On 1/20/06, J. Michael Pemberton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Despite protestations over the years to the contrary, NHPRC is little
> interested in 100% of the records but only the 3% that are of
> archival quality. NHPRC attends national conferences of SAA and
> discusses projects with interested attendees--ever seen them at
> ARMA.  Nah!  So, what is it about "records mangers need not apply"
> that we're not understanding?
>

There's a LOT that "we're not understanding" if this is the view of NHPRC.

There is presently an ARMA Standards Project that is being done under the
auspices of an NHPRC Grant, which is being managed by Nancy Kunde, CRM. It's
called Conversion and Migration Criteria in Records Keeping Systems and more
information is available here:

http://www.arma.org/standards/development/standardsprogress.cfm

The project is nearing completion, and it's a perfect example of where there
can be a strong and beneficial collaboration between Archivists and RIMs
when there is a common ground identified.  ARMA's Standards Development
Committee is working towards formally establishing this type of a
relationship with SAA's Standard Committee and will hopefully be developing
some additional products that serve both professions.

A well-framed project scope that results in a properly written grant
application (in this case, thanks need to go to Nancy!) can be VERY
attractive to NHPRC and the work being done in many cases directly impacts
records.  I've seen a number of them in the past related to the
preservation, conversion and capture of records belonging to cities,
counties and states... and yes, many of these are in the 3%, but none the
less, they are managed by RIMs.  Their interest not only extends to those
records deemed to be of "Archival quality" but those that have a permanent
retention whose value has yet to be determined.

Larry
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance