Hall of Records Commission
Minutes

of a Meeting 
Electronic Classroom
12 Noon
October 31, 2000

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.

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.

Reports and Minutes of Previous Meetings

• April 19, 2000
 
Upon motion by Dr. Phillips, seconded by Secretary Richkus, the minutes (as amended, if amended), and recognition of the special meetings of the Commission as defined by standing resolution were unanimously approved, the Chairman concurring.


• Special meetings and Celebratory events
• Maryland Day events
• Annual Colonial Society Essay Contest award (judged by the State Archivist)
• Archives of Maryland Advisory Board Meeting
• Phebe Jacobsen Memorial Service held on June 18 in the searchroom (scrapbook, MSA SC 5304)
• Dedication of Louis L. Goldstein Hall on August 27 at Washington College in Chestertown, MD
• Site visit by the Public Safety & Administration Subcommittee on August 22
• Site visit by the Health and Human Services Subcommittee on September 5
• Children of the American Revolution (CAR) to the Archives to landscape the grounds on October 7
Dr. Papenfuse thanked Chris Allan, Kathy Beard and Mimi Calver who organized the CAR, got support for plantings, got in touch with Peta Richkus' Annapolis staff who gave us water, tools and wheelbarrows.  This volunteer effort brought the exterior of the Archives back to a nice looking exterior.  A book of photographs was circulated.
Dr. Phillips gave a motion of appreciation for the Children of the American Revolution and the Archives' and Department of General Services' staff for making this volunteer effort possible.  It was seconded by Mr. Kenderdine and unanimously approved, the Chairman concurring.

Records Retention and Disposal Schedules

• Retention
• Disposal


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.

Old Business

Archivist's Report & Staff Activities 
     (see the Maryland State Archives Bulldog for additional details)

• Web usage and Web Readiness of the Archives
• Somerset Mapping Project
Mr. John Lyon approached Dr. Papenfuse with a suggestion that it would be a good idea if we could bring some of the most important of the basic original records (land, patent) of Maryland into a geographical information system of some kind so you could actually visualize and understand how property was granted initially within the state, how that patern changed and how that affected the development of land over time.  Mr. Lyon was keenly interested in doing this for Somerset County.  Not only did he express an interest and offer a program, but Mr. Lyon put up one half of the money.  If the Archives would finance one intern for the summer, Mr. Lyon would finace the other intern for the summer.

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.
 

A motion of appreciation to John Lyon for his support in funding the project was made by Secretary Richkus, seconded by _______________    and unanimously approved, the Chairman concurring.
 
• Potomac River Case
Dr. Papenfuse advised the Commission that he has been asked to participate in doing the research and writing of the briefs in Virginia vs. Maryland over the ownership of the Potomac River.  One of the fundamental questions asked by the lawyers in the case was, "Do you have evidence of ownership of the land of the bed of the Potomac River?  How do you determine ownership?  Can you map it?"  Using Mr. Lyon's approach to mapping, Dr. Papenfuse advised that not only can he map it, but he can show every single patent along the full length of the Potomac from the mouth all the way to its source.  Dr. Papenfuse cannot say much about the Potomac River case, because he is now part of the research team and the process of discovery has not begun.

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

• Martenet
Martenet is a very fine public-private partnership for which the Archives has a received a grant (part of the grant is from the Maryland 2000 Commission) to assist in creating an on-line electronic archives of over 200,000 images of records relating to title in Baltimore City.  Martenet has given the Archives free space where it has set up its opertation of scanning Martenet's records from the grant in that that free space.  The Archives is hoping to get income into this free space by taking on additional projects.  For example, the City Division of Parks wants their plats on-line and will pay the Archives to scan them.  Dr. Papenfuse hopes this will become a self-supporting project where he will not have to come before the Commission for any appropriated funds.
Senator Miller gave a motion of appreciation to S. J. Martenet, Inc., for providing office space and other support for the project, which was seconded by Dr. Phillips and unanimously approved, the Chairman concurring.
• Proposal to the Comptroller's Office re:  150th Anniversary of the Comptroller of the Treasury
• Secretary of State Research Project
• Maryland Women in the Judiciary
The Archives was approached by Maryland Women in the Judiciary who felt they were not well represented in the biographical information available for women.  Judge Friedman has taken it upon herself to go out and get grant support for the Archives to do extensive research on Maryland Women in the Judiciary over the next summer.
• Plans for the Miller Senate Office Building
Dr. Papenfuse pointed out that the Archives is not funded for all of the work it is doing in the Miller Office Building with regard to exhibits.  It has taken on the responsibility for two major exhibits in the Miller Senate Office Building.  One is for the treasures of the Peabody Collection which the Archives has received ISTEA money to build exhibit cases.  The other is for the refurbishment of the Charles Carroll of Carrollton exhibit on the third floor of the Miller Senate Building.
• Research on Secretaries of the Senate and Clerks of the House of Delegates
• >Research for Delegate Leopold re:  Jewish Officeholders in Maryland

 

Events of interest since the last meeting and forthcoming

• April 29, address the Maryland Chamber National Association of Women Judges in the Senate Chamber
• May 16, address the Baltimore Courthouse & Law Museum Foundation, Inc.
• May 25, address Register of Wills
• May 31, Reference and Research Advisory Committee meeting
• June 6, address the Queen Anne's County Historical Society. Speech by Edward C. Papenfuse
• July 18, screen symposium for the MPT video Images of Maryland at St. Mary's College
• September 10, remarks by Edward C. Papenfuse on the importance of Philanthropy at Clifton>
• September 21-23, Edward C. Papenfuse to represent Judge Robert M. Bell at the fourth annual meeting of state and federal court historical society administrators and trustees held in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the American Association for State and Local History (AASLH) in New Orleans
• September 29, Visit of the Educational delegation from Mainland China
• October 4, presentation by Edward C. Papenfuse to the Taiwan High Court delegation
• October 19, presentation by Edward C. Papenfuse to the Judicial Institute of Maryland>, Legal History Program participants
• October 19-21, conference in honor of Jack P. Greene, Festschrift Volumes
• October 26, talk to the Federal Judiciary at the Center Club on the Pardoning of Benjamin Brown by President Lincoln
• November 15, Edward C. Papenfuse to address the students at Roland Park Country School regarding Charles J. Bonaparte and civil rights
• January 2001, Conference of Chief Justices at the Hyatt Regency in Baltimore
• January 2001, Opening of the Peabody and Carroll Exhibits in the Miller Senate Office Building
• January-April, First Citizen and Speaker's Medallion award ceremonies
• February 5, 2001, Charlie Flanagan (member of the Archives of Maryland Advisory Board) to conduct LOC/AIMS session in the electronic classroom with up to 20 AIMS social studies teachers from all levels.
• There will be three presentations: LOC on their American Memory resources on line; Edward C. Papenfuse on primary sources for education such as documents for the classroom; and Charlie on the project they are doing on the Centennial of 1876.
• March 25, 2001, Maryland Day celebrations and announcement of essay contest winners

Recent Acquisitions

• Special Collections:
• Facsimile of the Lincoln Pardon of Benjamin Brown, United States District Court for the District of Maryland Collection, MSA SC 5309
• Linda F. and Julian L. Lapides Collection of Annapolis Imprints, MSA SC 5311

