JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ARCHIVES-NRA Archives


ARCHIVES-NRA Archives

ARCHIVES-NRA Archives


ARCHIVES-NRA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARCHIVES-NRA Home

ARCHIVES-NRA Home

ARCHIVES-NRA  April 2007

ARCHIVES-NRA April 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Parish Surveys

From:

Mike Page <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mike Page <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:25:22 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (127 lines)

Below is a summary of the responses I received to my recently posted
question as to how diocesan record offices were applying the provisions of
the Parochial Registers and Records Measure and how dioceses were
contributing to the funding of the survey work.  Thanks to all those who
replied.

Mike Page
Team Manager, Heritage Stewardship and Preservation,
Surrey History Centre
130 Goldsworth Road
Woking
Surrey, GU21 6ND

Tel: 01483 518756


RESPONSES TO QUERY RE HOW RECORD OFFICES WERE FULFILLING OBLIGATIONS UNDER
PAROCHIAL REGISTERS ANDRECORDS MEASURE

Office 1: responsible for two dioceses, keeps up with quinquennial surveys
and applies two different rates per survey (100 per survey and 500
administration fee each year for one diocese; between 50 and 150 per
survey for the other, depending on parish size).  However dioceses have
agreed that the 2008 survey work can be contracted out, under the
supervision of an archivist.

Office 2: also maintains a full programme, the Diocese paying the salary of
an assistant archivist for 3 years from 1980 to 1983 to undertake the
initial survey of each parish church and to take in all the records over
100 years old.  Thereafter the Diocese agreed to continue to provide the
finance for an archivist one day a week to survey each church every 5
years.  The County Council pays for travelling expenses and clerical and
administrative back-up for the survey.  It also, of course, pays for the
cataloguing and microfilming, where necessary, of the records.

Office 3: the archdeacons are the inspecting officers in the diocese under
the measure and in theory they send copies of the lists they make as part
of the visitation process to the diocesan record office(s) which are then
followed up as necessary.  However the system has not worked well.  The RO
would probably not now take on the burden of inspection without
remuneration.

Office 4: had an inspection programme in the 1980s and early 1990s but
abandoned it partly as a result of the refusal of the diocese to consider
funding; about 25% of the parishes, ancient and modern, were covered.  Now
inspections are done whenever requested and possibility of inspection is
brought to the attention of reluctant depositors.  Only really current
material is left in churches; this means that the inspection has very
little to inspect.  All ancient parishes have deposited.  There is no
prospect, within the context of office's present funding and commitments,
to re-commence inspection.  "It is arguable that the measure did its job
very efficiently in the 1970s and 80s and has succeeded in creating a
different mindset among incumbents and PCCs, who now mostly see deposit
almost as a law of nature. Although it is useful to have it in the
background, I don't think, unfunded, that in 2007 I would regard the
inspection programme envisaged by the Measure as a priority even if I were
running a properly resourced record office".

Office 5: the diocese pays for an archivist to undertake inspections.

Office 6: because of space constraints has not been carrying out surveys
recently as this would inevitably lead to deposits.  Where they have taken
place the diocese has paid 100 per survey.

Office 7: within the same diocese as office 6 and carries out surveys at
the same cost and often reduces overheads by doing more than one survey in
a day.

Office 7: still aims to complete surveys on a roughly quinquennial basis
across its very large diocese.  The diocese pays a fixed sum each year
(initially 3,000, to which inflation is added) which is used to add a day
a week to the Research Archivist post to make it full-time.  Before this
arrangement started, office struggled to do the inspections in ordinary
staff time, but it was impossible to keep up the pace.

Office 8: carried out the initial survey of parishes back in the1970s and
1980s but since then has not been able to maintain a programme.  Occasional
surveys are done when collecting large amounts of records from parishes
that had previously not deposited much.  Staff losses mean this situation
is unlikely to change.  No charge is made.



Office 9: the Diocese reimburses travelling costs incurred in carrying out
the surveys.  The office has "made every effort to fulfil our obligations
but on our own terms". First reasonably comprehensive survey carried out
between 1979 and 1986. Between then and 1997 office simply responded to
approaches from parishes as it was felt demand on resources was too great.
In 1998 a comprehensive second survey was initiated to end in 2008 and
annual targets for the number of Measure surveys are now set.  "I have been
very surprised at what has come in through the second survey. It is evident
that we were not necessarily shown all records on our first survey and I
feel that the resources we have committed have therefore been quite
justified. It has been very worthwhile. However we have done it very much
to suit our resource level at all times and I have made this absolutely
clear to the diocese. We have not yet decided how or if we continue with
further surveys but there are still a number of loose ends to follow up and
this might provide the prioritisation for a 'third' survey programme .....
the surveys are useful in other ways- in getting younger archivists out to
learn the county's geography, in providing them with useful experience of
negotiating with depositors, so building confidence, in teaching them to
cope with surveying in often far from ideal conditions and also in raising
our profile, especially the more that one has to deal with churchwardens or
PCC members".

Office 10: does not consider it is obligated to survey every five years and
targets non-compliant parishes as a priority ... "otherwise we're too busy
to invest too much time is what is, after all, an activity with such
obvious diminishing returns".

I was also referred to an article by Michael Stansfield on parish
inspections in the Society Journal Vol 22 No 2 for October 2001.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This email and any attachments with it are intended for the addressee only.
It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional privilege.  
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender or [log in to unmask]
The content may be personal or contain personal opinions and cannot be taken as an expression of the County Council's position.
Surrey County Council reserves the right to monitor all incoming and outgoing mail.
Whilst every care has been taken to check this outgoing e-mail for viruses, it is your responsibility to carry out any checks upon receipt.

Visit the Surrey County Council website - http://www.surreycc.gov.uk

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager