UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Conceiving local archival institutions: a study of the development of archival programs in Richmond and.. Chong, Bernice W. 1993-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


ubc_1993_fall_chong_bernice.pdf [ 4.6MB ]
JSON: 1.0086210.json
JSON-LD: 1.0086210+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0086210.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0086210+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0086210+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0086210+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0086210 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

CONCEIVING LOCAL ARCHIVAL INSTITUTIONS:A STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHIVAL PROGRAMSIN RICHMOND AND DELTA, BRITISH COLUMBIA.byBERNICE WILLENE CHONGB.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1985A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTERS OF ARCHIVAL STUDIESinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(School of Library, Archival and Information Studies)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJuly 1993© Bernice Willene Chong, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of library. Archival and  Information StudiesThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate July 30, 1993DE-6 (2/88)iiAbstractThis essay tries to determine how two municipal archival programs develop from theirorigins as collections of historical documents in museums, and whether they fit into the largerpattern of archival development found in Canadian federal and provincial public archives, whichis identified as "total archives". To provide some context for the two case studies, the essayfirst examines the main features of the Canadian tradition of "total archives" and tries to locateCanadian archives in the context of the worldwide evolution of modern archival institutions.The essay then explores the development of municipal archival programs in Delta andRichmond, British Columbia to reveal how they were conceived, advanced and sustained. Thestudy concludes that local archival programs do fit into the Canadian tradition of "totalarchives", however, a conceptual framework which includes both the cultural and administrativepurposes of archival institutions appears to be lacking. The conclusion summarizes some of theaspects of a conceptual framework including: the nature of archives, the legal status of publicrecords and the need for archival legislation, the administrative role of an archival program, theneed for a commitment of adequate resources, and the need for local governments to recognizetheir duty to preserve and make accessible public records of continuing value.Table of ContentsAbstractTable of ContentsAcknowledgements^ ivIntroduction 1Chapter 1 - Some Aspects of the Development of Canadian Public Archives^6Chapter 2 - The Development of a Municipal Archival Program:The Richmond Municipal Archives^ 34Chapter 3 - 'Museum/ Archives':The Delta Museum and Archives Experience^ 63Chapter 4 - The Development of Local Archival Repositoriesin British Columbia -- A Conceptual Framework 80Primary Sources for the Case Studies^ 98Bibliography^ 102ivAcknowledgementsThis paper could not have been written without the generous assistance of many individuals.First, I would like to thank the archivists and the municipal clerks at Delta and Richmond whokindly permitted me the use of the records of their institutions. I am also indebted to FranAshton for her words of encouragement and word processing skills. My sincere thanks andappreciation to my supervisor, Professor Terry Eastwood, for the many hours, he spent ensuringthat this essay was "on track". Finally, I would like to thank my partner, J. Richard McKenna,for his insightful comments, support and patience.1IntroductionThe purpose of this thesis is to construct a conceptual framework for the organization ofa municipal archival and records keeping program by examining the development of two localarchival institutions and available archival literature. Although the development of archivalinstitutions in Canada can be traced to as early as 1857 with the organization of the PublicArchives of Nova Scotia, the establishment of public archival institutions has been primarilybased on the experience of the Public Archives of Canada, and this development has beensummarized in the term "total archives." Wilfred Smith, a former Dominion Archivist, outlinesthe aspects of total archives to include the following dimensions. First, all sources of archivalmaterial within a territorial jurisdiction are examined with the view of acquiring both public andprivate records. Second, the archival institution preserves all media, including textual,cartographic, photographic, film, sound and machine readable records. In addition, all recordsoriginating from the same source are acquired. Third, records reflecting "all subjects of humanendeavour should be covered by a repository rather than being assigned to different repositoriesbased on subject."' Fourth, the archival institution participates in all stages of the managementof the life-cycle of the record, from its creation to its final disposition. Smith also mentions afifth aspect of total archives which is the development of a network of archival institutions toensure that all records of historical significance are preserved.' In Smith's analysis, severalhistorical factors influenced the organization of public archival institutions and cultivated theconcept of total archives. These include the influence of historians, the desire to disseminatea knowledge of Canadian history, the youth of the government, and the lack of other culturalinstitutions such as libraries and museums. Although these circumstances vary with time and2place, provincial archival institutions have followed a comparable pattern of development to thatof the Public Archives of Canada which, in 1987, was re-named the National Archives ofCanada.Over the past twenty years, however, Canadian archivists have re-evaluated the role ofpublic archival institutions in the light of rapid changes in information technology, theintroduction of freedom of information legislation, and the need to develop an integrated globalapproach towards the management of public archives. It is amid these changes that there hasbeen a burgeoning of municipal archival institutions.Nevertheless, in spite of these developments and the recognition of "total archives" asa model for public archives in Canada, there is an absence of a standard conceptual frameworkfor the organization of public archival institutions. Nowhere is this more evident than at themunicipal government level, the last jurisdiction to organize archival programs. The two casestudies in this essay indicate that local archival programs often have their origins as 'ad hoc'collections of documents within local history museums, historical societies or libraries. It is thepurpose of this essay to determine whether and how an archival institution grows from suchorigins. Little has been written, however, about the overall development of local archivalinstitutions in Canada. The few articles that do exist focus on the absence of local archivalinstitutions and on the need for some action to be taken to address the possible loss anddestruction of both public and private records in local communities.' Some other studies revealthe establishment of archival institutions or their records management programs in larger cities,such as Vancouver and Toronto.' These institutions are considered well organized and affluentin comparison to most local archival institutions.3It is clear that the evolution of municipal archival institutions fits into a larger pattern ofdevelopment of public archives in Canada. Therefore, the first chapter of this study willexamine the main features of this development and locate Canadian archives in the larger contextof the world wide evolution of modern archival institutions. In examining the evolution ofmodern public archives, it becomes very clear that Canadian archival institutions were organizedto provide a cultural support to the nineteenth century political objective of nation and regionbuilding. However, this justification and impetus to establish an archival institution no longerseems to be sufficient as Canada faces the twentieth-first century and its rapidly changinginformation needs.Second, this study will examine the origins and the course of development of two localarchival programs in Richmond and Delta in British Columbia. Both are suburban municipalitiesin the Greater Vancouver area, which might be expected to face comparable circumstances, yeteach municipality has clearly developed a distinctive path for its archival program. In examiningtheir development, this essay keeps in mind that we know far less about how institutions andprograms develop than we do about the theory and practice of archival science. As a group ofarchivists in the United States observe,archival writing has concentrated on theory and practice, focusing chiefly on thetreatment of materials and making them available to users; we have given less attentionto ways to envision, create, advance, protect and sustain an archival program thatsupports archival functions.5These case studies of the historical development of two archival programs strive to reveal howthey were envisioned, created, advanced, and sustained; and they will provide some analysis ofthe factors which conditioned their development. Furthermore, these studies will demonstratethe necessity for a clear conception of the cultural and administrative purposes of an archival4institution and point out the fundamental requirements to sustain its growth and development.In light of the study of the development of two archival programs, the final chapter willpresent a conceptual framework for the organization of municipal archival institutions. Thischapter will isolate the important elements of policy and structure which it appears must beconstructed into a successful archival program. This framework is not intended to be aprescribed list of standards for the organization of a local archival program, instead, theseaspects are raised to promote a better understanding of the function and the needs of an archivalinstitution within a community.5Introduction - Endnotes1. Wilfred Smith, "Total Archives': the Canadian Experience," Archives et Biblioteques deBelgique 57, no.2 (1986): 341.2. Ibid.3. The following studies focus on the need to preserve local records as sources for historicalstudies: Peter A. Baskerville and Chad M. Gaffield, "The Vancouver Island Project: HistoricalResearch and Archival Practice," Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-84): 173-187; David G.,Brumberg "Sources and Uses of Local History Material," Bookmark (Winter 1981): 116-132and; David Gagan, "Rediscovering Local History: The Problems of Archival Resources for theNew History," Communique 4, no.1 (1980): 14-15.4. Robin Kierstead, "LS. Matthews and an Archives for Vancouver, 1951-72," Archivaria 23(Winter 1986-87): 86-101; and R. Scott James, "Administration of Municipal Records: TheToronto Experience," Government Publications Review 8A (1981): 321-325.5. Larry Hackman, James O'Toole, Liisa Fagerland and John Dojka, "Case Studies in ArchivesProgram Development," American Archivist 53 (1990): 549.6Chapter 1 Some Aspects of the Development of Canadian Public Archives This chapter will focus on several aspects of the pattern of development of Canadian publicarchival institutions to set some context for the analysis of the two case studies in this essay.Although governments first recognized the need to establish archival institutions in the latenineteenth century, little is known about the overall development of Canadian public archives.Of the literature available, the most complete historical overview is the study conducted byArcher in 1969.3 More recent studies focus either on the origins and the early years ofinstitutions or on the establishment of specific programs, such as those for recordsmanagement.' Historical studies about municipal archival institutions are even more limited.3Nevertheless, these studies reveal some common elements in the development of Canadian publicarchives.The modern historical archival institution has its origins in nineteenth century Europe.According to Posner, there were three main currents in archival development since the FrenchRevolution. European governments passed legislation which established national public archivalinstitutions, accepted the responsibility of the state for the preservation of the documentaryheritage of the nation, and recognized the citizen's right of access to documents held in publicarchives. Posner attributes the impetus for these three developments to the forces of nationalismand the rise of the modern nation state. This ideology harnessed the writing of history to theprocess of creating a common culture among disparate peoples of the states that were then takingshape, and archival institutions were seen as necessary documentary support of this process.7At the same time, historians began to publish documentary sources and to write historiesbased on a scientific approach, and this became the aim of a movement in historiography. Theywere inspired by scientific procedures which included the accumulation and substantiation offacts, and the critical analysis of historical documents. This scientific movement inhistoriography increased the importance of using government records in patriotic nationalhistories. It was also during this period that scholars gradually began to enter archivalinstitutions to replace officials who had been trained in government record keeping. Further,these archivists who were trained in the new scientific methods cultivated links between thewriting of history and the preservation of archives. This ideology eventually made its wayacross the Atlantic to North America.'One characteristic of European national archival institutions which evolved during thisperiod of nation-building and is worth examining in comparison to the Canadian public archivestradition, has been the concentration of archival responsibility in central governments and theefforts to bring public archives under systematic control. According to Posner, "As a rule theframework of archival depositories corresponds to the administrative structure of the country,with provincial or similar archives taking over the records of respective provincial offices. "5For example, in Italy, there is the Central State Archives which is responsible for thepreservation of the records of the modern Italian state, and there are state archives within theregions. Each of these state archival institutions has a history of its own prior to the unificationof Italy between 1859 and 1870.6 Another illustration can be found in France with LesArchives Nationales as the central archival repository and the Archives Departmentalesresponsible for the preservation of records of each administrative section of the state.' Posner8also notes that it was during the early nineteenth century that archivists began to re-establishcontacts with departments, to demand the regular transfer of public records, and to provide inputin the selection and destruction of government documents.'Furthermore, these efforts to concentrate archival responsibility in central governments werenot limited solely to European public records, they also included non-public records.' In eachEuropean country, the preservation of private archives exists, whether in the state system ofrepositories or not. In some countries, the central government has assigned the responsibilityfor the preservation of private records to museums and libraries, whereas in other countries, thegovernment acknowledges and even lays certain public claim to private records through itsarchival legislation as part of a nation's documentary heritage. For example, in Italy, thedivision of Non-state Archives has jurisdiction over 18 archival superintendancies which takescare of all archives owned by public institutions different from the state and by private personsor bodies. Consequently, all records created or received within Italy are under the jurisdictionof the Ministry of Cultural and Environmental Properties. 1° In other countries, such as theRepublic of Ireland, Denmark, and Finland, the national archival institutions have a legislativemandate to acquire both public and private records.'In Great Britain, however, there is no overall national policy dealing with the preservationof public and private archives. For example, the archival institutions of the central governmentare responsible for the public records of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the policyregarding the acquisition of private records differs within each archival repository. The PublicRecord Office has jurisdiction over the records of the central government of the UnitedKingdom, while the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland and the Scottish Record Office9acquire both public and non-public records, as well as local (county) records. In addition, thereare departments of the British central government which continue to be exempt from theauthority of the Public Record Office, although the latter has statutory responsibility for officialrecords. For example, the records of the British Parliament are preserved by the House ofLords Record Office. Also, the British Library and the India Office Library also hold olderrecords originating from the central government, although they do not actually have any statutoryauthority to house such public records. The British Library (and before that the BritishMuseum) also acquired private archives of national significance. Finally, other publicinstitutions, such as universities and colleges, continue to acquire the papers of politicians andmilitary officials, for example, Cambridge College houses the papers of Sir WinstonChurchill. 12Like Great Britain, the pattern of preserving public and non-public archives is also variedin the United States. There are two streams of development and they are frequently designatedas the historical manuscript tradition and the public records tradition. Perhaps more than in anyother country, publicly supported archival institutions share the responsibility for thepreservation of archives with libraries, museums and other institutions, both public and private.Beginning in the late eighteenth century and nineteenth centuries, the first historical societies andlibraries received public and private archival documents amassed by private collectors, many ofwhich were often based on subject or themes. In addition, these collectors adopted the beliefthat the editing and publication of documents was an effective means of preservation. Thispractice of collecting and publishing documents became known as the historical manuscripttradition, and it dominated the American archival scene well into the twentieth century, and10heavily influenced the development of archival practices.' Indeed, sixty years after theestablishment of the first historical society in Massachusetts in 1792, there were over twohundred historical societies which had assumed responsibility for the records of their region inthe absence of any state or national archives. Moreover, a few historical societies later weregiven responsibility public records. For example, the Wisconsin Historical Society establishedin 1854, became the official repository for state records in 1907."Although American colonists recognized early on that government would keep impartialrecords which guaranteed their legal rights, and would permit access to them on the behalf ofall citizens, the first state archives was not established until 1901 and the National Archives wasnot organized until 1934." According to Posner, state archives have developed along a numberof patterns. In some regions, they have developed as an adjunct of the function of the Secretaryof State, some as departments of the state library, some within historical societies, and some ashistorical commissions or as a department of historical commissions. Thus, in some areas, thestate archives is occupied only with the records generated and received by the government, whilein other states, it is responsible for both public and private records.'Unlike European governments, the American federal government did not readily recognizedits duty for the consolidation of responsibility for national records. Although there wererepeated efforts by historians to convince the federal government to organize an archivalinstitution, the National Archives was not established until 1934. However, the uniformacquisition and housing of both public and private nationally significant records did not occurwith the creation of a national archival institution. Like the Public Record Office of GreatBritain, the National Archives is responsible almost exclusively for the preservation of the11records of the central government. Until its organization, the Library of Congress acquired andpreserved historical public records, and it has continued to acquire nationally significant privaterecords. In addition, four years after the organization of the National Archives, the firstpresidential library, a uniquely American institution was established to house the papers ofFranklin D. Roosevelt. More of these presidential libraries were subsequently created, andalthough they are administered by the National Archives and Records Service, each librarycollects both the published materials and the private and official records of the president, hisfamily, and his contemporaries, as well as artifacts and non-archival materials.' Thus, theorganization of a federal archives did not result in the uniform preservation of both public andprivate records of national significance.By comparison the development of public archival institutions in Canada is remarkablyconsistent in the preservation of both public and private records. Like many European countries,Canada has had a tradition of preserving both public and private archives in public archivalinstitutions. Indeed, the Canadian tradition can be summed up in the concept of "total archives".According to Smith, a former Dominion Archivist, the "total archives" concept has at least fourdimensions. First, all sources of archival material within a territorial jurisdiction are examinedwith the view to acquiring both public and private records. Second, the repository preservesrecords of all media including manuscripts, maps, photographs, picture, sound recordings,motion pictures, other audio visual records, and machine readable records. Further, all recordsoriginating from the same source should be acquired. Third, records reflecting "all subjects ofhuman endeavour should be covered by a repository rather than being assigned to differentrepositories based on subject."' Fourth, the archives participates in all stages of the12management of the life-cycle of the record, from its creation to its final disposition!'According to Cook, there is also a fifth dimension, comprising an archival network of federal,provincial and local government institutions and private programs administered by churches,labour, businesses and universities whose coordinated aim is "to ensure that records of allsignificant human endeavour are preserved."20The dimensions of total archives described by Smith are in fact based on an analysis of thehistorical development of the Public Archives of Canada. In his study, he points out that severalcircumstances affected the organization of the Public Archives of Canada, such as the influenceof historians on the early directions of the Archives, the need to create a Canadian identity bydisseminating a knowledge of Canadian history, the youth of the government and its records,the lack of other cultural institutions, such as a libraries or museums, and the need to locaterecords in the "old countries"." Provincial archival institutions appear to have face similarcircumstances, even though many were established much later than the Public Archives ofCanada. According to Archer, prior to the end of World War II and the introduction of thescience of records management, all Canadian public archival institutions were organizedprimarily for cultural rather than administrative purposes.' They did not develop as extensionsof government record keeping departments, such as the Office of the Chancery or the Secretaryof the State; instead, they were seen as a support for historical research.The Public Archives of Canada was organized five years after Confederation as a responseto the efforts of the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec -- an organization which promotedhistorical research and publications. The Society in its petition brought the relationship betweenpatriotism and national history to the attention of the new Dominion government.13That considering the divers origins, nationalities, religious creeds, and classes of personsrepresented in Canadian society, the conflicting nature of evidence profered by authors inpresenting the most important points and phases of our past local history, as well as thegreater need which a rapidly progressive people have to base the lessons derivable from theirhistory upon facts duly authenticated in place of mere hearsay or statements only partiallycorrect, and, in the absence of documentary proof, coloured conformably to the political andreligious bias or the special motives which may happen to animate the narrator of allegedfacts, the undersigned desire to express their conviction that the best interests of Society inthis country would be consulted by establishing a system, with respect to Canadian Archives,correspondent with those which have been adverted to in relation to Great Britain, Franceand the United States.'In 1872, the government responded with the establishment of the Public Archives of Canada withthe mandate to acquire historical materials for the writing of histories.The Federal government continued to promote the relationship between patriotism andnational history in several ways at the Public Archives of Canada. For example, in 1907, itappointed the Historical Manuscript Commission. The five member Commission comprisedthree English-Canadian historians, namely Charles Colby, George M. Wrong and Adam Shortt,and two French-Canadian historians, Abbe August Gosselin and J. Edmond Roy. Their mandatewas to advise the Dominion Archivist on acquisitions, and to plan with him a program to publishselected manuscripts.' Another illustration was the collaboration of Shortt, Chairman of theBoard of Historical Publications and Arthur Doughty, the Dominion Archivist in editing andproducing a 23 volume series entitled Canada and its Provinces. Although this series was notan official publication of the Public Archives of Canada, its main theme reiterated thedevelopment of a Canadian identity through the dissemination of a common history exploitingthe holdings of archival institutions? Another example of how the federal government viewedthe Public Archives as a necessary support for historical writing was the amalgamation of thetwo posts Keeper of the Records and Dominion Archivist. Although the Federal government14had organized Public Archives to preserve historical records which supported the politicalobjective of nation-building, the establishment of such an institution also encroached on themandate of the Secretary of State who had responsibility for the administration of governmentrecords. With the creation of the Public Archives of Canada there were now two agenciesresponsible for the preservation of government records until 1903 when the two positions ofArchivist and Keeper of the Records were combined into one post. Although the Dominiongovernment in 1903 recognized the record-keeping responsibilities of the Archivist, it continuedto view the Public Archives as a cultural rather than an administrative need."Other repositories which were established prior to World War I, such as the ProvincialArchives of British Columbia, the Public Archives of Nova Scotia and the Provincial Archivesof Ontario also had mandates to become "arsenals of history." Hence, both federal andprovincial governments saw the establishment of archival programs as facilitating the writing ofhistory to promote the political agenda of nation and region building.'Furthermore, this belief in archives as cultural resources has contributed to the developmentof at least three dimensions of total archives: namely, the acquisition of both historical publicand non-public records, the documentation of all subjects of human endeavour, and theacquisition of films, sound recording, documentary art, and photographs for their historicalsignificance. It is from these acquisition efforts that the beginnings of the media divisionsevolved at the Public Archives of Canada to provide special expertise and to meet preservationrequirements in non-textual formats.'Similarly, provincial archivists acquired all forms of historical documentation for the purposeof inspiring Canadian history. At the Archives of Ontario, for example, Fraser acquired15consolidated publications of government, business and other organizations, as well as souvenirsof World War I including Belgian and American recruiting posters, munitions, weapons andbadges.' In British Columbia, Gosnell advocated the creation of a government departmentwhich would house the Province's official records and "the history of its earliest times,subsequent settlement, its progress and development comprising newspaper files, old books,pamphlets and all literature of Provincial interest.' Again, there existed a cultural motivebehind these acquisitions to provide the raw materials necessary to inspire the writing of patriotichistories.Furthermore, the perception of archives as cultural institutions primarily concerned withhistorical materials contributed to the acquisition of public records. Although Brymmer,Doughty and Lanctot valued public records, there were several factors which contributed to thelack of a systematic program for acquiring federal records for the Public Archives of Canada.First, Brymmer and Doughty were mainly interested in the historical period prior toConfederation, and they concentrated their efforts in the acquisition of the records of this period.Second, both Brymmer and Doughty spent a great deal of time with the problems related to theadministration of the Archives, and gaining control over its holdings. Third, there was nooverall government policy or legislation, or bureaucracy dealing with the preservation of publicrecords. Although the Public Archives Act was passed in 1912, the legislation did not ensurethe preservation of records in government offices, and it did not ensure systematic disposal ofgovernment records by the staff of the Archives. Finally, although the Federal government in1912 had followed the advice of the Manuscript Historical Commission in appointing a RoyalCommission to examine the condition of department records, the recommendations of the16Commission which included the establishment of a public records office were never followedthrough, because of the outbreak of World War 1 31 Together, these factors influenced theabsence of a systematic program for the acquisition of Federal government records.At the provincial level similar circumstances affected the views held by provincial archivistsabout public records. For example, in Nova Scotia, Aikins believed that "public documents ofa country are its true history and nothing else."' In British Columbia, where the practicalvalue of an archival institution had been demonstrated in a dispute between the Provincial andDominion Governments over an island in Burrard Inlet, the archivists continued to neglect morecurrent public records and focused on the acquisition of pre-Confederation provincial records."It was not until after World War II that the Canadian government began to address thedevelopment of a systematic final disposition for its records. The tremendous growth in thebureaucracy of the Federal Government and its records during the second World Warcontributed to the need to develop more sophisticated schedules for records disposition.Furthermore, archivists were faced with an increasingly difficult task in the appraisal andselection of records, because of their growing volume and complexity. Hence, the developmentof more sophisticated schedules would in turn yield a more complete historical record of thegovernment's operations and administration. In fact, archivists perceived the process ofscheduling as a planned method of acquisition for public records whereby valuable historicalrecords would be extracted for the Archives. Thus, archivists assumed the responsibility toimplement records management techniques as a means of achieving archival ends rather than tomeet purely administrative needs.'17Again, the Public Archives of Canada played a key role in the administration andpreservation of government records by implementing the principles of records management toselect historical public records. In 1949, Kaye Lamb, the Dominion Archivist, began the taskof blending the cultural and administrative roles of the Public Archives of Canada. He used thepragmatic and economically efficient model of the United States National Archives and the life-cycle concept to convince administrators of the value of retention and final disposition decisionsby archivists. He also promoted the idea that the availability of storage space for dormantrecords would give archivists greater control over the transfer of historical records, and thatthere should be some review process for the final disposition of records. At the same time, heargued that current and semi-current records would be administered by records managers in thegovernment offices. Consequently, Lamb promoted the construction of the Public ArchivesRecords Centre which was completed in 1956, thus providing storage for records until their finaldisposition was reviewed by archives staff. Also in 1956, the Public Records Committee wasestablished to review final disposition recommendations from the Archives staff.' TheCommittee was disbanded in 1966 with the promulgation of the Public Records Order whichabolished the committee and placed the responsibility for coordinating the government recordsmanagement program with the Dominion Archivist. This responsibility included: recordscentres, microfilm services, advisory services, staff training, the establishment of recordstandards, the publication of guides, and the authority to review departmental practices."At the same time, many provinces established public archives with the mandates to deliverboth cultural and records management programs. During the post war era, ProvincialGovernments in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Alberta and New Brunswick18organized public archives with the mandate to deliver both records management and culturalprograms to deal with problems which existed in public records, and also as a response to thepersistent pleas of historians to preserve historical records and manuscripts. Furthermore, theprovinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Quebec also recognized the need to address theproblems of public records. Even in these provinces, where public archives had existed sincethe turn of the century, there was no adequate machinery to deal with the final disposition ofpublic records. The arrival of public records at these archives was often the result of"housecleaning" in government offices rather than the result of a systematic selection byarchivists. Again, the provincial archivists turned to the Public Archives of Canada andfollowed its developments as viable solutions to these problems.'Although Canadian archivists in general recognized the importance of records managementin the administration and the selection of historic public records, the roles of archivists andrecords managers remained distinct and separate. The latter were concerned primarily withadministrative efficiency and the present, while the former were concerned with culture and thepast.Since the late 1970's, some archivists have reflected on this disjunction between active andsemi-active records, and on the effect which this separation has had on the quality of the archivalrecord. For example, at the Public Archives of Canada, two archivists conducted a study offederal records management practices and the selection of archival records. This study revealedthat the implementation of records management procedures in federal departments wasunsatisfactory because of the lack of involvement by archivists in the handling of current andsemi-current records. Consequently, many records of long term value were often retained in19government offices while those records with little or no value were transferred to the PublicRecords Centre for dormant storage. Therefore, the study recommended that federal archivistsparticipate more fully in the development of record schedules, in the implementation ofclassification systems, and in the identification of archival records in government offices.'Another illustration of the effect of this separation between archivists and records managerson the quality of the archival record can be found in Canadian archival legislation. Accordingto Bryans, archival legislation written after World War II and prior to the last decade hascontinued to define archives as institutions primarily concerned with the preservation of historicaldocuments. At the same time, the legislation defines public records as active and semi-activerecords of government whereas they are appraised as historical or archival records. Thisdisjunction in legislation came about because the intent behind archival legislation was theestablishment of archival institutions as historical repositories whereas public records legislationwas aimed to legitimize the destruction of public records. Bryans argues moreover that theprevalence of the cultural impetus behind the organization of public archives and the use ofnineteenth century definitions of archival institutions and their functions has hindered andobscured the preservation of government records."Recently, changes in information technology required that archivists review their role in themanagement of information holdings. The ability of the computer to manipulate informationinstantaneously has compressed the life-cycle concept of the record and it has further blurred theonce clear distinction between records managers and archivists. The fluidity of electronic datarequires scheduling to be a continuous process built into the system itself at the time that therecord is created.20Finally, legislation regarding access to information and privacy was introduced in the federaland eight provincial jurisdictions including Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon. In British Columbia, the Provincialgovernment has introduced a bill to enact freedom of information legislation and it will bebrought into force October 1993. Access to information legislation has also been introduced insome municipal jurisdictions. In Ontario, the Provincial government has already included localgovernments in freedom of information legislation.' In British Columbia, the Provincialgovernment is considering similar legislation to be brought into force in 1994.4' Although theimpact of this legislation on public archives has yet to be fully studied, it compels archivists toaddress the contemporary environment of the record in order to administer the privacy andaccess regulations in connection with such legislation. Furthermore, the question of access topublic records is no longer strictly a function of the archival institutions because bothadministrators and records managers in government departments must deal with requests fordocuments in their contemporary environment. Consequently, this legislation further underminesthe distinction between public records and archives presented in "old fashioned" archivallegislation which was based on nineteenth century views of archival institutions.Thus, the roles of Canadian archivists and records managers can no longer be easily definedaccording to either the phases of the life-cycle of the record, or by nineteenth century definitionsof archival institutions. In fact, by the 1980's most Canadian archivists had accepted that anintegrated global approach to records management and archives be undertaken under which nodistinction exists between records managers and archivists -- instead, one policy is developedfor the intellectual control of government records and it is coordinated by a single agency.4221Finally, one Canadian archivist has proposed an alternative to the concept of the life cycle ofthe record -- a continuum to be serviced by "information caretakers".' These recent ideaschallenge the long-standing disjunction between public records and archives, and the divisionbetween records managers and archivists in order to achieve both the administrative and culturalgoals of a public archives in a twentieth century setting.Finally, the fifth dimension identified by Cook, and mentioned earlier in this chapter, thattotal archives include the development of a national archival network of federal, provincial, andmunicipal archives and, private archives administered by churches, labour, business and otherorganizations, is an element which has also recently emerged in the Canadian archival landscape.Discussions about this multi-institutional archival system began in 1975 with the publication ofthe Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Report on Canadian studies, commonlyknown as the Symons report after its author, T.H.B. Symons. The Symons report in its chapteron Canadian archives, recognized two fundamental tasks for archivists. First, the report claimsthat archivists need to inform scholars of archival sources, their location and potentialdevelopment. Second, archivists need to develop a national and regional plan to coordinatearchival resources, which could be accomplished in universities.'Although archivists were pleased with the recognition of the report that "the future of thequality of Canadian studies is directly linked with the condition and resources of Canadianarchives," they criticized the recommendations for several reasons.' First, all of therecommendations of the report dealt with the organization of archival resources for Canadianstudies rather than with the administration of archives. Understandably, the report treatedarchival institutions almost exclusively as cultural resources, because its primary focus was22Canadian studies. Second, the report assumed universities would be able to coordinate anetwork of archival resources, whereas universities actually had a poor record of administeringtheir own archives. Third, the report did not recognize the important role of public archivalinstitutions in the preservation of regional and national records. In contrast, archivists arguedthat federal, provincial and municipal governments had a role to play in the financing andcoordinating of an archival network.'Nonetheless, the Symons report encouraged archivists to further discuss the issue of aCanadian archival network. In 1978, the Social Sciences Humanities and Research Council ofCanada (SSHRCC) appointed nine archivists and Chair Ian Wilson as the Consultative Groupon Canadian Archives "to examine the field and summarize its present condition and to offerwhatever leadership they feel is best advised."' In 1980, the Group published its findings ina report, Canadian Archives: Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council,commonly known as the Wilson report, which was based on information acquired from a surveyof 321 institutions from which 185 questionnaires and 73 briefs were received. The Committeefound that an archival system was misleading because "it implies a degree of coordination ofshared objectives and of structure that is only beginning to emerge among Canadianarchives."48 Moreover, the Committee found that Canadian archives were in financialdoldrums in that over one-half of the archives surveyed had annual budgets of $20,000 or less,and many lacked basic archival facilities and equipment. Furthermore, the Report revealed thatthe total annual budgets of Canadian archives, excluding the Public Archives of Canada, whichaccounted for sixty per cent of the total amount of archival expenditures, amounted to only$10,861,898.4923Based on these findings, the Wilson report made its first six recommendations aimed at theprovision of a basic framework for the development of an archival network in Canada to belocated in federal and provincial archives. First, all public archives should re-evaluate theirprograms to achieve a balance between their traditional mandates, and new projects should aimto provide leadership in a cooperative system of archives. Second, each province should forma coordinated network to develop services, facilities and programs which would benefit allarchives in that province. Third, the Public Archives of Canada should develop an extensionbranch to administer consulting services, information services, technical facilities and a grantprogram for all archives in the country. Fourth, the legislation governing the Public Archivesof Canada, which was passed in 1912 to provide a sound legislative framework, should beamended to implement the proposals of the report. Fifth, the Public Archives of Canada shouldincrease its annual budget by $2 5 million to administer the extension branch and its programs.The sixth recommendation was that a Canadian Association of Archives be formed." Theserecommendations were specifically aimed at federal and provincial archives for a number ofreasons. The Committee recognized that these well established public archives had been giventhe responsibility to ensure the preservation of all Canadian historical records, however infulfilling this task, the archivists of these institutions needed to recognize that this meant morethan simply gathering all public and private records of a region into centralized institutions.Therefore, the Committee argued, provincial and federal archivists needed to foster thedevelopment of appropriate institutional, corporate and local archives. More importantly, thewriters of the report made these first six recommendations with the hope that the more affluentinstitutions would "champion the cause of the needy", because during the 1960's and 1970's24many of these disadvantaged archives had developed outside cities and away from traditionalsettings of government and universities. Thus, the Committee recognized that a system ofCanadian archives had to draw on the potential of these small, local and institutional archives.'These discussions about an archival network reflected the growth in Canadian archives sincethe turn of the century. The Committee reported that 17 out of 174 archives surveyed had beenorganized at about that time and that by 1925, some 30 institutions had been established.Between 1950 and 1975, the number of archives increased from 49 to 174. 52 Although theWilson Report did not state why so many archives were organized during that period, one mightsuppose that this level of activity was related to a growth in an awareness of heritage in general,and in historical artifacts and heritage buildings, all of which were spurred on by national andprovincial centennials. In British Columbia alone, between 1958 and 1972 there were 66community museums organized, many of which operated in conjunction with art galleries andarchives. 53 None of these museum archives were involved in the systematic preservation oflocal public records, and most were administered and operated by volunteers of historicalsocieties with little or no financial support from their parent organizations.The establishment of an archival network based in provincial and federal archives, however,required the cooperation of provincial and federal governments. In 1983, the provincial andterritorial ministers of culture discussed the question of Canadian archives and they directed theDominion, Provincial and Territorial Archivists to advise their governments on archival issues,and in 1984, this group produced a report on implementation guidelines for a Canadian archivalsystem which was to be coordinated at the regional level by provincial councils. Theseprovincial councils in turn would be coordinated by a national advisory council -- the Canadian25Council of Archives whose function was to provide the coordination and planning for programsfor the most effective use of resources, and to develop programs to reach basic standards. Inaddition, the Canadian Council of Archives is to ensure the continuing improvement ofarchivists, institutions and archival activities.mAlthough the development of the Canadian Council of Archives, and provincial and territorialcouncils marked the beginnings of a coordinated multi-institutional system of archives in Canada,archivists and archival sponsors continued to establish and operate archival programs in relativeisolation, because of the paucity of a common concept of the purpose of a records and archivesprogram. In spite of the identification of the five dimensions of total archives, the re-evaluationof the disjunction which existed between records managers and archivists, and the evolution ofa global approach towards the management of information, public archival institutions continueto be developed in the absence of a common conceptual framework. Indeed, the membershipguidelines issued by the Canadian Council of Archives are voluntary and consequently, neitherarchivists nor archival sponsors are obliged to participate in the archival system. In addition,most provinces lack clear legal provisions for the organization of their provincial archives whichwould have provided some guidelines for the establishment of other public archival institution.According to Bryans, provincial archival legislation generally lacks provisions for definingarchival terms, for establishing the scope and authority of an archival program and theorganization of the basic elements of an archival and records management program." Theconsequence of this paucity of guidelines is the continuing development of public archives in anunsystematic manner.26One area which would benefit from a clearer framework for archival and record keepingprograms is municipal government, the last jurisdiction to organize public archives. Accordingto the Wilson report the formation of local archives is as necessary as it is inevitable. It isnecessary because provincial and federal archives can no longer acquire all of the records of aregion, and it is inevitable because of the general growth in awareness of local history and ofheritage in genera1.56 In addition, local archival institutions are one of the fundamental buildingblocks of a national archival network. However, the organization of such local archivalprograms continues to be left to chance and circumstance, because of the lack of guidelines forarchivists and local governments.One illustration of the absence of agreed upon standards for local governments can be foundin municipal legislation governing municipal records. Under the British North America Act of1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982, the provincial governments were empowered to delegatepowers to local government. According to Bish, the British Columbia government affects localgovernments in three ways. The province determines the rules under which local governmentsmay be organized, legislates mandatory activities for municipalities as an administrativeextension of the province, and authorizes all activities that local government may undertake.Most rules are set forth in the Municipal Act, or other acts administered by the Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs.'Because provincial governments have "authority" over local government, there exists someconfusion over the control of municipal records. Indeed, according to Archer, "there has alwaysbeen doubt in the minds of archivists and law officers whether municipal records are controlledby municipal legislation or by existing provincial legislation.' Consequently, there are27inconsistencies in how local and provincial governments address municipal records. On onehand, provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta permit municipal governments todeposit their records in the provincial archives. On the other hand, provinces such as Ontario,Nova Scotia and New Brunswick identify municipal records as belonging to the Province withsuch records transferred to the provincial archives. In addition, there is no legislation in BritishColumbia addressing specifically the destruction of municipal records, although the ProvincialArchivist may acquire municipal records." Also in British Columbia, the Municipal Clerk hasstatutory responsibility for certain records of Council.' Further, in some Canadianmunicipalities, such as Kingston, Ontario municipal records are deposited in the local university.Because both municipal and archival legislation are unclear and inconsistent about the legal statusof municipal records, and because there is an absence of standards for organizing local archives,municipal government records keeping and archival programs are evolving in an unsystematicpattern.One might speculate whether the continuation of this unsystematic development pattern canbe limited in the organization of local archives. Since the public archives tradition in Canadais over 100 years old and Canadian archivists have recognized the total archives concept as "astandard" in the organization of government archives, this unsystematic development of localarchives should not have occurred. In fact, local governments and archivists should benefit fromthe collective experiences of federal and provincial public archival institutions and the Canadianpublic archives tradition.The following essays will trace the development of two local archival programs