 
• Government Records

Finding Aids, Reference Services, and Publications

• Archives of Maryland series and volumes in progress
Dr. Papenfuse said that the Archives of Maryland series on-line is one of the best things that has been funded by the Commission over the last two years.  It is an approach to making available the printed record of Maryland government in all of its variois manifistations.  It started out with 72 volumes already printed and in less than two years, 201 volumes have been brought on-line.  These include rare items that are very difficult to find (Chancery Reports, The Bland, various reports of the General Assembly, Kilty's Land Holders Assistant), as well as a complete run of the Maryland Manual up to 1997 searchable and on-line.  It is an extraordinarily rich and powerful program, unfortunately funding has been cut rather severely.
• Archives of Maryland- Plats.net
The Archives has been asked to help the courts with their major problem of care, preservation and access of oversized material.  A program was developed called plats.net which brings on-line oversized material relating to ownership of land in Maryland.  Currently there are eight counties in service, but everything was brought to a halt this summer due to the need for the Judiciary to look at uses of  the Land Records Improvement Fund.  Judge Bell kindly decided recently that it was very important that the Archives get this particular project implemented in all of the counties as soon as possible.  Therefore, the Archives is funded by the courts for the next two years according to the proposals submitted.
• State House Chronology & History (Board of Public Works grant) Ms. Kronk gave a motion of support for the request for the transfer of funds from the Board of Public Works to reimburse for the work already begun and to complete the State House Chronology and History web site which was seconded by Dr. Phillips and unanimously approved, the Chairman concurring.
Money has been allocated in the Board of Public Works budget for the Archives to do a chronology and thorough study of the history of the State House.  Dr. Papenfuse showed the Commission the web site that has already been created containing the information that has been collected thus far.  He explained that this is just another example of where the Archives went out on a limb since the money was there, the Archives was going to be asked to do the work and could prove it could do it.
• Printed version of the Maryland Manual (ca. January 2001)
Dr. Papenfuse advised the Commission that a printed version of the Maryland Manual would be published in January 2001.  However, while the printer is lined up and everything is ready to go, the Archives is having difficulty getting the pages from the compositer which may mean a late delivery.
• Captain Berry's Will, documents and interpretation by Dr. Carson Gibb
Dr. Papenfuse distributed a copy of a delightful pamphlet  by Dr. Carson Gibb.

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:

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.

$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.

• There is an issue of who owns the Hall of Records building.  As of the old building the State Archivist and the Hall of Records Commission owned the building.  The old building could not be given to St. John's without Dr. Papenfuse signing the deed  The intent of the law creating the Archives of Maryland building was for the property to be owned by the Hall of Records Commission and managed by the Archives and State Archivist.  That is not clear for this building.  The Board of Public Works has never taken action with regard to actually handing over the keys of this building to the State Archivist.  Dr. Papenfuse feels the Commission needs to take a look at this as an issue.
• Dr. Papenfuse feels the Archives should not have to pay rent for legal mandated projects.  The income that the Archives gets is for what the State ought to be funding but cannot fund.  Dr. Papenfuse feels the issues we need to study and look at from a legal standpoint.  Mr. Israel has done a lot of work on the ownership of the own building and said he would be glad to look at the ownership of the new building.

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.

Education & Outreach

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)

• Summer Internship Program, June 14-August 22, 2000
• Summer Internship Program, June-August, 2001
• Maryland Women in the Judiciary Proposed Action: motion of support for accepting a grant or grants to the Archives for this project on the understanding that any such grant or grants are considered tax-exempt equivalents of grants to a title 501 c3 organization.

Administrative & Fiscal Matters

• Appraisal of Records
• delay in legally mandated five year appraisal report, and lack of inventory information accompanying records retention and disposal schedules prepared by DGS (complicates the matter of determining the amount of space necessary for the future storage of permanent records)

 
• Building Maintenance and Refurbishment
• award of roof replacement contract and other building maintenance issues
• private initiative and staff support for maintaining and improving the grounds

• New Facilities
• status report on building program

 
• Electronic Archives
• status report on installation of storage devices

 
• Status of the Archives Endowment Fund: Interest, Gifts and Matching funds
• Maryland Genealogical Society grant and matching funds from IBM to match a grant from Vernon Skinner for the purchase of access to the American National  Biography on line for use in the searchroom.

 
• Budget Issues, Present and Future:

FY 2002 budget proposals
• creating a viable baseline
• Analysis of FY 2002 Baseline Budget Request
• the twin issues of rent and income

Proposed Action: motion of support for the FY 2002 budget request.
Proposed Action: motion of support for the establishment of a committee by the Chair to make recommendations on how the issue of rent might be resolved in the future through legislative action and/or executive policy decision, including clarifying ownership of the present building and possibly recommending legislation to exempt the Archives from paying rent for special fund generating, legally mandated projects.

Special Acknowledgments and Presentations

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.

Next meeting

Spring meeting at the call of the Chair.

Adjournment

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.

Dr. Edward C. Papenfuse
State Archivist

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 archives@mdarchives.state.md.us or contact me at (410) 260-6403.

© Copyright 1999 Maryland State Archives