Chirman Bell called the meeting to order at 12:18 p.m. with a bit of sad news. The longtime Chairman of the Hall of Records Commission, Robert C. Murphy, passed away this morning at 2:00 a.m. He was the the former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for 24 years. He served with great distinction and was a friend to all of us. A moment of silence was observed.Attendees and Introduction of Special Guests
Dr. Papenfuse shared a letter of condolence he wrote to Mrs. Murphy this morning as follows:"Over the past twenty-seven years that I have been at the Archives, whenever I had a tough problem to face or needed good advice, I could always turn to Bob. Even in these last years of illness, he continued to express interest in the Archives and took the time to call last April when he was unable to attend the Hall of Records Commission meeting to which he had been invited.
"Without his good humor and steadfast support, we would not have the building or the archival program we have today. I relish the exchanges he used to have with Louis, Bill James, Jack Lapides and more recently Mike Miller. He had a gift of working well with everyone, but especially with those who at times strongly disagreed with him, forging alliances and compromises that more often than not proved beneficial to the courts and to the public at large. But far more important than all that to me, was being able to count on him as a mentor and friend.
"I know how painful a time this must be for you and the family, but at least his suffering is at an end, and he can rejoin Bob Sweeney for an eternal banter on the state of the world. They should keep the heavens in stitches, and the thought of it should keep the rest of us smiling through the tears of our loss."
Chairman Bell welcomed Mr. James F. Getty, the Chief of Information Technology at the Department of General Services. He also welcomed and thanked John Lyon, a volunteer at the Archives, who has done a great deal to assist the work of the Hall of Records Commission. Mr. Lyon will give a demonstration later in the meeting.
Dr. Papenfuse invited the Commission members to look at the Records Retention and Disposal Schedules. They basically outline what has been received since the last meeting in the way of requests to dispose of records and how those disposals were handled.
Upon motion by Secretary Richkus and seconded by Ms. Kronk, the Records Retention and Disposal Schedules were unanimously approved as presented, the Chairman concurring.
Next, Mr. Lyon demonstrated the Somerset Mapping Project to the Commission.
He said this activity began several years ago as part of his own geneology
work. This is a wonderful application of some simple, easy-to-use
commercial software. Mr. Lyon is funding one half of the two summer
interns that worked on this project to come back on their winter break
in January to continue work on this project.
Next, Dr. Papenfuse introduced one of the newer members of the Archives' staff, Dave Shackelford, who has been working assiduously gathering the basic record material related to documenting Maryland's ownership along the Potomac, as well as a number of questions related to previous court cases that had anything to do with ownership of the Potomac. For example, in order to understand this case, you have to understand the history of the C&O and Potomac Canals. Dr. Papenfuse designed a web site for the Attorney General's Office where the lawyers and researchers are working interactively in developing the case. All of this material can be available interactively to the Master who has been assigned by the Supreme Court as evidence from Maryland. Because of his position as State Archivist, Dr. Papenfuse can certify everything that is in the web site; therefore, the paper that usually accumulates will not be part of this trial.
Finally, Dr. Papenfuse estimates the need for approximately $238,000 for this year alone in order to pay for the web site, get the materials online and get the lawyers working interactively with it (which they are already doing). If this research is not done, there is a good chance Maryland will lose this case. Dr. Papenfuse will be bringing this budgetary issue before Eloise Foster, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), tomorrow.
The question was asked whether the motion involved funding, and Dr. Papenfuse answered in the affirmative. He advised that the estimate per year for the whole case is $1 million. The estimate for the Archives part is $238,000 this year and roughly $100,00 per year from here on out to provide the necessary research and documentary support. Secretary Richkus noticed that Dr. Papenfuse worked with Carmen Shepard in developing his estimate and Dr. Papenfuse answered in the affirmative. He said most of the money will be taken out of the Department of the Environment's budget, but the research side has been allocated to the Archives. Dr. Phillips asked where this money would be coming from, and Dr. Papenfuse stated out of the General Fund. This year it would come out of the Board of Public Works' contingency fund, but next year it would be part of the appropriation process before the legislature. Ms. Kronk asked if Dr. Papenfuse had DBM support, and Dr. Papenfuse said not at the moment but it will be discussed with Secretary Foster tomorrow. Dr. Phillips asked how the amount was determined, and Dr. Papenfuse reported that a careful analysis was done of how much it would cost to create the web site, how much it would cost in staff to do the research and he personally conducted time and motion studies with regard to how much would have to be done to begin documenting this case. Additionally, Dr. Papenfuse has personally invested approximately 250 hours of his own time to develop programs not accounted for in this request for reimbursement. Secretary Richkus asked how much of the estimate relates to with web site portion, and Dr. Papenfuse responded a relatively small portion. Mr. Allan explained that the web site is already built. The development cost would be small, i.e. around $20,000 to begin with, and then depending on what software is needed to provide those doing the research, the costs will increase. The primary expense is just people to look at the material (over one million documents in our collection). Not everything will be scanned and posted but will at least need to be considered. Equipment costs are very nominal. Secretary Richkus asked if Carmen Shepard had an estimate of what it would cost to do it the normal way in terms of the paper processes and how does that compare with this that theoretically should be a cost savings. Dr. Papenfuse explained that expert witnesses charge $400 per hour for testimony, $200 per hour for evidence and $50 per hour for research assistance.
At 1:45 p.m., the Commission went into executive session at which time Dr. Papenfuse showed the members the privileged web site he created. Using the Compact of 1785 as an example, he demonstrated how the lawyers can add notes/comments and share them among themselves. He also demonstrated two search programs he created using "George Mason." When this case is over, this will become a public web site. What Dr. Papenfuse is asking for is a pittance compared to what lawyers usually charge and also represents something that has lasting value. Senator Miller asked Dr. Papenfuse if he had a contract to do the work before the work was performed, and Dr. Papenfuse argued that he has provided the model that shows how it ought to be done. Secretary Richkus asked if Dr. Papenfuse had a letter from the Attorney General to Secretary Foster in support of this request. Dr. Papenfuse responded that Secretary Foster has already had this discussion with Carmen Shepard, but he has no idea of how they actually handled it. Referring back to Secretary Richkus' question, Mr. Kenderdine asked if this were not an alternative, would the course of action have been to the Attorney General's Office, themselves, going to Secretary Foster and the Governor for a similar budget enhancement in order to bring on additional staff. Dr. Papenfuse said that Carmen Shepard did an overview of what she thought the case was going to cost based on what previous cases have cost which is $1 million a year for the next four to five years. Secretary Richkus stated that since the bulk of the money is for the people and not the web site, using the 80-20 rule just for rule of thumb, then $800,00 is for 3 1/2 people. Dr. Papenfuse explained that the package was $238,000 to get started and from that point on it is $137,000 for FY 2002, $81,000 for FY 2003, $83,000 for FY 2004 and $75,000 for FY 2005. Mr. Allan said the first two years are very expensive, a large portion of the cost being research. Secretary Richkus asked if these requests are for permanent pins, and Dr. Papenfuse advised that they are all contractual and slated to end in the sense that the permanent staff allocated to this project will go back to their original positions. Secretary Richkus restated what she thinks is being proposed (she has a copy of Dr. Papenfuse's letter to Secretary Foster), i.e., Dr. Papenfuse and Carmen Shepard have estimated that in the normal way it would be costing the State $1 million a year for the four years estimated of the case and you are asking for instead of the $1 million. Dr. Papenfuse interjected to explain that our portion of the $1 million cost is in this letter. If you decide not to do the research this way, Dr. Papenfuse guaranteed that it will cost $1.5 to $2 million a year to get this work done by expert witnesses. Senator Miller asked if there was a letter from the Attorney General, and Dr. Papenfuse responded that it was handled verbally. While Senator Miller agrees with what Dr. Papenfuse is doing he feels the Attorney General's office should be present at the meeting stating that this is what is needed to win the case. Judge Bell said that the Commission should support Dr. Papenfuse's request so that when it goes before the budget committee, we can say the Attorney General should get the funding.
What Dr. Papenfuse has laid out are reasonable costs to get the research done. He is asking for support for pursuing funding for those reasonable costs independently of whatever the Attorney General's Office does. If the Attorney General's Office decides not to do it, the Archives will not need the funding. What Dr. Papenfuse was asked to do is create a model of research, show how that research would be done, say what the resources were necessary order to get the research done, go before the budget people and advise them of how much it would cost. Dr. Papenfuse met with both Joe Curran and Carmen Shepard they encouraged him to create this as a part of the Attorney General's whole package. The question before the Commission is tomorrow when Dr. Papenfuse goes before Secretary Foster, does he say the Commission thinks he should be doing this or has doubts about whether it should be done?
