in committee and subcommittee assignments within Congress.

V.P. 75th Anniversary Task Force 

Co-chairs David Gracy and Lee Stout submitted a written report summarizing the 75th Anniversary Task Force’s activities, including development and production of a deck of trading cards, onsite oral history interviews, creating a timeline that would live on the SAA website, the special anniversary issue of The American Archivist, and the special  “anniversary track” within the 2011 annual meeting program. Brinati updated the group on the status of the trading card project, highlighting a need for images.

V.Q. Plan Regarding Serial Access to Council Minutes

Brinati’s report noted that, beginning in 2011, The American Archivist no longer will include Council meeting minutes, which have grown in length to exceed 100 journal pages per volume.  Instead, minutes will remain available via the SAA website, which has become a more expedient outlet.  The report suggested a plan to aggregate the Council minutes on SAA’s website.  Minutes from 1994 to present already are posted on SAA’s site, and minutes from 1938 to 1993 have been digitized by JSTOR, whose contract with SAA stipulates that JSTOR “shall provide to [SAA] on a reasonable basis portions of Materials for Projects.” The staff will gather the 1938-1993 minutes from JSTOR and post them to the SAA website.  In response to queries from Council members, the staff noted the need to investigate a persistent URL and a trusted digital repository for SAA materials.

V.R. Representatives’ Annual Reports (Compiled) 

Per Section XI. of the Governance Manual, official representatives are expected to complete an annual report. Council members reviewed reports received from SAA’s official representatives to the following groups:  SAA/ALA/AAM Joint Committee on Archives, Libraries, and Museums (CALM) (Susan Malbin) and the International Council on Archives Section of Professional Associations (Trudy Huskamp Peterson).

V.S. Section / Roundtable Annual Reports (Compiled) 

Per Sections IX. and X. of the Governance Manual, Sections and Roundtables are required to complete annual reports.  Council members reviewed the compiled reports, which also are available on the SAA website at http://www2.archivists.org/governance/reports.

V.T. Other Reports from Council Members / What Are You Hearing from Members?

Council members discussed requests from the Metadata and Digital Object Roundtable and the Acquisition and Appraisal Section for access to SAA’s Survey Monkey Professional subscription, and agreed to allow the components access to SAA’s subscription.

VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS

A. Review of  January 2011 “To Do” List

Council members reviewed the draft list of action items stemming from the meeting.

B. Review of January 2011 Talking Points

Council members reviewed the decisions made at the meeting.

C. Adjournment

Lawson moved and Felker seconded a motion to adjourn. PASSED. The Council meeting was adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

 


Society of American Archivists
Foundation Board Meeting
January 28, 2011
Chicago, Illinois

 

President Helen Tibbo called to order the meeting of the Society of American Archivists Foundation Board of Directors at 8:24 a.m. on Saturday, January 29, 2011. Present were Vice President/President-Elect Gregor Trinkaus-Randall; Treasurer Aimee Felker; Executive Committee member Brenda Lawson; Board members Scott Cline, Tom Frusciano, Tom Hyry, Donna McCrea, Dennis Meissner, Deborra Richardson, Rosalye Settles, and Kate Theimer; Executive Director Nancy Beaumont; SAA Publishing Director Teresa Brinati; SAA Education Director Solveig De Sutter; SAA Member and Technical Services Director Brian Doyle; SAA Finance/Administration Director Tom Jurczak; and Program Coordinator René Mueller.

I. BOARD BUSINESS

A. Adoption of the Agenda 

Tibbo introduced the agenda. Felker moved to adopt the agenda; Trinkaus-Randall seconded. Felker, Frusciano, Lawson, Hyry, McCrea, Meissner, Settles, Theimer, and Trinkaus-Randall voted for adoption; Cline and Richardson abstained. The agenda was adopted.

B. Reference:  Past Actions 

Tibbo noted that a written summary of all Foundation Board actions had been updated and would continue to be included with the Board’s materials at each meeting. The Board reviewed the charge of the Foundation and the legal boundaries of fundraising activity.

II. ACTION ITEMS

A. Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws

Tibbo and Beaumont discussed draft Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws prepared by Jurczak in response to the Foundation Board motion at the August 9, 2010, meeting. Emphasized were SAA’s legal counsel’s recommendations that the 501(c)(6) entity (i.e., SAA) and the 501(c)(3) entity (i.e., the SAA Foundation) be viewed as separate and independent legal entities and that representation of SAA Council members on the SAA Foundation Board of Directors should not exceed 49 percent. Council members reviewed staff recommendations and discussed decision points regarding 1) at what meeting each year the Board of Directors (or designated committee) nominates new members for the Board, 2) what process should be used for filling vacancies on the Board (i.e., Board elects its successors, with approval of the Corporate Member, or Board presents a slate for election by the Corporate Member, or Corporate Member nominates and elects Board members), and 3) how many members serve on the Board of Directors.  Beaumont and Jurczak will work with legal counsel to revise the draft Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws per the Board’s direction and resubmit them for final review and vote at the May 2011 Board meeting.

B. Foundation Development Plan

In a written report, the Development Committee noted that, in the past, the Foundation had relied on two approaches to fundraising, with a few exceptions. The Committee provided historical totals of funds raised from FY 1989 through FY 2011 and recommended a path forward for FY 2011 – FY 2012 with a realistic eye to the economy in which SAA’s members are working and the resources that are available to SAA and the Foundation.   The report described the 2011 appeal, which focuses on donations in recognition of the 75th Anniversary (“75 for 75”).  The appeal had been launched to the general membership via Tibbo’s column in the January/ February issue of Archival Outlook and will be carried through the anniversary year.

The Committee also proposed that, based on the Foundation’s mission statement and SAA’s strategic priorities, the SAAF funding priorities for FY 2011 – FY 2014 focus on providing support for several aspects of professional education and for research that will provide data about the archives profession, archivists, and archival repositories.

MOTION 1

THAT the following funding priorities be adopted for FY 2011 – FY 2014:

Professional Development Priorities:

  • Mosaic Program scholarships, internships, and travel awards directed to increasing the diversity of the profession.
  • Scholarships for graduate archival education.
  • Development of low-cost continuing education opportunities that will reach the entire profession with state-of-the-art information.
  • Opportunities for leadership development for the profession.
  • Opportunities for international exchange and professional development.

Research Priorities:

  • Administration of a profession-wide survey of archivists.
  • Administration of a profession-wide survey of archival repositories. 
  • Fellowship program to support research related to professional issues and practices.

Support Statement:  Based on the Foundation’s mission statement and SAA’s strategic priorities, the SAAF funding priorities for FY 2011 – FY 2014 focus appropriately on providing support for several aspects of professional education and for research that will provide data and information about the archives profession.

Fiscal Impact:   Adoption of the priorities does not per se have any fiscal impact.  Expenses associated with implementation of development activities (including preparation of grant proposals and solicitation of donations) are to be determined.

Move:  Trinkaus-Randall
Second:  Meissner
Aye:  Cline, Felker, Frusciano, Hyry, Lawson, McCrea, Settles, Theimer, Trinakaus-Randall
Abstain:  Richardson
PASSED.

MOTION 2

THAT the Development Plan for FY 2011 – FY 2012, submitted for Foundation Board review at its January 28, 2011, meeting be adopted.

Move:  Felker
Second:  Trinkaus-Randall
PASSED (unanimous).

Support Statement:  The plan for Foundation development provides a general framework for communication with key audiences of prospective donors and funders.  The plan is relatively modest and simple, given the current economic environment as well as the resources available within SAA and the Foundation to implement a development program at this time.

Fiscal Impact:  To be determined.  Expenses for the latter half of calendar year 2011 will be estimated in the FY 2012 budget.

III. DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. Proposed Governance Structure

Much of this discussion item was covered in the Board’s discussion of Agenda Item II.A.  Beaumont and Jurczak will work with legal counsel to ensure that the governance structure embedded in the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws reflects all legal requirements and best practices.

IV. BOARD BUSINESS

A. Adjournment

Trinkaus-Randall moved and Lawson seconded a motion to adjourn. PASSED. The Foundation Board meeting was adjourned at 10:26 a.m.

 

 

Approved by the SAA Council and Foundation Board of Directors on April 7, 2011.