Dear All,
Here, at long last, are the rather long minutes of the last
meeting of SUSCAG. It is possible that I was a little over
zealous with my notetaking at the meeting, this being the
first time I have ever taken minutes, but it was a very
lengthy day and perhaps the minutes are also a reflection
of this. No doubt by my third meeting I’ll get them down
to half a page!
As you all know the next meeting is planned for 8 January
at the Glasgow School of Art - however this date may
change. I have received a message that the criteria for
bidding may not be ready by that date, as originally
expected, therefore we may need to set the date back a few
weeks. I will let everyone know the latest news as I find
out.
Jacqui Seargeant
Secretary, SUSCAG
-----------------------------------------
Scottish Universities Special Collections and Archives Group
Minutes of Meeting of 28 October 1998
Heriot-Watt University
Present:
Lesley Richmond (Glas: Convenor), Jacqui Seargeant (HWU:
Secretary), Ronald Milne (Director of the Funding Council’s
Research Support Libraries Programme 1998-), Professor
Anderson (Chairman of the Funding Council’s Research
Support Libraries Programme 1998-), Ann Jones (HWU), Pamela
McIntyre (HWU), Brian Kelvin (HWU), Moira Rankin (Glas),
Arnott Wilson (Edin), Murray Simpson (Edin), Rhona Talbot
(Edin), Suzette Bell (Edin), Iain Beavan (Abdn), Margaret
Harrison (Strath), Norman Reid (St.A), Clare McGread (G.
Sch.Art), Stephen Hill (Rob.Gdns), Patricia Whatley
(Dundee), Carole McCallum (G.Cal), Jane Hutcheon
(R.Bot.Gdn).
2 Apologies for absence:
Gordon Willis (Stlg), Colin Will (R.Bot.Gdn), Stuart James
(Paisley), Carol Parry (RCPSG), James Beaton (RCPSG), John
Powles (G.Cal), Peter Asplin (Glas), Ishbel Barnes (SRO),
Jim McGrath (Strath), Roddy MacKenzie (Strath), Ylva
Player-Dahnsjo (Dundee), Carolyn Bain (NTS), Alistair Tough
(GGHB).
3 Minutes of SUSCAG meeting of 25 November 1997 accepted.
It was generally felt that the JISC / HEFCE / SHEFC event
in December last year was well received and contributed to
the continuing programme of Research Library funding.
4 Research Library Support Strategy update by Dr Norman Reid
Dr Norman Reid, member of the Anderson Steering Group,
provided a handout giving up to date details of the
Research Library Support Strategy (see Appendix A) and
welcomed questions and comments from those present.
In order to keep membership numbers of management groups
down, Norman is the only archive member on the Steering
Group, and there are none on the Management Group (see
Appendix B). As a result consultation with colleagues will
be crucial. Norman pointed out that a great deal of the
new round of funding is library orientated, so we will need
to bend the rules to take care of archives. It was
stressed that the new funding is not Follett II and is
therefore not intended as a continuation of current
projects. There is a strong collaborative emphasis, with
each other and outwith the sector.
Ronald Milne (Director of the Funding Council’s Research
Support Libraries Programme) said funding allocations will
be given round about April, and announced at the end of
June so that the Universities budgets have been set and
they don’t dock normal library funds based on this funding.
Norman pointed out that there is still a lot of
uncertainty. Most of the money for archives will be strand
3 (research support for humanities and social sciences
collections), there may be a small amount of continuation
funding for projects that fit the ‘new criteria’, which are
not yet known. Hopefully the new criteria will be
published in late December. Ronald confirmed that the view
of the Academic Community will be taken into account, e.g.
Arts and Humanities Research Board, Focus groups. The HLF
are keen to co-operate with the new funding, but there are
complexities in bringing different strands of funding
together, and this does not look like a realistic option
for the next financial year.
Conservation will come under strand 3 e.g. microfilming and
digitising. There was some debate as to whether
microfilming would be preferred to digitising as some
members felt that digitisation offers more than
preservation microfilming, in terms of access /
accessibility. This aspect of the funding is not set in
stone yet, and our comments will be taken into
consideration.
Iain Beavan pointed out that there was a collection /
resource tension in this new document - the focus is on
‘resource’, rather than named collections as previously. It
was noted that there is a problem with subject bidding if
information is scattered throughout collections, which
might result in only parts of collections being listed.
This could also have implications for staffing and may
create a number of peripatetic archivists.
The Steering Group will meet on 17 December and criteria
will be approved, hopefully letters will be sent out pre
Christmas or early in the New Year. Unlike Follett, where
projects were 1 or 4 years, this time the focus will be on
projects of specific time lengths, e.g. 15 months.
6 Quinquennial Review of Scottish Records Office:
Michael Moss was consulted to make recommendations on
behalf of SUSCAG. The review does not directly concern
University Archives and Special Collections (members can
obtain a copy of Michael’s review from Lesley Richmond).
7 Quinquennial Review of the Scottish Records Advisory
Council
Again Michael Moss was consulted and reported on behalf of
SUSCAG (again members can get a copy from Lesley)
8 Scottish National Archive Policy
Arnott Wilson is the current SUSCAG representative on the
SNAP working party. The SNAP document was previously
launched within the profession (1997) and at the end of
January there will be a re-launch of the SNAP document on a
broader basis than the last time. University Archive and
Special Collections matters are included in the SNAP
document, although it is uncertain as to what will happen
with this in the future. The working party have reconvened
to consider how it can promote the policy and influence the
scope of archive legislation in the forthcoming Scottish
Parliament. It was unanimously agreed to keep Arnott as
our representative on SNAP to ensure continuity.
9 Scottish Archival Mapping Project
There has been concern for some time that archival
institutions in the UK have not made the most of
opportunities available through the HLF grants. A mapping
project was originally carried out in English Local
Authority Record Offices in order to discover what
resources were needed, the results of which went to the HLF
to be used as a standard. This has proven useful in order
to gauge a record office against the UK situation,
therefore the Scottish Region of the Society of Archivists
and the Scottish Record Office decided last year to carry
out a similar survey of Scottish repositories, covering all
archival services and using the same methodology adopted in
England so that the HLF can compare the results. This
should enable us to provide the HLF and other grant
awarding bodies with a comprehensive picture of the
development needs of archive services in Scotland. A
similar project will be carried out in Wales and University
and Special Collections in England.
Lesley informed us that in Scotland there has been a 66%
response rate to the questionnaire, Universities provided a
100% return, and local authorities 85%. Marking will take
60 hours per person on the marking team, therefore the
finish date is still uncertain, but a majority of the
scoring should be complete by the end of the year. It is
hoped that the final report ‘Our Nation’s History: An
Archival account of Scotland’ will be finished by March /
April and published June next year to raise the profile of
archives. Each repository will receive confidential
information of their own score, and general statistics will
be indicated to all. Another survey may be carried out in
the future to see if there are improvements.
10 Archives at the Millennium
The HMC have launched a major enquiry to establish whether
adequate provision is being made for the care and
consultation of the nation’s archives and manuscripts as we
approach the millennium, and to this end asked SUSCAG to
prepare a response with regard to our field of interest.
Suzette Bell volunteered to compile a response if all
members sent her ideas and information. It was felt
important to emphasise the positive aspects of funding,
what has been achieved, in addition to the negative
situation (problems of storage, funding, staff etc.). It
was also suggested that devolution should be mentioned with
regard to whether Scottish policy will diverge from the
rest of Britain.
Ideas were sent to Suzette via the discussion list and the
Secretary was able to send a final SUSCAG response to the
HMC by the end of November (see Appendix C).
11 Michael Anderson
Michael Anderson joined the meeting in the afternoon and
took the opportunity to tell us how he views the new
programme. Points he emphasised were: · The new round of
funding has a run-in, commissioning year which Follett
didn’t have, to allow thinking time. · Retro-conversion
strictly means that - developing current catalogues, and
not cataloguing from scratch. · Academic grounding - we
will need a strong pitch from scholars to receive funding
for the archives of individual institutions. It is still
felt that institutions really should fund their own records
for themselves. · It will be a managed project - seek
expressions of interest, then working on these expressions
of interest, bring in partners like e-Lib. Collaboration
is important in this context. · Cross sector collaboration
is a positive feature, but money can’t be spent in non HEIs
although it can fund infrastructure costs, in principle. ·
The special programme runs for a period then stops, and
can’t roll forward to the next programme. There will only
be a small amount of exit strategy funding for projects of
NFF II. The Dundee Conservation Unit can be helped to get
an exit strategy, but we can’t just keep funding it. (We
all need to put in a collaborative bid for this.)
Murray asked if we can make expressions of interest first
and get feedback as to likely validity, rather than a full
detailed application. Michael said an outline application
will be used first usually, maybe 3 sides of A4. He thinks
they will be asking for an outline of the proposed project
including details of: rough costing, who it involves,
documents involved, target dates, how it relates to
priorities identified.
General concern was expressed as to the use of the
scholarly community to identify valid areas of interest
because there are many resources that they are unaware of.
Clare McGread expressed concern that small institutions may
be overlooked, and Arnott Wilson backed this up by pointing
out the problem with institutional records where HEIs do
not fund archives. Michael said that part of the
preparation work will be to write to all librarians in HEIs
for responses to RE categories, so we need to be sure our
libraries will pass this letter on to the relevant people
in archives and special collections.
Ann Jones asked whether there will be a capital element for
buildings, services, collaboration? Michael said this is
difficult within the sub-headings of his report, therefore
probably not.
Michael suggested that the next round of funding may deal
with any areas missed by this round. In 12 months time
they will start thinking what the next set of priorities
will be for the next again project, so we need to be
thinking now what the next big challenges are.
Michael Anderson then left at about 3pm.
There was general concern about the composition of the
Focus groups but Ronald pointed out that librarians of
institutions will be contacted and librarians and
archivists will chose the academics for the focus groups -
to ensure that those who use the archive facilities are
involved. Focus groups will consist of 3-4 people from
each institution.
Compensation for research use is not a bidding process. A
survey is to be carried out of a random sample of
approximately 5000 academics from the 1996 Research
Assessment exercise. They will be asked to name the 2 most
important libraries in their discipline. A number of
people pointed out that if a library is not well resourced
in the first place it can be overlooked, and Norman agreed
that there is a danger of money simply going to the larger
libraries. He suggested a solution may be to hold back
some money for institutions who don’t qualify initially to
bid for, Ronald said this might be a possibility. While it
was generally felt that it is very difficult trying to
persuade our HEIs to support us, Norman pointed out that
the funding council’s perspective is that they are not
funding departments, they are funding Universities.
If anyone would like to contact Ronald Milne this is where
you can find him: Edinburgh University, Main Library,
George Square, EH8 9JL, telephone 0131 651 1494, email:
[log in to unmask]
12 ‘Towards a Strategic Plan for Lottery Funding for the
Heritage’ HLF report, Oct. 1998.
Lesley suggested SUSCAG should respond to this report.
While the report has some good aspects, it still seems that
Universities are seen as elites, and are at the bottom of
the pile when it comes to HLF. Cathrin Cassarchis has said
that we need to raise the profile of our archive services,
but is there a point if you come from a University Archive
or Library? Iain suggested the HLF needs a stronger focus
on access and accessibility and the problems of
conservation and preservation bids. It was agreed that the
HLF need to re-appraise the low priority of Universities
and persuade them to widen their criteria
Pamela McIntyre volunteered to collate member’s views
(positive and negative) and make a response pointing out
the problems for University Archives and Special
Collections. Pamela subsequently submitted the report to
the HLF (see Appendix D).
Archives On-Line (NCA) - The establishment of a UK Archival
Network NCA Report 1998
This report recommends the creation of a network that aims
ultimately to provide access from a single gateway to all
archival catalogues in the UK. A copy was supposed to be
sent to all heads of repositories on the HMC’s list.
Lesley will circulate summary recommendations to everyone.
They are still considering funding, and how it will work.
SCAN could be the prototype.
National Networking Authority File
Following the establishment of the NCA Rules and ISAAR
(CPF) the archive and library communities are now
considering access points to the National Network of
information. There was some concern that there are already
authority files and we need to be careful not to repeat
what has already been done. Lesley reassured everyone that
the British Library and the Bodleian Library are involved,
and the new initiative would build on material from
previous authority files. The working group will report
back to the archive community at Easter.
Next Meeting
The next meeting of SUSCAG will be in January at Glasgow
School of Art. In the meantime we all need to think about
collaborative ideas. As was the case with the last round
of funding, there will be very little time for bids
(estimated 6-8 weeks).