Secretary Richkus asked what has been expended to date and Dr. Papenfuse responded approximately $60,000-$70,000. She next asked if the Attorney General's Office would be willing to pay for this since they have a vested interest in the development of the model. Mr. Allan said that the Archives originally thought it was going to be doing this directly for the Attorney General and they would defray the cost involved. Secretary Foster asked Carmen Shepard to have the Archives prepare and submit a budget proposal to her office. Mr. Alllan said the historically the Commissioner of the land office has participated in every land dispute. It is in that capacity that the Archives has been called on. The land office has no budget and is not funded for this kind of in-depth research. The Attorney General suggested the Archives' resources are fundamental in this case. The brief amount of material shown to the Commission members is an indication of how much there is. We are going to be looking at every tract of land along the Potomac River. This is what an archives is about when you have a difficult legal situation calling into account the Charter and the spirit we are pursuing this in is looking at the functions of government.
Dr. Papenfuse said the fundamental question is whether or not the Archives with the resources it has ought to be participating in helping the Attorney General's Office win this case. The Archives does not have the resources to do this without having outside funding. The question is whether or not we should receive any funding and, if not, Dr. Papenfuse should pull the plug on this project. Secretary Richkus agrees with Senator Miller that this is a worthwhile effort and is certainly consistent with Budget and Management's administrative and legal requirement to move 50%-65%-80% of State business to the web. Secretary Richkus suggested that the motion be separated to support the innovation and use of technology as a way to make tremendous resources available to the Attorney General. Carmen Shepard can provide additional support with a letter to Budget and Management. Judge Bell asked the Commission if the hesitation he is hearing is the fact that it is tied to litigation -- that somebody else's budget might be an implication. There is in that sense two issues: Is this the kind of work the Archives ought to be doing? If it is, it ought to be paid for and the effect of it may very well be to help with the litigation. If that is worthwhile why not take it out of the realm of litigation all together and have the Archives do its work as opposed to tying it to the Attorney General. Secretary Richkus stated that it may be that the litigation itself has driven some of the cost estimates which would not have been in the picture if it were just part of the Archives alone. She suggested Dr. Papenfuse separate the value of the effort versus this specific request to the Budget Secretary for a specific amount tied to this other purpose. Judge Bell asked the Commissioners if they would approve a motion which focuses only on the work being as being worthwhile aside from the request for additional funding for the web site and research for archival historical purposes and not for the court case. Mr. Kenderdine questioned if not for the law suit, would this then become a highest priority? Judge Bell said that unfortunately the budget is driven by outside forces. This information would be important to have historically and is something that the Archives would want to do but does not have the money to do until such time as somebody brings a law suite making it necessary as evidence in the law suit. This then triggers the Archives doing something it is required to do anyway.
Secretary Richkus said that last year Dr. Papenfuse presented the Archives' budget request to the Commission which received a positive vote. She asked if this project was in the Archives' budget request and Dr. Papenfuse answered in the affirmative. It is a part of the budget process in the enhancements which both budget committees would review in January. Finally, Dr. Papenfuse asked that the motion be held until the Commission sees the entire budget.
With the exception of the $238,000 which relates to litigation the HRC motion of support for request for additional funding for creation of the website and research, FY 2001-FY 2005
Ms. Kronk stated that she is a representative at the meeting and while she can participate in the conversation, Ms. Kronk questioned whether she can make a motion. Dr. Papenfuse advised her that according to the law she can make a motion. Ms. Kronk said there may be others who have the same reticence to speak of. Dr. Phillips said that as a representative he has concerns about getting involved in some of the policy issues where he feels he need not get involved and leaves it up to the experts to deal with. Judge Bell stated that this puts the Commission at a real disadvantage to be able to act and make decisions. He anticipates the representatives will be authorized to speak with a voice on all of the issues.
Secretary Richkus said that when Dr. Papenfuse is asking for specific support for some portions of the Archives budget, he is asking the members of the Commission to put themselves in a different role. Dr. Papenfuse responded that the law requires the Commission members to comment on and support whatever is put forward in the budget. Additionally, a detailed package including explicit information on the budget was mailed to the members in advance of the meeting.
