VIVA Special Collections Committee
Minutes

Present

Lucious Edwards (VSU), Edward Gaynor (UVA, Recorder), Jim Gwin (UR), Lyn Hart (LVA ), Paul Koda and Barbara Haase (GMU), Jodi Koste and Curtis Lyons (VCU), Eric Ackerman (VPI&SU), Joyce Ogburn and Jay Gaidmore (ODU), Susan Riggs (W&M); Tom Loftus, consultant

Meeting opened with a review of the overall concept of the grant project the committee is preparing to submit to NEH. Gaynor reviewed the idea of the central processing unit at UVa and the ability to use UVa’s large number of guides as a "slush fund" to keep processing numbers up. Koste stressed the importance of the training aspect and the statewide framework. Riggs told the group that the Virginia Historical Society wants to scale back its participation and only partake of training.

First round institutions will be:

UVa, VPI&SU, W&M, VCU, ODU, VSU, GMU

Second round institutions will be:

LVA, Hampton, VHS, VMI, W&L

Koda noted that granting agencies like to see publications as a result of a project. Group agreed that we will publish on the web the project training manual, our statement of acceptable range of uniform practice, and possibly brief proceedings from both of the summer conferences. Ogburn informed the group that VIVA has a good track record with such publications and pointed out the VIVA cataloging guidelines, which have been adopted by the State of California. Edwards reminded the group that the statewide structure after the grant's completion is a significant accomplishment and should be stressed. Koda mentioned that GMU might be able to partner with a number of historic house museums in Northern Virginia (Mt. Vernon, etc.) Loftus posed the question of what the focus will be after the grant project is complete; after some general discussion, the consensus was that the group could continue with any relevant Virginiana.

Loftus then raised the issue of the budget. The first question raised was whether or not UVa could or would be willing to eliminate claiming indirect costs on subawards. Loftus will investigate. After some general discussion about the potential size of the budget (now approaching $600,000) the group agreed that Loftus will firm up the numbers and contact a program representative at NEH. The group agreed that we should have a fallback position with a lower budget, most likely to be obtained by decreasing funding for student assistants.

Loftus requested that each participating institution forward the name and contact information of its grants officer to him within the next week.

The group then turned to developing a timetable for completing the application.

1. WITHIN THE NEXT 10 DAYS: Loftus will develop and disseminate a checklist of what is required from each participating institution; he will contact UVa’s grants officers to resolve some issues, then contact an NEH program officer for information on which category is most appropriate for the proposal. He will also establish communication with grants officers in each of the institutions. Koste will add them to the committee’s listserv. Each committee representative will forward to Koste descriptions of non African-American Virginiana collections that might be processed during the grant.

2. WITHIN THE NEXT 3 WEEKS: Loftus (and others as assigned) will rework the IMLS draft for NEH and distribute for the committee to review. Each institution will need to have completed a one page description of its strenghts and relevance to the grant project.

3. BY MAY 1: the committee will have a reasonably complete first draft, including text and some appendices.

4. BY MAY 15: a preliminary proposal will be delivered to NEH

5. BY JUNE 1: if deemed useful, Loftus and others will visit NEH offices

6. BY MID-JUNE: comments on preliminary proposal will be received and final version of proposal will be prepared.

7. JUNE 30: Submit proposal to NEH

Committee then discussed what steps would be taken by the group during the next year, to prepare for what we hope will be a successful application. The technical infrastructure will be in place for automatically tagging guides and delivering them to UVa.; we can promise to have a demonstration database up, with sample guides from each participating institution; we will develop the acceptable range of uniform practice document, which will be started at the June workshop. We will also continue to meet as a group, and to communicate with the second round institutions.

NEXT MEETING