End of meeting
--------------------------------------
Appendices
--------------------------------------
Appendix A - Report by Dr Norman Reid
Research Library Support Strategy
1. Under the chairmanship of Professor Michael Anderson
(and following the report of the committee he chaired in
1995/6), a new research libraries support programme is
being established. Both Steering Group ("to provide
strategic management for the development and implementation
of the programme") and Management Committee ("to support
the Steering Group in overseeing the implementation of the
programme") have been appointed, and have met. The
programme will be administered from an office in Edinburgh.
2. Broad parameters of the programme, as so far
established, are summarised below. It is worth emphasising
the important point that although the need for continued
support has been highlighted by the present 'Follett'
funding, and although in a sense this programme has grown
out of the current one, it should not be seen as a
straightforward successor to it. This is not "Follett II".
It will be a distinctly different programme, in terms of
its aims, the type of project it funds, and the management
of the programme as a whole. The model for this programme
will be closer to 'e-Lib' than to 'Follett'. It is
therefore crucial not to expect that there will be
continuation funding for projects currently running. 3.
There will be four main strands of funding: · support for
access by researchers to major library holdings
this strand is to help libraries with the costs of
providing research facilities for academics from
other institutions. This money will be allocated on the
basis of a survey of research use, and will not be
available for bidding. The precise mechanism for
awarding it has yet to be finalised. · collaborative
collection management projects this might include
cross-sectoral projects (e.g. involving the local authority
sector), aimed at achieving, for example, distributed
national collections in key subject areas. In the
first instance this will probably take the form of a
limited number of demonstrator projects. · research
support for humanities and social science collections
this is the strand which is most closely related to the
current programme. Bids will be invited to index
and catalogue major collections; there will be selective
retro-conversion projects; an element of preservation
and/or access microfilming and digitisation; and possibly
transitional and exit funding for current projects.
The number of projects which are liable to receive
continuation funding will be very limited indeed. The
subject areas of projects will be prioritised through
a consultative process involving researchers and
scholarly bodies etc., and it is recognised that there will
have to be scope also for identification of relevant
material by its custodians. In this context, it is
worth noting that high-level descriptions of many
collections are more likely to be favoured than detailed
listing of a few. Application of relevant standards will a
key issue. · targeted retrospective conversion of
catalogues a certain amount of retrospective catalogue
conversion will continue - but in a focused way, and in
areas related primarily to the priorities identified in the
previous two categories.
Much of the agenda is clearly library-based. It is
recognised that for some of the funding strands, the
criteria will have to be applied flexibly to suit the
differing requirements of archival collections.
4. The Management Committee is currently drawing up details
of the criteria for bidding for funds, which should be
considered (and, hopefully, approved) by the Steering Group
at its next meeting, in December. 5. Timetable: the
criteria for bidding is currently under discussion. It is
likely that this will be finalised in December, and
invitations to bid be invited for February application, the
awards to be announced in April for a 1 August start.
Running for up to 4 years (with reduced funding in the
final year, for a run-down). NHR 27/10/98
------------------------------------------------
Appendix B - RSLP Committee Members
Management Committee
Professor Michael Anderson (Edinburgh)
Dr David Baker (UEA)
Mr Graham Bulpitt (Sheffield Hallam)
Mr Andrew Green (NLW)
Mr Paul Hubbard (Funding Councils)
Mr Derek Law (Strathclyde)
Ms Lynne Brindley (Leeds)
(Ms Gill Davenport and Mr Ronald Milne also attend
meetings, but are not officially members of the Management
Committee, nor of the Steering Group, which oversees the
Management Committee and the Programme Office)
Steering Committee
Management committee members plus:
Sarah Arber (ESRC)
David Bradbury (BL)
John Feather (Loughborough)
Peter Fox (Cambridge)
Margaret Haines (LIC)
Nicholas Mann (British Academy)
Norman Reid (St Andrews)
Bernard Naylor (Southampton)
Tom Watson (Central Library, Belfast)
plus Funding Council officials
--------------------------------------------
Appendix C - Archives at the Millennium
27 November 1998
Dr C. Kitching
Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts
Quality House, Quality Court
Chancery Lane
LONDON
WC2A 1HP
Dear Dr Kitching,
Archives at the Millennium
On behalf of the Scottish Universities Special Collections
and Archives Group (SUSCAG) I am writing with comments
about the above consultation document. I apologise for the
delay in our response, but as I have already explained this
was unavoidable and we are grateful for the extension.
As you know, Scottish university archives and special
collections possess a rich and diverse array of heritage
material of national and local significance. Specific
detail of this material can be found in the recent JISC
publication ‘Accessing our Cultural Heritage’ and the
SUSCAG publication ‘Ensuring Scotland's Cultural Heritage’.
While there have been exciting developments in university
archives and special collections over the past few years,
it is undeniable that the future looks somewhat bleak and
uncertain. Storage, management, cataloguing, conservation,
access, publicity and promotion are all at risk from a
general paucity of funding in this sector.
Of particular concern is the low level of recurrent funding
which is allocated to special collections and archives
holdings in HEIs. The tremendous boost given to these
collections in the last few years by the distribution of
funding under the Follett initiative has served both to
raise awareness of the strength of these collections for
researchers and to improve physical access to the records,
as well as encouraging developments in IT which have
improved on-line access to these collections.
However this funding has also raised awareness of the gaps
in long-term funding provision, and our resulting inability
to make long term strategies in caring for our collections.
In addition project work has encouraged a proliferation of
short term contract work for archive and special
collections staff. There is further concern with regard to
its impact and correlation with core institutional staff.
Such staff must spend time working with these projects to
ensure a degree of continuity, which is necessary for
adherence to locally devised and national standards so that
they can be successfully integrated, however due to other
pressures this is often not possible. While raised user
expectations will continue after the funding runs out, it
is difficult to see how demand can be met once institutions
return to their original inadequate core funding. Access
seems once again destined to decline.
The HMC has already recognised the central importance of
the role of University repositories and special collections
departments in acquiring and caring for archives and
manuscripts of national and local significance. The HMC
proposals to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and
Principals in 1997, which recognised the problems faced by
University repositories, was recently re-inforced by the
survey commissioned by JISC and undertaken by TFPL ‘Study
of the Archival Records of British Universities’ Oct 1997.
While we are grateful for the support and encouragement
offered by the HMC in these matters, no Scottish University
archive or special collection repository currently meets
all the criteria used in the HMC inspections for approved
status.
Furthermore, within the HMC framework there are calls to
increase both education and access and yet there is an
apparent contradiction between the HMC’s desire to have a
strategic plan to use lottery funding for the UK heritage
sector and the HLF perception that the University sector
should not attract such funding. SUSCAG hopes that in the
future HEI repositories will be more successful in their
bids for lottery funding, in order to enable their
Institutions to offer greater access to the wider
educational community, as these collections become more
widely known and appreciated. We strongly welcome the
opening of a local HLF office for Scotland, to be situated
in Edinburgh, as this will hopefully prove very helpful for
the development of this stream of funding.
On a similarly positive note SUSCAG welcome the lottery
mapping exercise commissioned by the HMC, Public Record
Office and Scottish Record Office. This should enable the
development of a coherent national archives strategy which
will benefit both the archive community and its users.
Finally, and of particular relevance to the Scottish
sector, is the advent of the new Scottish Parliament, and
any subsequent changes this may bring to the archival
establishment. SUSCAG wonders whether devolution will
affect the HMC’s representation of Scottish archives, and
whether they will still receive funding to support the work
of Scottish repositories. It is hoped that the new
parliament will provide a new act that will give us a
firmer platform on which to develop services.
SUSCAG looks forward to working with the HMC in order to
develop future strategies of benefit to the nation’s
archives and special collections.
Yours sincerely
Jacqueline M Seargeant
Secretary, SUSCAG
-----------------------------------------------
Appendix D - ‘Towards a strategic plan for lottery funding
for the heritage - response’
30 November 1998
Mr Simon Olding
Director of Heritage Policy
Heritage Lottery Fund
7 Holbein Place
London
SW1W 8NR
Dear Mr Olding,
Towards a strategic plan for lottery funding for the
heritage
On behalf of Scottish Universities Special Collections
and Archives Group (SUSCAG) I am writing with comments
about the above consultation document. SUSCAG would like
to congratulate the HLF on its successes so far, and to
thank the Directors for the chance to comment on the
proposed HLF strategic document.
