Title: The National Archives' User Forum
Date: 20 August 2015
Location: Talks Room
Attendees (staff):
Tom Gregan (TG) Head of Document Services (Chair); Caroline Ottaway-Searle
(COS) Director of Public Engagement; Stephen Hall (SH) Manager of Records and
Information Management Services; Roger Kershaw (RK) Head of Audience Delivery;
David Priest (DP) Production Co-ordination Manager; Foluke Abiona (FA) Customer
Intelligence Manager; Emily McIntyre (EMc) Customer Intelligence Officer (Minutes).
Attendees (users):
Graham Woolgar; David Matthew; Tim Powys-Lybbe; Jasmine Belloni; Richard P.
Bateson; Jeff Jefford; John Gallehawk; Joyce Hoad; John Seamen; Chris Eley.
1. TG welcomed all to the meeting.
1.1 TG apologised for CEO attendance being postponed until the October User
Forum.
2. Matters Arising – July 2015 User Forum minutes.
2.1 (Item 5.7 07/15) CAB files related to the press, they did not have release date
records and the dates released were not available.
2.2 (Item 5.5 07/15) Julia Jones’ email account does not reject emails and her
telephone is still accepting voicemail.
SH will sort this out. Email and voicemail have now been removed from the system.
2.3 (Item 2.4 07/15) Is there an update on when Valerie Johnson will be attending
the User Forum.
A. TG She will probably be attending the November User Forum as the CEO has
now been pushed back to October.
2.4 (Item 3.10 07/15) Suggested that Janet Dempsey should be put forward for the
annual awards for her contribution to the 1915 Crew List Project.
RK replied that JD and her team were put forward for this in the team ‘innovation’
awards section.
2.5 (Item 5.2 07/15) Correction, should read as cygnet.
2.6 (Item 5.3 07/15) There is a new staff member, Team Leader for Military, what is
this concerning.
RK replied that ARK has had a slight restructuring including name changes.
2.7 (Item 5.5 07/15) Q. Regarding the IPS organisational chart, perhaps this could be
a template for all departments to follow. Could ARK produce something similar?
A. TG replied we will take this away.
2.8 (Item 5.9 07/15) The UF has had a poor showing of people, this relates to the
UAG as well.
2.9 (Item 3.7 07/15) Has been amended to read BT 377.
3. Feedback on June 2015 User Advisory Group (UAG) meeting- Graham
Woolgar –onsite personal interest delegate
3.1 (Item 1.3 06/15) Q. FA was going to provide a response to the London Probate
Search rooms closure enquiry, is there an update.
A. COS reiterated that TNA has no responsibilities regarding the closures and that
there will be a response at the next UAG in September.
3.2 (Item 1.7 06/15) Q. With Isobel Hunter as Interim, are there changes in the
organisational chart.
A. COS replied that ASD has moved to Clem Brohier – The Chief Operating Officer’s
directorate from Carol Tullo, Director of Information Policy and is now part of the
Corporate Directorate’s refocus of audiences.
3.3 (Item 1.4 06/15) GW commented that the Royal Naval Cards have now been
published. However, it was noted that there are ongoing discussions relating to
missing documents that were supposed to be published as part of the release.
GW was of the opinion that past photocopying processes provided clearer images
than the digital solutions that replaced them.
He demonstrated through a number of PDFs the varying results achieved when
creating images of different coloured papers and methods of annotation [pencil, inks
etc.]. He suggested where the record is accessioned digitally TNA should encourage
other organisations to take the original.
3.4 (Item 1.9 06/15) Q. Prisoners of War records cards held by the Germans, are
presumably written in German. There are 1312 cards listed, as I understand the bulk
was evacuated in the Russian zone so may still exist.
RK there are actually 40,000 individual cards.
TG added that pieces are boxes, not individual cards.
GW commented that an FOI request to TNA must be done as they impede on Data
Protection. When asked why this is the case, TG replied that there are sensitivity
issues such as x-ray’s within the cards and that they are in discussions with MoD to
take this forward.
3.5 (Item 2.1 06/15) GW commented that the Engagement Team presentation was
interesting. Accreditation encourages archives to maintain standards when there are
currently huge pressures on them.
Discussion followed regarding Archive Sector Development’s accreditation
processes and the Engagement Team’s involvement. It was highlighted that there
are policies and frameworks in place but TNA cannot dictate to archives nor can they
place pressure on them. Digitisation was also discussed with its possible impacts on
reading room numbers.
3.6 (Item 2.4 06/15) Q. How is funding arranged for the 20 year rule.
A. COS the funding which started at the beginning of the financial year, is for the
second stage; local places of deposit and supporting them. TG added this is phased
over 10 years.
3.7 (Item 4.3 06/15) GW reiterates the new UAG representative to replace him
should be someone who can attend the UF all the time.
3.8 (Item 4.6 06/15) Terms of Reference states that the delegate must do this
anyway.
COS reminded the UF that there are 2 representatives, one of which, Anne Samson
attended the last meeting.
3.8 (Item 4.4 06/15) 10 people at today’s UF, numbers have improved. Suggested to
revisit the idea of the UAG and UF and positives and negatives of UAG and UF
should be discussed in future meetings.
3.9 (Item 3 06/15) When viewing the minutes of the UAG, on screen references to
confidential minutes were questioned from the floor.
COS stated that there is commercially sensitive content within the minutes, so it is
not published.
3.10 The need for more awareness of the UF was mentioned and a number of
suggestions made to better promote attendance.
COS would review how UF is publicised.
3.11 There followed a discussion about the process by which UAG members are
selected , the debate questioned the reliability of these delegates, as some have
gone on to be employed by TNA.
COS described the comments as unfair stating that the UAG provides a platform for
TNA developments to be filtered down to the UF – this position was acknowledged.
3.12 (Item 5 06/15) Q. GW asked about the reorganisation of the building.
A. COS this is to assess and review whether the space is being used in the most
appropriate way. As well as look at how we can attract and inspire use of the
archive.
GW added that people use their own devices, Wi-Fi etc. to download and this in turn
changes the way reader’s access and use the reading rooms.
3.13 Q. It was noted that the residential building site development works adjacent to
TNA would require the relocation of our entry gates and the creation of a “Welcome
Wall” both to be funded by the building contractor.
3.14 (Item 6.1 06/15) Q. Web access, was raised by JP the student user at the UAG.
Now that the cyber-café has been closed, is everything still blocked.
A. TG everything you could have viewed in the cyber café, you can now view on the
reading room computers.
3.15 (Item 6.8 06/15) Q. Some Treasury records are filthy, there should be a simpler
process to gain gloves.
A. TG if deemed necessary by Collection Care, gloves will be made available.
Q. What is the current cleaning documents policy.
A. TG stated that the ‘old’ mould mentioned is recognised as dormant and where
necessary will be cleaned as part of the production and retrieval process.
3.16 (Item 6.9 06/15) GW “Inter-War” collections, 2 series have been published and
1 is under Data Protection regulations. This new collection the MoD make obvious
that they are keen to transfer and TNA want the soldiers records up to 1900, as
these do not conflict with the 116 year closure rule. GW will pursue this further.
In regards to FMP, you cannot access TNA’s piece numbers so the records are
impossible to find. LMO replied via email, that he acknowledges this is an issue. In
future FMP will use TNA’s detailed catalogue information, where available.
TG clarified that all of the answers to GW’s questions were via email with LMO.
4. Open Discussion.
4.1 Q. The content of the UF group needs to be broader and more from the user
opinion, such as explaining the relationship TNA has with other institutions and how
Discovery catalogue interrelates with those other institutions. Perhaps explain why
overseas institutions are not in Discovery at all, and provide guidance in to the
system of searching foreign archives.
A. TG believed TNA had already made considerable progress in the last few years in
providing wider on line access to other UK based archive catalogues through
Discovery. He recognised the value in developing relations with oversees archives
but saw it as something very much for the future.
4.2 Agenda is wrong for the next UF meeting, starts at 3.15pm not 3.30pm.
4.3 It was noted that HM Treasury records relating to Brazil are considered
commercially sensitive and have been referred to TNA FOI team.
4.4 Suggestion for a meeting in December to go over everything missed in this
year’s UF’s.
A. TG this usually happens in December, however there is no UF in December so it
is likely to be January 2016.
4.5 Q. Regarding the minutes of the July Executive Team meeting, who are
Research Libraries UK.
A. COS In general University Archives.
Q. Who is the Engagement Manager?
A. COS They sit within Archive Sector Development.
Q. There are a large number of vacancies being filled, please explain recruitment
requests.
A. COS the abbreviations mean; FUND- funded elsewhere, EBC- approved by Exec.
And CORE- needed for core business. All decisions are currently passed through the
Executive Team.
Would like more detail within these Executive Team minutes. TG replied this is not in our
remit.
4.6 GW suggested it may be useful for UF members to share email addresses.
Next meeting: Thursday 15 October 2015, 15:15-16.30