Our topic this week was record’s management- not the most exciting, but an important topic especially as it relates to the future of archives.
In my visit to the City Archives, I also got to tour the Department of Record’s remote storage. The Archives, under the city charter, is a part of the Department of Records. As a result, the two departments work closely together, and have a unified management structure. This is not always the case for other institutions. As we discussed in class, not everything maintained by records managers makes its way to the archives. When I visited, the remote storage for records management was enormous, probably four times the size of the archives. Legally, the city is required to maintain certain kinds of records for a certain period of time (7 years seemed to be the standard). However, some records, like trial records and arrest records, must be kept in perpetuity. I wonder if those records will ever make it to the city archives; this question only occurred to me after our class discussion. I can see interesting projects emerging from trial records in particular.
Sue Myburgh’s article, “Records Management and Archives: Finding Common Ground,” was a helpful read in identifying some of the conflicts between archives and records management. For Myburgh, archives are political, whereas records management emerges out of a capitalist business mindset, focused on efficiency. As much as we talk in class about the societal importance of archives, it’s also important to remember that archives (typically) exist within an administrative structure. Understanding that structure, and the ways it could be improved, is an important step in helping archives to harness their power. Despite their different priorities, I agree with Myburgh that working together, as a continuum, is both the most practical option as well as the one that will serve archive’s political goals long term.