Dr. Papenfuse presented the budget the he must defend as follows:
What Dr. Papenfuse asked the Commission members to approve are:
The budget as proposed by Budget and Management does not fund $126,000 in Archives' salaries currently being paid to civil service employees. The consequences are that Dr. Papenfuse will have to fire three people and close the search room one day a week. The budget does not fund the Archives of Maryland for full funding which means production will be cut in half. The budget does not fund documenting ownership of the Potomac. The budget does not fund upgrading communication lines between the Executive branch and the Internet. The budget does not fund staff to manage and maintain the wide area communications web-based services to the Governor's Office, other state Agencies, and the Archives.
In May, Dr. Papenfuse presented the total budget picture for all of these with the exception of the the research project. What he was hoping for was a resolution that the Hall of Records Commission recognizes the implications of the budget reducations and and endorses the advocacy of the Archivist to include the funding as outlined in the Archives budget. Ms. Kronk said Dr. Brody had a question about the $238,000 the she could not answer. Dr. Brody is fully support of the Archives budget without that amount. With all due respect, Ms. Kronk asked if it was appropriate to ask that this amount be separated so that she could make a motion.
$126,000 be restored in existing salaries $50,000 be restored to the Archives of Maryland $238,744 be allocated from the emergency fund this year and laid out in subsequent years for the Potomac River project That upgrading of communications in the Annapolis complex be approved and $150,000 be approved for advocacy purposes Approximately $150,000 be restored for the management staff needed for the wide area network and management of web-based activities
With the exception of the $238,000 which relates to litigation, Ms. Kronk motioned for approval of the budget as originally submitted. The motion was seconded by Dr. Phillips and unanimously approved with discussion, the Chairman concurring. At this time, Senator Miller left the meeting.
Going back to the $238,000, Judge Bell stated that it is on the table as a proposal that stems from the Attorney General. There seems to be some question about whether it is a worthwhile project, and Judge Bell asked the Commission members whether there was sentiment one way or the other to the $238,000. Dr. Phillip said he was in favor of supporting the project and what had already been done. However, he had a tremendous amount of concern about the $238,000 amount. Dr. Phillips motioned to approve the project and money already spent and reevaluate the $238,000. Judge Bell said if the project is not approved, it cannot go forward without the funds. Mr. Kenderdine said that the Commission acknowledges the merit of the project, acknowledges the cost of the project and acknowledges that there is -- to its conclusion -- future costs, and that the Commission would endorse its full consideration by all parties concerned, including the Department of Budget and Management and the Attorney General's Office.
Ms. Kronk motioned in support of the concept of the research, in support of the advocacy of the necessary funds to support the research, in support of the importance that the client make their wishes known and articulate that in some written form, but that the total cost of the project has to be reviewed in the normal budgetary way. The motion was seconded by Dr. Phillips and unanimously approved the Chairman concurring.
Dr. Papenfuse said he would like a couple of things studied.
Secretary Richkus noted that this proposed action was not included in the material forwarded to the members ahead of time. Because of her position as landlady with responsibilities given to her by the Department of Budget and Management, and because Secretary Richkus and Dr. Papenfuse met with the Secretary of Budget and Management and had what Secretary Foster felt was resolution to these issues, and because Secretary Rickhus had her Attorneys General look at the issues, she felt it would be inappropriate for her to comment on support of the motion at this time. It is Secretary Richkus' feeling that Dr. Papenfuse is drawing the members of the Commission into an operational matter in a way that may be better handled some other way, and suggested that the Archives budget committee form a committee.
Courses in progress and to be taught by the State Archivist (see prior resolution on 4/19/2000): Maryland History (Fall 2000, Johns Hopkins University) Public History (Spring 2001, University of Maryland) Seminar on Resources for the Study of Maryland Legal History jointly taught with Professor Garrett Power (Spring 2001, University of Maryland Law School) What is History?, (Spring 2001, Johns Hopkins University MLA Program) Judicial Institute, Maryland Legal History: The Colonial Period (April 19, 2001)
Dr. Papenfuse acknowledged and recognized Judge Bell on receiving the Louis M. Brown award for providing leadership for many statewide initiatives to enhance the delivery of legal services, as well as to restore public trust and confidence in the Maryland System of Justice.
Spring meeting at the call of the Chair.
There being not further business to discuss, Dr. Phillips moved to adjourn the meeting at 2:15 p.m. which was seconded by Mr. Heinfelden and unanimously approved, the Chairman concurring.
Edward C. Papenfuse
Email: If you have an Email account linked to your WEB browser, click here to activate your mail program to send an inquiry or message to me at firstname.lastname@example.org or contact me at (410) 260-6403.
© Copyright 1999 Maryland State Archives