Responsibility Belongs Not Just to the Individual

I have been sitting on this blog post a long time.

I grew up in a small community of conservative citizens who took responsibility personally. Not just personal responsibility (no pun intended here), but also professional responsibility. Doctors still made house calls to infirm patients, lawyers still did pro bono work with no complaints, pharmacists dispensed medication at discounts that the poor could afford, teachers still tutored at-risk students after school for no extra pay. I grew up thinking that whatever profession I was going to be in (at the time it was the Bar) that I would take my responsibility as a professional to heart and give back.

Giving back is one of the marks of a profession. Every profession needs a set of particular skills, a code of ethics, and standards of practice. But the fourth necessity is giving back. Realizing this myself, I have tried in the past to give here some thoughts about the responsibility of archivists toward the outside, the "others" in our communities.

I see a lot of giving back, too. From the archivist who goes out and gives community presentations like how to do basic conservation on books to the archivist who works hard to get public legislation like PAHR passed to help preserve our nation's historical identity. As individual archivists, we give a lot, and I know that if we totalled all those hours we spend helping others do "archival" things, outside of the archives, then we'd probably rack up millions of person-hours a year in volunteering our expertise to the community. But there is another aspect of professionalism that is neglected by archivists, I'm sorry to say.

Archival professional organizations should advocate not just in regards to legislation (like PAHR), but also in helping citizens gain access to the records of citizens. You may have guessed that this post is really about the Presidential Libraries and their lack of taking responsibility to help out persons like Anthony Clark. But it really is not about that - it is about SAA and other national archival organizations putting their money and person-power where their mouths are. And, yes, I count myself among the "their" and "they" when I speak.

The Society of American Archivists is a professional organization and has a responsibility, I believe, to go out and work for better records standards and policies in the United States. When someone is having problems with an archives or archivist, be it NARA or someone else, then SAA should step up and work toward a resolution.

In the past, I have used this blog to call the SAA leadership to task, telling them that we have a duty to go out and advocate for Anthony Clark and other researchers having a hard time with NARA. But I may have misspoken or used the wrong word. Maybe "duty" is too strong, or it is something that appeals only to a subset of archivists who feel a certain way and the SAA leadership does not feel that way or are not a part of that subset of archivists.

So I am going to re-frame my plea here. It is the responsibility of every citizen archivist to go out and give back to the community, as I have said most (if not more than most) of us already do. But it is also the responsibility of SAA, as a collective of individual archivists, to go out and advocate for records legislation and records policies that reflect the growing and evolving state of records access in the United States.

I am not asking SAA to become involved in only the Anthony Clark matter. But why can't SAA act as a mediator in disputes between researchers and archives, especially in cases where a gross negligence is alleged by the researcher? The AHA did it for a researcher at the Roosevelt library, so why can't SAA do it for Clark and others at the Presidential Libraries?

Why is it so hard to move this organization from a place of comfort and complacency, where education of members is so high class, to a place where we put our education to work for others? Why is it so hard to see that we not only have responsibilities as individual archivists, but also as a group of archivists?

I am going to paraphrase an old story I heard a long time ago, putting into the context of records access. It may be cliche, it may be trite, it may be obscene, but I think it is necessary:

A man walked up to me and told me they were denying Anthony Clark access to records. I said, "it's not me, so why should I care"? and moved on. Another man walked up to me later and told me they were denying access to records for anyone not a government employee. I said "I'm not one, so what do I care?" and moved on. Then I went to retrieve some records and was told I was not allowed access. No one was around for me to complain to - they had all been denied access, too.

We need to wake up and get moving and help NARA and Anthony Clark find a resolution, not just for Clark, but for all future researchers at the Presidential Libraries. Then . . . then we need to move ahead and help others who have similar problems elsewhere. Let's put our actions into play, our money where our mouths are. Who will join me?

SAA Offers Intensive Learning on Electronic Records

I have been asked to post this. Such an exciting opportunity for anyone who can do it.

Electronic Records “Summer Camp”

Where? University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

When? July 27 though July 31

Early discount available through May 26!

If you are an archivist with a good understanding of archival principles and techniques who needs basic, practical, hands-on training to apply those principles to records in electronic form, you won’t want to miss this opportunity! After the introduction to electronic records and the components of an electronic records program, you’ll discuss each major archival function—appraisal and disposition, accessioning, arrangement, description, preservation, and access—and view a demonstration of some of the relevant technologies, discuss the archival implications of what you just saw, and participate in hands–on exercises using the demonstrated technologies with electronic records from your home institution. Before you leave “Summer Camp” you’ll develop a plan for the next steps to take when you return to your institution.

Seven great instructors lend their expertise and talent to this learning experience!

For more details and to register, click on the title above. If your browser doesn’t accommodate the URL, go to http://www.archivists.org and access the education calendar under the education & events menu.

Questions? Please contact us at education@archivists.org or (toll free) at 866.722.7858.

Archivists, Catholic Archivists, and Canon Law

I stumbled upon something recently that I found very interesting.

It is no secret to readers of this blog that I am a Catholic. There is an organization of archivists called the Association of Catholic Diocesan Archivists. They are a national archival organization that has members from 129 of the 195 dioceses and archdioceses in the United States. The ACDA has 239 members listed in its online membership directory, of which only seventeen are certified archivists.

Let me stop here and give some definitions:

Diocese - an administrative territorial unit administered by a bishop. In the United States a diocese may be one entire state or there may be more than one diocese in a state. Some states like Wyoming are an entire diocese. Each diocese contains multiple parishes.

Archdiocese - a larger diocese administered by an archbishop.

Parish - a local ecclesiastical unit containing a church building or chapel. Some parishes in rural regions are an entire county, but some cities have dozens or parishes within the city limits, sometimes only blocks apart and less than a square mile in size.


What did I stumble upon? In the 2009 issue of their newsletter, the ACDA notified its members that the Vatican has called for comments to a proposed update to the Code of Canon Law, the body of ecclesiastical laws that governs the administration of the Catholic Church, its archdioceses and dioceses, their parishes, and Catholic clergy, religious (nuns and brothers), and laypeople.

The Code covers diocesan archives in canons 486 to 491. Here are the relevant canons;

Can. 486
§1. All documents which regard the diocese or parishes must be protected with the greatest care.
§2. In every curia there is to be erected in a safe place a diocesan archive, or record storage area, in which instruments and written documents which pertain to the spiritual and temporal affairs of the diocese are to be safeguarded after being properly filled and diligently secured.
§3. An inventory, or catalog, of the documents which are contained in the archive is to be kept with a brief synopsis of each written document.

Can. 487
§1. The archive must be locked and only the bishop and chancellor are to have its key. No one is permitted to enter except with the permission either of the bishop or of both the moderator of the curia and the chancellor.
§2. Interested parties have the right to obtain personally or through a proxy an authentic written copy or photocopy of documents which by their nature are public and which pertain to their personal status.

Can. 488
It is not permitted to remove documents from the archive except for a brief time only and with the consent either of the bishop or of both the moderator of the curia and the chancellor.

Can. 489
§1. In the diocesan curia there is also to be a secret archive, or at least in the common archive there is to be a safe or cabinet, completely closed and locked, which cannot be removed; in it documents to be kept secret are to be protected most securely.
§2. Each year documents of criminal cases in matters of morals, in which the accused parties have died or ten years have elapsed from the condemnatory sentence, are to be destroyed. A brief summary of what occurred along with the text of the definitive sentence is to be retained.

Can. 490
§1. Only the bishop is to have the key to the secret archive.
§2. When a see is vacant, the secret archive or safe is not to be opened except in a case of true necessity by the diocesan administrator himself.
§3. Documents are not to be removed from the secret archive or safe.

Can. 491
§1. A diocesan bishop is to take care that the acts and documents of the archives of cathedral, collegiate, parochial, and other churches in his territory are also diligently preserved and that inventories or catalogs are made in duplicate, one of which is to be preserved in the archive of the church and the other in the diocesan archive.
§2. A diocesan bishop is also to take care that there is an historical archive in the diocese and that documents having historical value are diligently protected and systematically ordered in it.
§3. In order to inspect or remove the acts and documents mentioned in §§1 and 2, the norms established by the diocesan bishop are to be observed.


As you can see from reading these, there are three different types of archives in a diocese. The first contains the vital records of the diocese and its parishes. For most, as I understand it, this includes property deeds, inventories of valuable assets, charters, and the like. The second type of archives is called the "secret archives" and its contents are known to and accessible only by the bishop. The third type of archives is the historical archives, which documents the history of the diocese, including the parishes and the people who served/worked there.

I have three suggestions for any modifications, things most of you probably thought of when you read the canons above:

First, You will notice that there is no mention of records management, though canon 489 does give a retention schedule for some kinds of documents in the secret archives. I think some sort of records management provisions need to be included in the Code, even if it is only a statement that each diocese will have a retention schedule set up for diocesan and parish records. This is already the practice in many dioceses in the United States and, I'm sure, elsewhere, too.

Second, There is no authority in canon law for a bishop, chancellor, or archivist to mandate that records of a parish be sent to a diocesan archives for safekeeping. One thing I think is vital to any change to these canons is some type of authority to require parish records of a certain age (say, 100 years old and older) to be transferred to the diocesan archives. The reasons? First, parishes are not equipped and their staff are not trained to deal with the preservation of old records and they store them in unacceptable places, as anyone who has seen Lee Leumas' presentation on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina's devastation to the parish records of the Archdiocese of New Orleans will remember. Second, older records have a habit of disappearing and having a central location that is security protected will safeguard these records from theft.

And the third area that I think needs to be covered are electronic records. Some canon or other needs to be amended or inserted into the Code to call for separate provisions in a diocese for the retention, disposition, and preservation of electronic records.

I just wanted to present to my readers this very interesting aspect of archives that we don't hear much about in our world. I have made three small suggestions that I am sure have already been thought of by many people in the ACDA and elsewhere. This may be an issue to follow in the long-term.

Epidemiology and Archives (Or, Should We Get Vaccinated?)

Everyone knows about the H1N1 (formerly "Swine") influenza virus scare circling the globe. Today, as I was driving to the public library to pay my bi-weekly share to the library general fund (aka, overdues fines), I mused a bit on the responsibility of archivists in regard to vaccinations of all types.

In my first archives job, as a lowly student work study, we had to all make sure our tetanus shots were updated. We handled a lot of metal, for some reason, usually in the form of old, rusty file cabinets with sharp edges that could slice your finger open like the belly of a gutted fish. So we all made sure we were updated. The rules of that archives called for a 5-year update (allowed by medical standards of practice) rather than the customary 10-year update. When I began my first job as a professional archivist six and a half-years ago, I required the same for all my staff, graduate assistants, interns, and volunteers. But today I asked myself: is there anything else that should be done?

I grew up in the American Southwest. Weather conditions there are so dry that one could echo M*A*S*H's Hawkeye in saying it is "so dry it is un-wet." As I was entering the archives field, a big fear in this region of the world was the hantavirus, a family of viruses transmitted through rodent droppings. A Google search turned up a few good hits about a vaccine for this family of viruses, including the U.S. patent number, but it was unclear in reading through a dozen or so of the links as to whether the vaccine is actually available in the United States. If it is, and knowing that in the Southwest the hantavirus is present in rat droppings, and knowing that rat droppings are found in boxes of old papers from our donor's attics, should archivists in the Southwest get the hantavirus vaccine administered to them?

I was once on a plane sitting next to an epidemiologist and she told me that the number of virus types in the world is astronomical in number and we know so little about how each affects humans. This was scary. She said the best places for viruses to live are in porous surfaces such as textiles and unfinished, untreated wood. I asked her, "and paper, too"? and she replied, "yes, especially paper." The good doctor went on to tell me that viruses can live in a dormant state for centuries, perhaps longer, and that paper kept in hot, dry places (or, she said, in relation to some viruses, cool, wet places) is a perfect place for viruses to hide. She did not give me examples of particular viruses that hide in paper, but isn't this a scary thought - that we archivists risk getting a virus each time we open a box of old papers? Now, to be fair, this doctor also told me that most viruses we come into contact with are harmless to humans and our bodies develop immunities to some of them that can help us down the road. But, really, should we be vaccinated against as many viruses as we can?

As I was driving home from the library (they having gladly taken my money), I asked myself about natural disasters and records recovery. What risks did my friends Lee Leumas, Anne Bolton, and Lisa Lewis, as well as some of my library school classmates, take when they worked on recovering the records from Hurricane Katrina? What are Anne and Lisa risking now that they are working on recovering records damaged in Hurricane Gustav? What viruses were the Cologne Archives recovery workers exposed to? Are any of these harmful? Were any of these people required to stand in line and get vaccinated for all possible viruses they may come into contact with? Has any archivist ever done this?

I have PDF copies of all the articles in the ten English-language archives journals and a detailed look at them revealed zero articles in regard to protecting ourselves from diseases. I'd like to find some, or find someone who had knowledge of viruses (much more than my layman's knowledge, that is) who might want to write an article about this for archivists, in order to educate us on the dangers, if any, of working with papers that might have little viruses living in the pores of the paper.

The H1N1 virus is a public health issue for the world, but is there also a public health issue for archivists from other viruses?