Firstly, we will comment on the areas you specifically
mention:
Assessment of Need
SUSCAG agrees that this Strategic Plan is a positive
step towards the development of an understanding of
‘need’ across the sectors. This development will also be
helped by the initiative of the Historical Manuscripts
Commission, the Public Record Office and the Scottish
Record Office in commissioning a Lottery Mapping
Exercise. We welcome the opportunity to be involved in
other surveys to identify needs.
Objectives
SUSCAG agrees with the framework of objectives,
especially with the HLF’s priorities for facilitating
access for education. However, flexibility must be
maintained. Although HEI’s are responsible for these
aspects as part of their main function, HLF funds could
allow greater exploitation of the diverse and exciting
collections in our care. For example projects which work
with schools, museums, galleries, local groups etc.
could develop links between the HEI’s and local
communities, and allow the greater exploitation of our
collections to a wider audience outwith the academic
remit of the HEI’s.
Strategic Priorities
SUSCAG welcomes the decision that the HLF will not look
back to previous applications to determine the pattern
of support, as Archives and Libraries have been
seriously neglected in the past. We are also pleased
that although the actual amount of funding available
through the HLF has reduced, the strategic document sets
out figures for Archives and Libraries which increase
the previous allocation of £10m to £18 m 1998 - 2001,
£19m in 2000/1, and £20 m in 2001/2. We are aware of the
need to justify this budget by ensuring a consistent
flow of high quality applications, and look forward to
this challenge.
We are concerned that HEI Archives and Libraries fall
between two sources of possible funding allocation:
education and culture. Again, we ask that the HLF
retains its flexibility when assessing applications, and
asks that it ensures that HEI applications are not left
to fall between the two possible allocations.
New Initiatives
SUSCAG agrees with the value of the Archives on-line
project, however, would like to stress that this project
should not be seen as the solution to all problems. The
recent Follett funding has allowed some HEI’s to improve
cataloguing, standards and access but further funding is
required. Preservation and conservation requirements are
still considerable.
The recent report commissioned by JISC, undertaken by
TFPL ‘Study of the Archival Records of British
Universities’ Oct. 1997, paints a sorry picture of the
conservation and preservation needs in Archives and
Special Collections. I would suggest that the HLF
incorporates this document’s findings in its strategic
plan.
We ask that the Archives On - Line project is viewed
with these on-going needs in mind, and that further
projects - like the one suggested above - are
established to allow HEI’s to continue the good work
started through the Follett funding.
Regional and Country Strategies
SUSCAG is very pleased to note that there will soon be
an opening of a local office for Scotland, to be
situated in Edinburgh, which will eventually be staffed
by Country Committees. The production by these staff of
a separate strategic plan for Scotland is a very
positive step.
Additionally, SUSCAG would like to submit the following
comments.
We agree with the HLF for the need to raise the general
awareness of heritage issues. The strategic document
states that the HLF will “ work in partnership with
heritage bodies and others, including Local Government
and Higher Education Departments, in this task of
facilitating or stimulating debate at where possible the
cutting edge...” pg. 20. SUSCAG welcomes the opportunity
to contribute to any debate, and to collaborate with
others to create a framework to make all institutions
take steps to ensure the survival and accessibility of
their heritage.
We agree with the HLF of the need to work in partnership
with other grant funding bodies. An ideal opportunity
would be to work alongside the new bids for funding from
the second round of Follett funding. However, we
understand that the timetabling does not mean that this
is practicable. SUSCAG would welcome the opportunity to
apply to such partnerships in the future.
The diversity and richness of the material held in
archives and special collections throughout Scottish
HEI’s feature in the recent JISC publication ‘Accessing
our Cultural Heritage’ plus our own publication
‘Ensuring Scotland’s Cultural Heritage’. We hope that in
the future, as our collections become more widely known
about and appreciated, SUSCAG will be successful in
bidding for lottery funding, in order to enable access
to the wider education community.
Yours sincerely,
Jacqueline M Seargeant
Secretary,
Scottish Universities Special Collections and Archives
Group
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jacqueline M Seargeant
Archivist
University Archive
Corporate Communications
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 3638
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
