As I recall, Deborah Jenkins stressed the need for archivists to be debating
these issues and coming up with coherent ideas to put forward to MLAC (and,
where necessary, coherent reasons for rejecting MLAC's proposals). The
recent discussion has been focused on ways to ensure that all archivists'
views are fully represented in the professional body, which puts forward
representatives to the regional archives councils, which feed in to MLAC.
Given the fact that these issues are rarely debated on the list (and I'm as
guilty as everyone else who went along to the meeting, and then failed to
post up the issues on the list), it is surely important to make the SoA as
representative and as effective as possible.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon McKeon [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 10 February 2000 15:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Business Archives Group
> As someone who is relatively new to the profession I am amazed by the
> of cyber acres people use discussing issues regarding internal SoA
> The nra list serve provides an excellent forum for discussing the wider
> issues that effect the profession, yet these are hardly ever discussed.
> Last week, at the London Region meeting of the SoA, Deborah Jenkins of the
> LMA, raised some very interesting issues regarding the relationship
> the profession and MLAC/DCMS. At a time when archives is being projected
> to the national arena, as never before, surely big issues like this need
> be debated.
> If we don't discuss the big issues and form an opinion on things that
> matter, there is a danger that the 'A' in MLAC will be disregarded.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 2:28 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Business Archives Group
> > I thought list readers and SRG (Specialist Repositories Group) members
> > would
> > like to know that the issue of the structure of the SRG is on the agenda
> > for
> > the SRG AGM. We felt it was relevant to discuss this in light of the
> > Society's restructuring as a whole, and the question of the wide
> > membership of SRG which inevitably means members have some disparate
> > interests and issues. I think one of the issues which is likely to be
> > debated is the question of whether the Society needs more specialist
> > interest groups to cater properly for its members or whether SRG itself
> > could usefully have sub-groups to represent different members'
> > SRG members cover far more than simply university or business
> > and include film, museum/gallery, schools, private families, historic
> > houses, etc. I think the debate is likely to centre on whether it is
> > valuable for these groups to be represented together, to give them a
> > sufficiently strong voice to be heard against the perceived chorus of
> > local
> > authority archivists, or whether business archivists (or any of the
> > groups) really do form such a distinct group that they should separate
> > out.
> > If the idea of separation is favoured, this will surely be relevant to
> > groups other than just business archivists and may lead to a radical
> > re-structuring of the Society as a whole, as Richard has already
> > suggested.
> > As I'm writing this in my role as SRG secretary (although these are my
> > views
> > and have not been endorsed by the committee), I'm sitting firmly on the
> > fence for the purposes of this email but I would like to ask people to
> > give
> > their opinions. So far, the list discussion has been fairly unanimous
> > in
> > it's approval for the idea of a separate group, and all the comment has
> > been
> > from business archivists. It would be interesting to hear what
> > non-business SRG/Society members think: are there local authority
> > archivists
> > out there feeling horribly under-represented and wanting a specialist
> > interest group of their own? I feel very conscious that the issues
> > which I deal professionally are very different from the perceived
> > "typical"
> > SRG member (single person, poorly resourced, etc), and it would be
> > valuable
> > to find out whether SRG members feel they are properly represented on
> > committee and how well they feel SRG serves them. The AGM is on 6
> > at
> > Friends' House in London at 6pm: anyone who can't make that but would
> > to contribute to the debate is welcome to contact me with their views.
> > Also, David Prior and Susan Snell are standing down from the committee,
> > I'd like to take this opportunity to thank them for all their hard work
> > co-chairs over the last three years (their energy is one reason why SRG
> > has
> > grown so much and why we are having this debate) and to invite people to
> > stand for the committee. If you feel SRG doesn't represent your
> > interests,
> > this is your chance to amend that!
> > Incidentally, the AGM notices are going out now but with the wrong
> > phone number for Susan Snell on them (due to a change of jobs for Susan
> > and
> > incompetence on my part): her correct contact number is 0171 942 5507.
> > Lucy Jones
> > BT Archives
> > Third Floor, Holborn Telephone Exchange, 268-270 High Holborn, London
> > 7EE
> > 0171 492 8795
> > [log in to unmask]
> > This message is from the Internet
> "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. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
> swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses".