 |
 |
I want to pick up on Len's reference to FOI (under the heading 'levelling the playing field'). I sent a message to the list a few days ago about the FOI Bill having successfully completed the Parliamentary process. He is quite right to urge records managers/archivists to grapple with the Act and use it as an opportunity to raise their profiles and bring records management in particular to the attention of senior management. Here is your Friday afternoon quiz: * have you read the Bill and considered its implications for your organisation, both as a public authority in its own right and, if applicable, as an archives institution holding other bodies' records that will be covered by the Act? * have you read the draft Lord Chancellor's code of practice and thought about how it matches records management in your organisation? * have you read the draft Secretary of State's code of practice and considered how it will affect your current policies and procedures for dealing with enquiries - and complaints? * have you thought about what you might include in your publication scheme? Lots to do ... If you are new to FOI and want a general introduction to the Bill as it was in September (there have been some changes since) I did a note for the latest issue of Metropolitan Lines, the GLAN Newsletter which is available via the HMC website - go to www.hmc.gov.uk/glan/metlines.htm and then to page 20. If you want to read the current drafts of the codes of practice go to the website of the Home Office's FOI Unit where you will find links to both codes (the Lord Chancellor's right at the foot of the page) www.homeoffice.gov.uk/foi/index.htm Bear in mind that both will be revised further but are certainly worth looking at as they are Happy reading! Susan Healy PRO > ---------- > From: Leonard Mcdonald[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Reply To: Leonard Mcdonald > Sent: 30 November 2000 19:54 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD > > Dear Robert > Thank you for that. I was afraid of writing just what you did because I > might have been considered too Neanderthal in my outlook. Or I would have > been accused of being too RM-orientated (add sniffy comment from county > worthies about business archivists). > What I would like to know is just how active are the archivists in their > heritage departments going to be about grabbing responsiibility for the > FOI > Act? I get the feeling this will be considered too important for an > archivist - someone lost in history, that's all they know about! - and it > will be taken over by some other empire builder - like the Legal > department, > or, since most of the county's written material is on magnetic disks, > Management Services (or whatever their latest titles are). > Archivists are going to have to be very proactive about this and fix up > meetings with Chief Executives. If they feed their thoughts through the > Leisure and Heritage Directorates, they will lose the game. > In the meantime I hope anybody who applies for the Wigan job points out > that > they wont accept it unless it is properly graded. Or better still no > qualified archivist should apply for it, but every county archivist and > the > University departments who teach archivists, should tell Wigan how wrong > they are. > > Leonard McDonald > > 46 Weaver Ave > Rainhill > PRESCOT, Merseyside > Phone: 0151-426 5273 > Mobile: 07775 914796 > e-mail: [log in to unmask] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Chell <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:31 PM > Subject: LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD > > > Although this is not a new issue, I would like to return to the thread > raised > by the recent Wigan advert. > > Whilst Bruce Jackson was correct in suggesting that the issue regarding > the > acceptance of the advert for the Wigan job by the Society should not be > the > subject of open discussion on this list, the comments in Nicholas Webb's > email > of 16 November are disturbing, and are, I think, rightly the concern of > members of the profession in the current cross-domain approach that has > come > to the forefront of government policy through the establishment of > Resource. > The levelling of the playing field can go down as well as up. > > Inexorably since 1974 when it was perhaps the major issue that the Society > sought to address in its Recommendations for Local Government Archive > Services, the succeeding twenty five years have seen local authority > archive > services subsumed into non-executive departments: into Education, > Libraries, > Culture and Heritage, and Leisure and Tourism Directorates and > Departments. > > What concerns me is this coming together of the disciplines in what is now > called the "sector" is identifiying ever more closely archives with > culture > or > cultural property, to the exclusion of what should always be the > archivist's > first task: that of records management, in the true sense of the continuum > management of the records. What constitutes a "record" as opposed to any > other form of information is what sets us as archivists or records > managers > apart from the librarian and the curator: We are essentially dealing with > primary material that is or was, or is going to be, an integral part of a > transaction of business or administration, and is kept because it forms > evidence of that transaction. There is a danger that we take the common > ground of information (to be selected, preserved and accessed) too far. > For > the archivist or records manager, what is recorded is far less important > than > the record of what is transacted, as Sir Hilary Jenkinson, David Bearman > or > Greg O'Shea will tell you. > > Records management is receiving little attention from Resource, although > one > assumes that it will be included in Resource's declared intention of > drawing > up its own agenda for archives, due early in 2001. > > From then on (if we are to believe all that Resource tells us about > archives), > we may well expect progress on the merging of collections within the > sector, > and cross domain working, as authorities like Wigan seek to rationalise > their > human resources and form an integrated cultural services team. > > What appears to be missing is evidence that such integration is good for > the > archives, for archivists and for records managers. At a time when FOI and > the > management of electronic records are setting the agenda for the next ten > years, it is surprising that such issues will be being addressed from > within > departments more accustomed to dealing with sports centres, swimming pools > and > the cultural heritage. > > I would be grateful to hear from anyone with factual or anecdotal evidence > of > the positive or negative outcomes of the effects of such structural > re-alignments of local government archives/records management services, > especially since the latest round of re-organisations (1994 onwards) or in > consequence of the re-structuring of local government under the Local > Government Act 2000. > > If there are enough responses I will summarise for the list > > Robert Chell > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at > http://home.netscape.com/webmail > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------