User Advisory Group Minutes
Title:
User Advisory Group
Date of Meeting:
16 June 2015
Location:
The National Archives
Staff
Caroline Ottaway-Searle (COS) - Director of Public Engagement (Chair)
Lee Oliver (LMO) - Head of Public Services Development
Emma Jay (EJ) - Engagement Manager East, Archive Sector Development
Susannah Baccardax (SB) - Project Manager, Strategic Projects
Sarah Leggett (SL) - Marketing Manager
Hannah Clare (HC) - Preservation Manager, Collection Care
Foluke Abiona (FA) - Customer Intelligence Manager
Emily McIntyre (EMc) - Customer Intelligence Officer (minutes)
Delegates
Carol Beardmore (CB) – County/External Archives
Kristina Bedford (KB) – Map Room Users
Else Churchill (EC) - Family History Societies
Nell Darby (ND) – Online Users
Jacqui Kirk (JK) – Independent Researchers
Howard Llewellyn (HL) – Diversity and Inclusion
Susan Moore (SM) – Map Room Users
Rosemary Morgan (RM) – Independent Researchers
Jo Pugh (JP) – Student Users
Margaret O’Sullivan (MO’S) - County/External Archives
Anne Samson (AS) – Onsite Personal Interest Users
David Shiels (DS) - Early Careers Academic research
Graham Woolgar (GW) – Onsite Personal Interest Users
Apologies
Nigel Browne-Davies (NBD) - Diversity and Inclusion
Martin Farr (MF) – Academic Users
Professor Grace Ioppolo (GI) – Academic Users
Page 1 of 7
Item
Action
1.
Minutes, Matters arising and general updates
1.1
COS welcomed delegates to the meeting.
1.2
(Item 1.2 03/15) COS stated that TNA’s Shakespeare anniversary plans will be
discussed in a presentation given by Susannah Baccardax.
1.3
(Item 1.3 03/15) In response to HL, COS stated that although London Probate
Search rooms closure is not TNA’s responsibility we will make further enquiries
regarding the index volumes.
1.4
(Item 1.4 03/15) COS updated that the Royal Naval cards are on track ready for
publication in July 2015.
1.5
(Item 4 03/15) COS stated SL will answer delegate submitted items regarding
WDYTYA.
1.6
(Item 6.15 03/15) COS stated delegate submitted items regarding Websense will
be addressed.
1.7
SM asked whether Nick Kingsley has been replaced.
COS replied there is an interim in place, Isobel Hunter, Senior Manager Engagement Team in ASD.
1.8
SM asked how long she will be in that post.
COS replied she was unsure as it will take a while to recruit.
1.9
(Item 6.14 03/15) GW requested an update about WO 416.
LMO replied that MoD have been in and are currently formulating a response.
1.10
GW asked when this will be.
LMO replied he does not know.
2.
The National Archives’ Engagement Team- working with the wider
archives sector
2.1
EJ gave delegates an overview of TNA’s Archive Sector Development (ASD)
department. We have had the leadership role for the Archive Sector since 2011,
ASD also carries out the HMC function for private records, has 4 regional
engagement managers, facilitates Archive Service Accreditation and leads on the
20 year rule.
2.2
HL asked if there is a different set of Engagement Managers for Wales.
EJ replied yes, there is an Engagement Team that deals with Wales.
2.3
EJ went on to explain the training the Engagement Team provide. She stated it is
not about how to be an archivist but more about how to manage the systems in
place. EJ described her job role; she deals with about 50 archives and gathers
Page 2 of 7
FA
information to aid TNA in relation to its leadership role. 1-3 days a week she is out
of the office on visits. She engages with groups such as ARA and she is the TNA
representative for 2 regional archives councils. The Engagement Team’s primary
role is advocacy, supporting services and challenging places that do not meet
national standards. EJ highlighted the challenges facing the sector where TNA
can help provide support and guidance including with publications such as In a
spin. With resources focussed on specific areas and archive service training
partnership projects bringing everyone together.
2.4
EJ stated that the MoJ have delegated funds for the second phase of the 20 year
rule. HLF and ACE also provide funds and advocacy is also promoted via
campaigns such as Explore your Archive. Accreditation is also another aspect of
advocacy, it replaces the self assessment and previous standards, it is hoped that
all archives will have applied for accreditation by 2017.
2.5
HL asked what happens if an archive does not get accreditation.
EJ replied that they can reapply.
2.6
MO’S asked how long does it last.
EJ replied that accreditation lasts 6-7 years.
2.7
EJ continued discussing aspects of the accreditation scheme. Highlighting there is
room for negotiation for the amount of days an archive must be open, with the
minimum 3 days if they wish to be accredited. They must show they can improve
access, balancing their needs and resources and the interests of the community.
EJ then discussed risk management, conservation, standards and disaster
planning, mentioning that the archive must also provide information for budgets
and legalities. She stated that although of course there can be no guarantee the
precondition of accreditation is for future sustainability.
2.8
CB argued that it is not surprising that user numbers are dropping when services
are being cut. Digital access is not necessarily a substitute.
EJ replied that many options are explored and the increase in users 55+ has been
predominantly online users.
CB stated that she does not go online and cannot find what she wants when she
does.
EJ replied that it is a slow transition, and must include both aspects of access.
2.9
MO’S commented that the length of time of accreditation, 6-7 years seems a long
time. Changes happen very rapidly, and this time scale gives a false impression of
stability within the profession.
EJ replied that she and engagement managers will be aware of major changes
and there is continued communication once accredited.
MO’S stated that the benefits for accreditation are clear but that there is a gap and
TNA should consider regular reviews of work. Feedback for long running schemes
would be beneficial as TNA need to reinforce their sector leadership with regards
to accreditation as well as a playing a reassuring role for those who face services
being cut.
EJ thanked MO’S for comments and agreed that communication may need to be
Page 3 of 7
reviewed.
RM mentioned that within Surrey Archive the microfilm was no longer being used
onsite, due to it all being online and so there has been a large decrease in users’
onsite.
SM responded that in contrast Cornwall Archive is open 3-4 days a week and you
have to book weeks in advance as it is so busy.
3
Separate confidential minute.
4.
UAG recruitment update/ Draft amended UAG Terms of Reference
4.1
COS stated that the plan to recruit to UAG membership will follow the same
pattern as last year, and asked if anyone had any questions or concerns.
4.2
JK asked for confirmation of who would be leaving.
COS replied GI, GW, EC and SM will have served the full term and would stand
down.
4.3
GW said that the replacement Onsite Personal Interest User should attend the
User Forum regularly.
JK replied this might be difficult and that maybe they could do a monthly rotation.
GW replied that the Onsite representative should be a frequent user.
4.4
COS mentioned that the UF numbers have dropped.
GW agreed and suggested a need for revitalisation.
COS stated that ideas have been looked into for this.
AS stated that she would be happy to attend UF if she was not out of the country.
4.5
COS stated that she wants to phone all the departing UAG delegates for feedback
on the recruitment process.
4.6
GW asked about the first amendment within the Terms of Reference.
LMO replied that it had been lifted from the new members’ pack, to maintain
consistency between the two.
4.7
GW suggested a change to the last sentence of the ToR.
LMO agreed.
LMO
5
Space programme - an introduction
5.1
LMO apologised for the absence of Paul Davies and mentioned that Jeff James
spoke previously about this topic, during his briefing on the strategic plan.
Page 4 of 7
5.2
LMO said that over the next 4 years there will be a review of the use of space,
seeking to improve better use for current and new audiences.
There are a number of drivers including actively welcoming different users into the
archives.
For example we held a Magna Carta event on 15 June 2015 for 120 school
children, our current space made this a challenge for the event. Currently display
material is restricted to the Keeper’s Gallery, we would like to display material in
different areas of the public space. Ideas have been gathered from universities,
galleries and others for new concepts.
5.3
There followed a general discussion about various aspects of the use of space,
such as children, facilities for parents, the staircase displays, commissioning of
artists, the number of window seats.
6
Delegate Submitted Items
6.1
JP asked what is blocked via Websense on public PCs.
LMO provided a hand-out containing categories and replied that currently
WordPress was being unblocked by IT security and was to be monitored for its
impact. Facebook and email are blocked within the reading rooms as well.
There followed a general discussion regarding the need to have blocked
categories, and the time taken to unblock requested sites.
6.2
KB asked about whether the bookshop was going to broaden its stock to include
pre-eighteenth century material and said that many people are not aware of the
archive material as the bookshop is not balanced.
COS replied that we will take that into consideration.
There followed a discussion regarding the general representation of visual
images, posters and banners throughout the building, concluding similarly that
there is a lack of awareness regarding the archives holdings.
6.3
KB asked whether TNA accepted donated transcriptions from records (referring to
a call for volunteers by the Friends).
LMO replied that their may have been a misunderstanding - the Friends had
requested volunteers for cataloguing but not transcribing.
6.4
JK asked whether it was possible to give advanced notice of which TNA experts
were going to attend WDYTYA Live.
SL replied that there were different logistics involved with Birmingham, they
decided to bring generalists rather than specialists so there was a balanced team
for there and onsite at TNA.
JK asked whether they could have more information before they went.
EC mentioned that SOG had issues of booking who was going to be there and
what subject areas they could help with. EC also said that the last minute changes
Page 5 of 7
to talks meant the main stage was finalised in November but there are variables
and a gamble as to what slot will be given.
It was confirmed that all talks were published on the online show guide.
SL stated that TNA had to obtain ministerial approval to attend which is timeconsuming, and so prevents early confirmation of speakers and talks.
6.5
New updated members’ packs were handed out.
6.6
JK asked for comments on the Discovery webinar, she asked why is it not just
recorded like a video rather than a webinar.
LMO replied that they want the webinar to work, so they are still finding software
that works, it is a learning curve along with the presenting style being different.
CB suggested Adobe Connect, commenting that it was a good presentation.
LMO asked the UAG to send feedback.
6.7
JK asked for an update on progress regarding accessibility – LMO circulated a
paper responding to each of the identified actions.
SM mentioned that reading rooms could do with more lamps than there are.
LMO replied that they had already bought more.
JK asked if the computers could be adjusted.
LMO replied that the installation of Thin Clients on the back of monitors meant
they could not be adjusted, but we do have height adjustable desks. When the
equipment is due for replacement, we will include this in any replacement, if
possible.
JK asked about disabled access, there are no indications of it online or on the
map leaflet. Could there not be something on the blue drop down pages for
accessibility.
LMO replied that there is an accessibility page on the website, but currently LMO
has no resources to put into updating the content.
6.8
SM enquired into the provision of gloves in the reading room for reading certain
series of records. She asked what the current policy is.
HC replied that gloves are discouraged at TNA.
HC suggested that they should complete a document condition feedback form
with particulars of any issues arising from handling documents. They must see
which ones may be causing issues, so far only 3 out of 4,000 have mould.
A general discussion on the topic of gloves then followed. During which it was
confirmed that gloves are discouraged, as they cause more issues than they
solve, but if absolutely essential they will be provided. No harmful mould has been
found in the collections, but any suspicions should be reported.
6.9
GW asked for an update on the transfer of the “Inter-War” collection of Soldiers
service records to TNA.
Page 6 of 7
ALL
LMO replied that there is no update to give. TNA remains keen to transfer the
material, but the decision rests with MoD.
GW stated that the TNA finding aids for the WO 97/118/119 collections do not
work in conjunction with Find My Past.
LMO replied that this has been identified before. Although we cannot ask FMP to
re-index these series to resolve the issue, we are aware of it and so will prevent
future occurrences.
GW asked about digitisation updates on WO 12 and FEPOW material.
LMO said that he will respond via email as the UAG has run out of time.
Any other business.
Next meeting: Tuesday 15 September 2015, 12:00-14:30
Page 7 of 7
LMO