in Richmondand Delta, B.C.. Because local government archives have recently developed in Canada, the28following chapters are case studies. Each study will provide a description of how theseprograms were established and their development. The two programs are more typical of thosedescribed in the Wilson report. They were initially organized in conjunction with museumprograms during the early 1960's in response to a general awareness in heritage, historicalartifacts and heritage buildings in each respective community. A case study method was the bestmeans to examine in detail and to analyze the establishment of two local archival programs,within the framework of the aspects of total archives.29Chapter 1 - Endnotes1. John Archer, "A Study of Archival Institutions in Canada," (PhD. diss., Queen's University,Kingston, 1969).2. The following studies examine the history of the Public Archives of Canada: Jay Atherton,"Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1897-1956," Archivaria 8 (Summer 1979): 35-60; William G. Ormsby, "The Public Archives of Canada, 1948-1968," Archivaria 15 (Winter1982-83): 36-57; Ian E. Wilson, "A Noble Dream': Origins of the Public Archives ofCanada," Archivaria 15 (Winter 1982-83): 16-35, and "Shortt and Doughty: the Cultural Riseof the Public Archives of Canada," The Canadian Archivist 2 (1973): 4-25.The main studies of provincial archives are: Marion Beyea, "Records Management : the NewBrunswick Case," Archivaria 8 (Summer 1979): 61-77; Carmen Carroll, "Developing aHistorical Laboratory: the Genesis of the Public Archives of Nova Scotia," in The ArchivalImagination: Essays in Honour of Hugh Taylor. ed. Barbara L. Craig (Ottawa: Association ofCanadian Archivists, 1992), 178-211; Joan Champ, "Arthur Silver Morton and his role in theFounding of the Saskatchewan Archives Board," Archivaria 32 (Summer 1991): 101-113;Barbara Craig, "Records Management in the Ontario Archives, 1950-1976," Archivaria 8(Summer 1979): 3-34; B.C. Cuthbertson, "Thomas Beamish Aikins: British North America'sPioneer Archivist," Acadiensis 7, no.1 (1977): 86-101; Terry Eastwood, "R.E. Gosnell, E.O.S.Scholefield and the founding of the Provincial Archives of British Columbia, 1894-1919," B.C. Studies 54 (1982): 38-62; C. Bruce Fergusson, "The Public Archives of Nova Scotia,"Acadiensis 2, no.1 (1972): 71-81; John P. Greene "The Provincial Archives of Newfoundland,"Acadiensis 3, no.1 (1973): 72-78; David W. Leonard "Establishing the Archives of theNorthwest Territories: A Regional Case Study in Legality," Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984): 70-83; Donald McLeod, "Quaint Specimens of the Early Days': Priorities in Collecting the OntarioRecord, 1872-1935," Archivaria 22 (Summer 1986): 12-39; and "Our Man in theMaritimes:'Down Fast' with the Public Archives of Canada, 1872-1930," Archivaria 17(Summer 1983-84): 86-105; Michael D. Swift, "The Canadian Archival Scene in the 1970's:Current Development and Trends," Archivaria 15 (Winter 1982-83): 47-47, and BernardWeilbrenner, "Les Archives provinciales du Quebec et leur relations avec les Archives federales,1867-1920. Troisieme Partie," Archives 18, no.3 (1983): 3-25.3. Robin G. Kierstead, "J.S. Matthews and an Archives for Vancouver, 1951-72," Archivaria23 (Winter 1986-87): 86-101. R. Scott James, " Administration of Municipal Records: theToronto Experience," Government Publications Review 8A (1981): 321-325.4. Ernst Posner, "Some Aspects of Archival Development since the French Revolution," inModern Archives Reader: Basic Readings on Archival Theory and Practice ed. Maygene F.Daniels and Timothy Walch (Washington: National Archives and Records Service, 1984), 4-9.5. Ibid., 7.306. The Central Office for Archival Properties has five divisions: General affairs, Non-stateArchives, Archival Technology, Archival Documentation and State Archives. See LucianaDuranti, "Education and the role of the Archivist in Italy," American Archivist 51(1988): 346.7. Nancy Bartlett, "Respect des Fonds: The Origins of the Modern Archival Principle ofProvenance," Primary Resources and Original Works 1, no.1, 2 (1992): 109-111.8. Posner, "Some Aspects of Archival Development," 10-11.9. According to Livelton's analysis of the concept of public records and archival principles,public records are "documents created or received and preserved in the legitimate conduct orgovernance by the sovereign or its agents." Private records are therefore all non-public records.See Trevor Livelton, "Public Records: a Study in Archival Theory," (Master of Archival StudiesThesis, University of British Columbia, 1991), 93-157.10. Duranti, "Education and the Archivist in Italy," 346.11. Ibid.12. Michael Cook, The Management of Information from Archives (Brookfield, Vermont:Gower Publishing, 1985), 14-26.13. Richard C. Berner, Archival Theory and Practice in the United States: A Historical Analysis(Seattle: University of London Press, 1983), 11-12. James O'Toole, Understanding Archivesand Manuscripts (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1990), 31-32.14. James G. Brashner and Michael F. Pacifico, "History of Archives Administration," inManaging Archives and Archival Institutions ed. James G. Brashner (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1989), 27.15. James O'Toole, Understanding Archives and Manuscripts (Chicago: Society of AmericanArchivists, 1990), 31-32.16. Ernst Posner, American State Archives (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 30.17. Theodore Schellenberg, Modern Archives. Principles and Techniques (Chicago: ChicagoUniversity Press, 1956), 7, 17-20.18. Wilfred Smith,"Total Archives': the Canadian Experience," Archives et Biblioteque deBelgique 1, no.2 (1986), 341.19. Ibid.20. Terry Cook, "The Tyranny of the Medium: A Comment on 'Total Archives'," Archivaria9 (Winter 1979-80): 141-142.3121. Smith," 'Total Archives'," 324.22. Archer, "Archival Institutions in Canada," iv.23. Ian E. Wilson, "A Noble Dream': The Origins of the Public Archives of Canada,"Archivaria 15 (Winter 1982-83): 18. Public Archives of Canada, Records of the PublicArchives of Canada, RG 37, Vol. 104.24.Carl Berger, The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English Canadian HistoricalWriting 1900-1970 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1976), 26-30.25. Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives, 22.26. Jay Atherton, "Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1897-1956," Archivaria 8(Summer 1979): 35-42.27. Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives : Reports to Social Sciencesand Humanities Research Council (Ottawa: Information Division of the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council, 1980), 19-20.28. The development of specialized media divisions has received some criticism as a possiblethreat to the principle of provenance. Cook argues that there is the possibility of the breach ofprovenance unless great care is taken to retain the intellectual control of the record. See TerryCook, "The Tyranny of the Medium: A Comment on 'Total Archives'," Archivaria 9 (Winter1979-80): 141-142.29. Donald Mcleod, "Quaint Specimens of the Early Days': Priorities in Collecting the OntarioRecord, 1872-1935," Archivaria 22 (Summer 1986): 32-34.30. Terry Eastwood, "R.E. Gosnell, E.O.S. Scholefield and the Founding of the ProvincialArchives of B.C., 1894-1919," B.C. Studies 54 (1982): 41.31. Atherton, "Public Records Centre," 44-46.32. C. Bruce Fergusson, "The Public Archives of Nova Scotia," Acadiensis 2, no.1 (1972), 73.33. Eastwood, "The Founding of the Provincial Archives of B.C.," 60-62.34. Bryan Corbett and Eldon Frost, "The Acquisition of Federal Government Records: A Reportof Records Management and Archival Practice," Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-84): 201-232.35. Atherton, "The Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre," 55-58.36. P.C. 1749, 9 September 1966.37. Archer, "Archival Institutions in Canada," 154, 362.3238. Corbett and Frost, "The Acquisition of Federal Government Records," 213-215.39. Victoria Bryans, "Canadian Provincial and Territorial Archival Legislation: A Case ofDisjunction between Theory and Law," (Master of Archival Studies Thesis, University of BritishColumbia, 1989), 46.40. Federal: Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1British Columbia: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Bill 50 (not yetproclaimed in forced)Manitoba: Freedom of Information Act, S.M. 1985-86, c.6New Brunswick: Right to Information Act, S.N.B. 1978, c.R-103Newfoundland: Freedom of Information Act, S.N. 1981, c.5Nova Scotia: Freedom of Information Act, S.N.S. 1990, c.11Quebec: Act respecting Access to documents held in public bodies and the protection ofpersonal information, R.S.Q. 1987, c.A - 2.1Ontario: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.O. 1987, c.25Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.O. 1989, c.63Saskatchewan: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.S., 1990-91, C.F-22.01(not yet proclaimed into force)Yukon: Access to Information Act, R.S.Y. 1986, c.141. Barry Jones, MLA Report: The Extension of Ctizen's Information and Privacy Rights to allPublic Bodies in British Columbia, February 1993.42. Carol Couture and Jean Yves Rousseau, The Life of a Document: A Global Approach toArchives and Records Management (Montreal: Vehicule Press, 1986), 25-26.43. Jay Atherton, "From a Life Cycle to Continuum' Some Thoughts on the RecordsManagement - Archives Relationship," Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-86): 43-51.44. T.H.B. Symons, To Know Ourselves: The Report of the Commission on Canadian Studies2 vols. (Ottawa, 1975).45. Ibid. vol. 2, 69.3346. "Canadian Archives: Reports and Responses. The Symons Report," Archivaria 11 (Winter1980): 3-11.47. Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives, 1.48. Ibid., 29.49. Ibid., 32, 39.50. Ibid., 65-73.51. Terry Eastwood, "Attempts at National Planning for Archives in Canada, 1975-1985,"Public Historian 8, no.3 (1986): 84.52. Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives, 33.53. Rob Watt, "The Role and Impact of Museums in the Preservation and Interpretation ofBritish Columbia History," Museum Round Up 91(1984): 6-7.54. Eastwood, "Attempts at National Planning," 87-89.55. Bryans, "Canadian Archival Legislation," 4.56. Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives, 91.57. Robert Bish, Local Government in British Columbia (Richmond: Union of British ColumbiaMunicipalities, 1987), 9.58. Archer, "Archival Institutions in Canada," 440.59. Ibid., 455.60. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, ss.244b and 244c34Chapter 2The Development of a Municipal Archival Program: the Richmond Municipal Archives Although governments began to recognize the importance of public archives and recordsmanagement, the cultural aspect of archives continued to prevail as the principal impetus for theestablishment of archival institutions at the municipal level. Many institutions or programs atthe local level had their origins in museums, libraries and historical societies, often as part ofan effort to promote a greater understanding of local histories during provincial and federalcentenary celebrations. This was coupled, at about the same time, with an increased interest inpreserving the "unique" history and architectural heritage of each community. According toWatt, between 1958 and 1982, many local or community museums were established inconjunction with various centenary celebrations in British Columbia.' The first attempts topreserve archives can often be traced to these activities. This phenomenon may also explain theCanada wide spurt of growth in the number of archival institutions described in the Wilsonreport. One such institution was the Richmond Municipal Archives.'The Township of the Richmond was incorporated in 1879 and today, its geographical areaencompasses two large and fourteen smaller islands located at the mouth of the Fraser River.In 1862, the first non-indigenous settler of the area, Hugh McRoberts, built his home on SeaIsland. McRoberts and subsequent settlers found farming to be a viable and profitable business,because of the rich alluvial deposits from the Fraser River. By the turn of the century, fishingand fish canning were established as other principal industries. Agriculture and fishing remainedthe economic lifeblood of the community until the post World War II period when theconstruction of better bridges and roadways turned Richmond into a suburb of Vancouver, with35highly developed residential, business, light industrial and high technology areas, as well as theVancouver International Airport on Sea Island. Agriculture and fishing industries also continueto be profitable businesses. Today, Richmond is the fourth largest municipality in BritishColumbia with a population of 126,624 in 1991. Although there has been an influx of newcitizens to the community, many longtime residents maintain that their community is distinctbecause of its history, in spite of the proximity of the City of Vancouver across the FraserRiver, to the immediate north.' This underlying view has significantly effected the developmentof an archival institution and other heritage programs in the community.'In Richmond, the impetus to establish a local archives was closely associated with thecentennial of the incorporation of the Municipality of Richmond in 1979, which inspired acelebration of the accomplishments of the community and an acknowledgement of the need topreserve the documentary sources of its history. As early as 1947, some residents of Richmondwere aware of the need for a local archival institutions when they recognized that the City ofVancouver Archives would be a temporary repository for a collection belonging to Hugh Boyd,the first Reeve (or mayor) of Richmond. However, no archival development occurred in thisfishing and farming community until the 1960's when a group of citizens began to recognize theimportance of their municipality's history and heritage in general.' These initiatives markedthe beginnings of an organized interest by some citizens in the preservation of the documentaryheritage of Richmond.The first official response to a need to preserve the history of Richmond occurred in 1961when Richmond Council adopted Bylaw No. 1817, which established the Richmond Historicaland Museum Advisory Committee. The ten member historical committee appointed by36Richmond Council included the Reeve (later Mayor) as an ex-officio member. It had themandate to gather, preserve, and to make available to the public, items of historical value; toadvise Council on matters concerning heritage buildings and sites and; to bring to Council'sattention anniversaries and pioneers of the community. In addition, the Committee was alsoresponsible for advising Council on "the disposition of municipal records.. .which are no longerof value in the day-to-day operation of the Municipality, but which may have historicalsignificance."' Hence, Council had appointed a committee that was responsible for preservingboth the documentary heritage and material history of the community. The recognition of thehistorical value of municipal records played a significant role in the development of a localarchival institution, because many of the members of this committee, such as CouncillorsArchibald Blair and Robert McMath, Reeve William Anderson, and Municipal Clerk TedYoungberg, later brought forward the need to organize a separate municipal archival institutionwith a role in the preservation of both public and non-public records to the attention of Councilat a critical juncture in 1980.7Although appointed by Council, the Historical and Museum Advisory Committee operatedlike many community historical societies, in that it functioned at arms-length from the MunicipalCouncil. According to Bish, most municipalities in British Columbia assign responsibility foroperating the local museum to a historical society or a citizen's committee. In 1985, he foundthat only nineteen museums were directly administered by municipalities and another nine wereoperated by municipal staff but subject to the direction of a historical society. In mostmunicipalities, the work is done by volunteers who may be responsible for all matters ofheritage, including artifacts, in situ heritage sites, archaeological sites and archival documents.'37Like many such bodies, the Richmond Historical and Museum Advisory Committeedeveloped a broad acquisition policy that included as the minutes recorded, "items that were nolonger in use from the past."' In addition, it intended to create "an arsenal" of local historywhich could be used in the writing of community histories to promote the education of the publicand the creation of historical displays, and to demonstrate the progressive development of thecommunity. Because the Committee's primary objective was to rescue artifacts and archivaldocuments from the danger of being lost or destroyed, it did not pay a great deal attention todetails such as recording the provenance of the historical materials it acquired. In fact, standarddocuments such as accession forms were not used until the 1970's.'° Moreover, the RichmondHistorical and Museum Advisory Committee made little or no distinction among library,museum and archival materials, because the community had not yet formally organized anydistinct institution to accept them. Both the broad acquisitions policy and the lack ofdocumentation were not unusual for a historical organization whose primary concern was topromote interest in and knowledge of the history of their community.The Committee was also typical of a local historical or museum society in that it producedexhibits and collected materials based on its members' perception of the past. One museumwriter, Miller-Marti, argues that many local museums acquire artifacts and manuscriptcollections based on a myth of the past which legitimizes authority, and provides moral guidanceto present society. There is little doubt that local museums play a significant role in the creationand the interpretation of a community's history, which in turn is often affected by exhibit designpractices, acquisition methods, audience participation and expectation, and the involvement ofthe community through volunteers at the institution. Miller-Marti argues that many museum38volunteers romanticize history by glorifying individuals and events rather than by providing ananalytical interpretation of past events. Because many local museums often lack resources toemploy professionally trained curators, they rely on the labour of volunteers who develop andinstall exhibits that tend to romanticize the past.' This concept of the past is visible in thedevelopment of the Richmond museum and archival programs. For example, a display preparedin 1967 for an annual local trade fair compared the wonders of modern household applianceswith the hardships of the pioneer housewife. Although such displays may be questioned in termsof historical accuracy and interpretation, it is evident that the dedication of the Committee tosuch concepts played an important role in laying the foundations for a local museum andarchives in Richmond.'Another consequence of the enthusiasm for local history was the development of a rathereccentric collection of documents by committee members. Unfortunately, the Committee hadno understanding of archives as an inter-related complex of documents whose content andstructure needed to be preserved. Consequently, they concentrated their attention on acquiringcopies of documents housed in existing repositories, such as the Vancouver Public Library andthe City of Vancouver Archives, or held in private hands. This material was then organized insubject files and supplemented by oral histories conducted by committee members."The question of a permanent facility to store and to exhibit materials soon becameimportant. In 1967, the Municipality of Richmond constructed the Richmond Arts Centre witha museum wing, as part of the community's Canadian centennial celebrations. The Arts Centrewas built adjacent to the Richmond Public Library and some sports facilities located in a parkin the town centre. The Arts Centre facility housed a museum, an art gallery, studio workshops,39and "some archival storage." All of these functions were administered by one director, anemployee of the Municipal Department of Parks and Leisure Services. Although theMunicipality was now more actively involved in heritage activities, the Richmond Historical andMuseum Advisory Committee members continued to acquire and display pioneer artifacts, andto hold meetings in the new museum facility with the Director of the Arts Centre overseeingtheir activities.'By the 1970's, many residents of Richmond became involved in heritage activities inanticipation of the centennial of the incorporation of the Municipality in 1979. The RichmondPublic Library began to develop a bibliography of historical sources on the Municipality. TheSteveston Historical Society restored a post office and developed it into a museum. Stevestonhad developed as a fishing village at the mouth of the south arm of the Fraser River. Thediscussions of the Historical and Museum Advisory Committee also began to focus on theapproaching centennial of the incorporation of Richmond and on the need for an official societyto organize the centenary celebrations. It was also at this time that the Richmond Historical andMuseum Advisory Committee changed its name to the Richmond Historical Society. TheSociety had the same mandate, but it could now apply for federal and provincial heritage grants.It also could now join the Richmond Arts Council, an umbrella organization of the ArtsCentre.° The Society now began to focus on projects such as the restoration of the Londonfamily farmhouse, an oral history program based on interviews with Richmond pioneers, theupdating of a local history book which had been written in 1927, and the need for an officiallocal historical society. In 1978, the Richmond '79 Centennial Society was established byCouncil to coordinate municipal centennial celebrations and to publish a local history, Richmond: 40Child of the Fraser.' Although the Society was established with a municipal by-law, it electedits own directors. This Society too acquired documents while researching the history of thecommunity, and it placed its collections under the care of the Richmond Public Library.Although all of these groups were working towards the preservation of the history of Richmond,each society operated in isolation, often duplicating collections and functions.In an attempt to retain some form of control and coordination over heritage activities, in1978, the Arts Centre Director, W.A. Anderson, submitted a report to the MunicipalAdministrator, Will Preston, requesting that Municipal staff monitor heritage activities andmanage the collection of artifacts and private documents being acquired by the variousorganizations in Richmond. According to his report,...there should be one official collecting agency or archive, and it should be undermunicipal control, in either a Municipal facility or one approved by MunicipalCouncil. The staff therein should be Municipal employees.°In another report submitted to a manager in the Department of Parks and Leisure Services,Anderson also began to express his concerns over the collections of historical materials in theLibrary, which were accumulating through the research efforts of the Richmond '79 CentennialSociety.This has blossomed into the collecting of photos, slides, manuscripts and relatedmaterials, presentation of material at various functions and to groups, and it wouldappear that the library would like to become the local archival resource. There hasbeen a certain amount of misrepresentation from specific individuals at the sourcecreating certain doubts and ill will."Anderson advocated that he should be responsible for the coordination of all heritage relatedactivities and the amalgamation of the various collections. Furthermore, he recommended thatthe Arts Centre become the central agency which would control the funding of community41groups involved in heritage activities, and that it would review grant applications submitted byeach group to provincial and federal agencies. His recommendation was never accepted byCouncil. 19Meanwhile, in 1978, the Municipality began a feasibility study on enlarging the ArtsCentre to meet the growing needs of its patrons and user groups. The outcome was a proposalto build a proper museum to house the collections and provide space for exhibits. Althoughthere were some discussions about the possibility of converting "a heritage building" for thepurpose, in the end, the Arts Centre site was expanded, and it continued to house the museum'scollections, the art collection, and the historical documentary materials in a small vault."With these improvements to the Arts Centre, the Municipality also began to examine thecondition of the historical collections which the various bodies had acquired over the past twentyyears. The numerous artifacts, photographs and other documents collected with the intentionof creating "a storehouse of historical data" were in fact largely unorganized and inaccessible.The rather confused state of the whole encouraged the Municipality to review its existingheritage programs.In 1981, the Municipality hired John Kyte, the Museum Advisor of the British ColumbiaProvincial Museum, as a consultant with the mandate to review the state of heritage programsin Richmond. In his report submitted to the Department of Parks and Leisure Services, Kytestated that the museum and the archives had been "operating as auxiliary arm(s) of the ArtCentre for well over a decade, ... forced to maintain a performance level far below that expectedby a community institution."' He also noted that heritage activities had no long-term plan.Community heritage groups had overlapping goals, and duplicated activities and services. In42his report, Kyte had two recommendations in regards to archives. First, he argued that theaccumulation of photographs and documents housed in the Richmond Library was "an ad hoccollection," the result of the Richmond '79 Centennial Society's publication and activities, andthat these should be consolidated with the collections housed in the Arts Centre and placed inthe custody of the museum. Second, Kyte recommended that the Municipality hire a person tocare for the archival materials. He outlined a reporting structure whereby the archivist wouldbe a part-time employee, not necessarily "fully qualified" under the supervision of the MuseumCurator.' He did not, however, raise the question of the preservation of municipal records.Because Kyte had failed to identify any role for the archivist in the preservation ofhistorical public records, his proposal did not satisfy all individuals involved in the preservationof archival documents. For instance, the Historical Sub-committee of the Richmond '79Centennial Society was one group which strongly criticized Kyte's report and itsrecommendations regarding archives. Indeed, this group had a strong interest in thedevelopment of a municipal archival institution, as demonstrated by its proposal to the MunicipalClerk to hire a full-time archivist upon the dissolution of the Richmond '79 Centennial Societyin 1980." On February 9, 1982, three members of the Historical Sub-Committee appearedbefore the Parks & Recreation Commission to present an alternative to Kyte's recommendations.The three were Ted Youngberg, a former member of the Richmond Historical & MuseumAdvisory Committee and a former Richmond Municipal Clerk, Betty Gatz, a librarian at theRichmond Public Library, and Jean Grover, former Secretary of the Richmond '79 CentennialSociety. They maintained that an archives program should be integrated with the administrationof the Municipality because a public archival institution should acquire both municipal public43records through a records management program, as well as the private records of a community.In fact, they argued that "when an archives can demonstrate that Municipal records are properlycared for,... the public will entrust their personal records to the archives."24 In addition, theyadvocated that the position of the archivist be temporarily combined with the position of arecords manager and that this records manager/archivist report directly to the municipal clerk.Eventually, they foresaw the need for the position to be divided into two.The Historical Sub-Committee, however, failed to convince Council of the necessity fora municipal archival institution based on a program of public records management programwhich would be administratively linked with the municipal clerk and his duties. After assessingthe information provided by the Historical Sub-Committee and the report by Kyte, and afterconsulting the Municipal Clerk Morris, the Richmond Parks and Recreation Commission choseinstead to assign responsibility for the archives program to the Department of Parks and LeisureServices along with the museum. It is evident that the Commission viewed archival services asa component of a broader history mandate. The Commission made several otherrecommendations to Council about a municipal archives program to Council. First, itrecommended that the posts of archivist and museum curator be made peer positions, with bothreporting to a cultural coordinator in the Parks and Leisure Services Department. Second, theimmediate goal of heritage staff should be the development of a Municipal Museum, whichwould serve as a heritage resource centre. Third, municipal records would remain secure forthe next few years if left under the care of the Municipal Clerk Morris. Consequently, theCommission resolved "that a half-time archivist be hired who would work out of the museumarea in the Arts Centre, but who would report independently to the Cultural Coordinator of the44Department of Parks and Leisure Services, and that the Commission direct $10,000 for thesalary of a part-time archivist."25 It is evident that the Parks and Recreation Commission andmunicipal staff considered the function of an archival institution to be similar to a historymuseum because both institutions were involved in the collection and preservation of history.Moreover, in this context, public records tended to be regarded simply as another source of localhistory with consideration to continuing administration of government. Thus, it is evident thatthese first formal efforts to establish a public archival institution in Richmond were based on acultural impetus rather than on administrative and legal needs. Nevertheless, this commitmentand belief in some form of an archival program ensured that a public archival repository wouldbecome a civic function rather than a private collection of documents cared for by volunteers.'In May 1982, Leslie Ross, a librarian and the author of Richmond: Child of the Fraser,was appointed archivist. After examining the state of the collections, she made it her priority-- "to put the archives in order." This included the development of administrative policies, suchas a mandate statement, and the creation of accession records for the numerous collections ofunorganized materials which had been gathered together with the best of intentions during thepast twenty years. These documents included oral history tapes, transcripts, monographs,newspapers, maps and plans, photographs and ephemeral materials. Very few of these itemscould be considered archives. Together, these materials were housed in an eight feet by fifteenfeet vault which served also as the office, the work area for processing collections, and thereference area.'45Although most of the documentary materials were acquired from private sources, there isno doubt that Ross viewed municipal records as a future responsibility. In the same report, shelooked forward to a change in the status of the archivist.Given the strong links with the museum, it does not seem appropriate to suggest analternative arrangement. However, recognizing the Municipal plans to establish aRecords Management position, and potential space changes in the Richmond ArtsCentre, it may be wise to consider a future shift in responsibility to the office of theMunicipal Clerk."By emphasizing the importance of the eventual transfer of the function of the archives to themunicipal clerk's office, which has the statutory responsibility to keep certain vital records, Rossrepeated the arguments for the necessity of the archivist to be involved in the management ofpublic records."However, Ross faced an immediate scarcity of resources. Although Council and the Parks& Recreation Commission had agreed in principle to the development of an archives service,there was inadequate funding to support its basic operations. Because community heritagesocieties, such as the Richmond Heritage and Museum Advisory Committee and other culturalgroups had operated with the labour of volunteers and finances based on donations and grants,Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission assumed that an archival program could alsooperate in this fashion. Without a commitment of some basic resources, the future developmentof the Richmond Archives was in jeopardy. Indeed, adequate resources would determinewhether an archivist would be retained, whether there would be continuity in the tenure of staff,and the availability of basic supplies and storage materials.In addition, some monies which the Council had received from the Richmond '79Centennial Society complicated the financial picture. In 1980, the Society upon its dissolution46had presented $18,000 to the Municipality with the stipulation that these funds be spent on"special projects" for the Archives, such as the purchase of historical materials or equipmentbeyond the basic requirements for which the Municipality was responsible." However, thestaff of the Department of Parks and Leisure Services misunderstood the monies to be a donationwhich could be spent on the operational needs of the Archives, in lieu of an operating budgetfrom the accounts of the Municipality. Nevertheless, the confusion over the monies waseventually settled at a meeting of Municipal Council six months later, with the funds clearlymarked for the purchase of acquisitions and special equipment.'The confusion over the monies and the failure by the Municipality to commit sufficientresources to the organization of an archival program contributed to Ross's resignation. With herdeparture and the unstable future of the Archives, criticism over the lack of action by theMunicipality to lay a firm foundation for a public institution which would preserve bothhistorical public and private records was brought to the attention of Council, again by onemember of the Richmond '79 Centennial Society. Grover, the former Secretary of the Society,submitted a letter to Council criticizing the paucity of "heritage planning" in Richmond. Sheargued that although several historical museums had been established by the Municipality, therewas little or no thought towards an overall heritage plan, nor was there any contingency planfor the care of the collections of artifacts, if any of the museums should cease to operate.32Furthermore, she wrote that there was no repository responsible for the documentary heritageof the community. Grover stated,So much has gone elsewhere (other city, government, university archives) or hasbeen or is being destroyed daily within the community, without public awareness.Please let's not continue to ignore this basic need for action. I can't believe today's47politicians are so short sighted or, put it on an even more personal basis, would youwant your descendants or future historians to judge you by local press records!'The issues of the organization of an archival institution, and its situation in the civicadministration and heritage planning were once more referred to the Parks and RecreationCommission and to Municipal Council, but little changed. On January 10, 1983, Councilconfirmed that responsibility for the archives program would remain in the Department of Parksand Leisure Services. However, both the Commission and Council stressed that the presentadministrative structure of the Richmond Archives in the Department of Parks and LeisureServices was an interim measure until the archival program was "well established". Althoughthere was no criteria for "a well established archives", it is obvious that the Commission andCouncil could at least see some future change in the situation of the archives.' Thecommitment to review the administrative structure of the archives program was significant,because it would later facilitate the transfer of the archival program from the Department ofParks and Leisure Services to the Municipal Clerk's office.In April, 1983, Elizabeth Eso, a recent graduate of the Master of Archival Studies programat the University of British Columbia, was appointed as the first full-time archivist. She beganto organize the backlog of materials and to develop policies and procedures to put the archivalprogram on a solid and proper footing. The workroom and the reference area continued to bethe vault until the following year when the Municipality constructed a 400 square feetmulti-purpose room to be shared by the programs of the Museum and the Archives.In 1984, negotiations also began between the Archivist and the Librarian of the RichmondPublic Library for the transfer of the historical materials of the Richmond '79 Centennial Societyto the Archives, mainly because the Library had neither the staff nor the facilities to maintain48and to provide access to these collections. These materials which included original photographsand private archival documents, had been collected by the Richmond' 79 Centennial Society fortheir publication, and then housed in the Library. They were gradually transferred to theArchives, and became the core of the archival holdings. This transfer from the Library to theArchives was important for two reasons. First, it would enable the Archivist to identifydeficiencies in the holdings, which would later assist in the development of an acquisitionspolicy. Second, and more important, this consolidation was one of the first steps towardrationalizing responsibility for archives which had been fragmented. In the following years, theArchivist made similar but informal arrangements with the Steveston Historical Society and theRichmond Historical Society regarding the deposit of archival records.For the next few years, the Archivist began to develop policies and programs for theRichmond Archives. For example, a mandate statement and acquisitions policy were developedwhich stated that the Archives would be "a heritage resource centre", and it would provideeducational programs which would promote the Archives and the history of Richmond."Although there was no clarification of the term "heritage resource centre", one might supposethat it meant the acquisition of documents which could be used in historical research.In addition to the traditional duties and responsibilities of an archivist, as an employee ofthe Department of Parks and Leisure Services, Eso faced the mandatory task of communityprogramming. This was a requirement of all divisions of this department of the Municipality.Whereas early public programming tended to feature historical publication of one kind oranother, the modern equivalent tends to be programs to reach out to the community.' InRichmond, the Archives was promoted in displays of archival documents and photographs, in49weekly newspaper articles, and in radio and television broadcasts. These outreach programs notonly promoted the Richmond Archives as an available service in the community, it alsoencouraged the organization of a support group called "the Friends of the Richmond Archives",which could galvanize community support for the archives, if needed. According to Eso, thedevelopment of outreach programs which supports an archival program enhances the long rangegoals of any public archival institution, one of which is to continue to function. This can beachieved with the development of promotional activities whereby the archivist can keep budgetminded administrators, elected officials, and the local taxpayer aware of the mandate andservices of the archives.'By 1985, the archives program had expanded to a level where the facility at the ArtsCentre could no longer accommodate any future growth. Although a multi-purpose room hadbeen constructed for the use of both researchers, and museum and archives staff, this spacecould no longer accommodate both reference and staff activities. Furthermore, space shortagesdictated that the holdings of the archives be housed in two storage locations: namely, the vaultin the Arts Centre and in a commercial warehouse which was rented by the Municipality, andshared with the museum. In fact, inadequate facilities and space shortages were faced by all ofthe programs housed in the Arts Centre, which acted as the headquarters for thirty-onecommunity groups, because public attendance had increased by 76 per cent between 1982 and1984."In 1986, the Department of Parks and Leisure Services commissioned a feasibility studyto examine the present and future space needs of groups involved with the Arts Centre complex.Although the main purpose of the study was to examine the space needs of the various groups50using the Arts Centre, it provided an opportunity to address the current administrative situationof the Richmond Archives, as well as its mandate. In studying the archival program, theconsultants gathered opinions and advice from members of the archival community in BritishColumbia and municipal staff. For instance, Leonard Delozier, the Provincial Archives Advisorof British Columbia, proposed that,A well developed community archives collecting papers seems strongest when thecore of the collection consists of permanently valuable records of the Municipalitytransferred through a well-developed records management program and controlledby a by-law or some authorizing instrument."While Delozier pointed out the need for a municipal public archival institution to preserve localrecords and the importance of having legislation to authorize the transfer of government recordsto a local archives, the former archivist, Ross, pressed to have the administration of theRichmond Archives placed in the Clerk's department, while maintaining its physical locationwithin the Arts Centre. The submission by Ross pointed out that although there were manymutual benefits in the relationship between the Richmond Museum and the Richmond Archivesduring their initial stages of development, because both functions are involved in the preservationof the heritage of the community, the location of the administrative responsibility for theArchives and its physical location need not be the same.' The clarification of this factor wasespecially important if the function of an archives was to be transferred to the Municipal Clerk'soffice while its physical location remained as a component of the Arts Centre facility andtherefore, included in any new facilities built on the Arts Centre site.In the end, the feasibility study made several recommendations about the role of theRichmond Archives in the preservation of historical government records and the developmentof an appropriate administrative framework. First, the study recommended transferring the51Archivist from the Department of Parks and Leisure Services to the Municipal Clerk's office.This transfer provided a logical infrastructure for the establishment of a historical public recordsprogram in the Archives, because the clerk has the statutory responsibility under the MunicipalAct for the preservation and safekeeping of the records of Council and its committees.'Second, it proposed the roles of both the Archivist and the Records Manager be defined as peerline positions in the Municipal Clerk's Office, because the former was responsible for thepreservation of historically significant public documents, and the latter responsible for currentrecords. Third, it recommended that the physical facilities of the Archives remain in the civiccore area, whether in the Arts Centre, the Municipal Hall, or the Public Library. Thisrecommendation provided a precedent to retain the Archives as part of any future expansion ofcivic cultural facilities. Finally and most important, the study proposed that a chief archivist andan assistant archivist be responsible for the preservation of both public and private records.Thus, the study provided some clear and astute arguments for the transfer of the archivalprogram to the Municipal Clerk's office, and this in turn provided an adequate system to carefor public records in all phases of their existence. Consequently, discussions about this transferbegan in the summer of 1986. 42While the feasibility study was in process, Municipal Clerk Drennan re-addressed the needfor a government records management program. It was not the first time that this question hadbeen examined by the Municipality. In 1979, senior administrative staff had examined thepossibility of developing a records management program comprising a file classification system,record scheduling, micrographics, and vital records. Although senior administration hadendorsed such a program, no steps were undertaken to implement it." The transfer of the52archival function to the Clerk's office provided another opportunity to address the issue of arecords management program. In a memo to the Senior Staff Management Committee, Drennanidentified the following benefits of a records management program: fewer and better records,faster retrieval of files, retention schedules which would control the accumulation of records inoffices, reduced storage and labour costs, systematic disposal of records which would safeguardrecords to meet legal and fiscal requirements, the development of a uniform filing system, anda coordinated microfilming program. His proposal also called for the establishment of a recordsmanagement steering committee composed of administrative, financial, legal, archival and dataprocessing staff who would assist in the development of retention and disposition schedules. TheSenior Management Committee endorsed the development of the two complementary programsof historical archives and current and semi-current records management both under theadministration of the municipal clerk. The archival program for public records was viewedby the Municipality as a means of preserving and providing better access to government recordswith historical value, whereas records management was perceived as a means of dealing withrecords with continuing administrative value.The transfer of the archives function to the Municipal Clerk's office and the beginningsof a records management program were accomplished by December, 1986. As part of the neworganization, there was an increase in the budget of the Archives to accommodate the need foradditional staff which had been identified in the feasibility study. In fact, the budget nearlydoubled from $34,395 to $64,175 in the first year after the transfer. This was a significantchange from the early years when the budget could barely sustain a part-time communityarchives program. It was also significant because most Canadian archival programs do not have53sufficient resources for basic operations." The transfer of the function of the Archives to theClerk's office also increased the profile of the Archives within the Municipal Hall. Althoughthe Archives had instituted an outreach program to promote its collections and activities, fewmunicipal staff knew of its programs until the establishment of an office for the Archivist in theMunicipal Hail. During the first year in the Clerk's office, inquiries by municipal staff forarchival records increased from twenty-four to thirty per cent of the total number ofresearchers. Third and most important, the Richmond Archives now had a recognizedresponsibility for historical civic records. During the first year, the Archives staff accessioneda total of 800 cubic feet of public records which included files from the Clerk's office, Treasury,Personnel, Parks and Leisure Services, as well as minutes of Council and minutes of Councilappointed committees dating back to 1880.47 These events together marked a watershed in thedevelopment of the Archives which can be attributed mainly to the recognition by theMunicipality of its duty to develop a systematic means of preserving government records ofcontinuing value.In early 1987, a temporary assistant archivist was hired to care for the communitycollections while the Chief Archivist, Eso, took responsibility for municipal records. Thisposition of an assistant archivist was made permanent the following year. Also, in 1987, theRichmond Municipal Archives became a member of the newly created Canadian Council ofArchives and its provincial counterpart, the British Columbia Archives Council, and thus becamea member of the recently created Canadian network of archival institutions. At the same time,the Municipality began to act on its need for a records management program by filling theposition of a records manager. Shortly after the appointment of the Corporate Records Manager54in 1987, a consultant was hired to develop a centralized file system based on a block numericfile classification system.The problem of proper physical facilities for the Archives was also resolved. In November1987, a referendum was passed by Richmond residents authorizing Council to borrow fundstowards the construction of a new cultural centre and library on the existing site of the twofacilities. The new centre would also include space for the Archives. The approval of the $15million referendum by the public included provision for approximately 3,200 square feet for theArchives.With these developments, it became evident that the function of the Archives and itsoperations needed some authorizing instrument which would sanction the functions of theArchives and its collection. Although this would be ideally accomplished in a bylaw whichwould state the authority of the Archivist over public and private records, describe the functionsof an archives, and provide a mandate in terms of information management, instead on July 25,1988 Council first approved the following acquisitions policy .48The purpose of the Municipal Archives is to identify, collect and preserve recordsof archival value to the Corporation of Richmond and the community as a whole,and to make such records available to Municipal officials and the public. TheArchives acquires both public and private records by scheduled transfer, gift,bequest, purchase, exchange or any other transaction by which title to the materialpasses to the Archives with the understanding that ownership is not vested solely inthe Municipality but more implicitly, is held in trust for future generations."The policy also states that "the Archives is the official repository for all inactive public recordsof permanent administrative, legal, evidentiary, informational and historical value" to theMunicipality." The policy also defines public records by citing the B.C. Interpretation Act,as well as expanding the definition to include records "created or received in pursuance of civic55law or in the transaction of public business by Council or any department, office, committee,board, commission or agency" of Richmond.' Finally, it provides the Archivist with someauthority over the destruction of public records by requiring departments to request authorizationfor the destruction of records from their Department Heads, the Clerk, the Records Manager andthe Archivist.These promising developments of 1987 and 1988 gave way to a temporary period ofsetback when both Eso and the assistant archivist resigned in 1989 to take positions in otherarchival institutions. The new Chief Archivist, Ken Young, managed the archival program onhis own for the next eighteen months.' In October 1990, the Archives facilities had to behoused in a temporary building along with the Library and other groups normally located in theArts Centre and Library sites, as construction began on a new library and cultural centrebuildingTwo years later, the Richmond Municipal Archives and the other functions have movedinto their new building, the Richmond Library and Cultural Centre. The archives facility nowincludes an environmentally controlled storage area, a workroom with conservation equipment,a reference area with display space for archival exhibits and an office for the archivist.Although the Richmond Municipal Archives has progressed significantly from a collectionof historical documents gathered through the efforts of volunteers to a full fledged publicarchival institution with recognized responsibilities for both government and private records,there remain several unresolved issues in its development. These issues include the lack ofcoordination or integration of the records management program and the archival program; theperception by the public, municipal staff and elected officials that archival institutions are strictly56for the promotion of culture; and the absence of a single government records policy in the formof a bylaw. Together, these issues hinder the full development of a global program to managemunicipal records from their creation to their final disposition.As pointed out in chapter one, there has been a general trend towards a global approachto archives and records management. It is evident that senior administrators of the Municipalitycreated the two posts of records manager and archivist with the intention that the former beresponsible for current records while the latter cares for historical documents. Although thisdivision has also occurred in federal and provincial archival institutions, several archivists havepointed out that such a distinction is no longer adequate in an era of electronic records andaccess to information and privacy legislation, in which proper control and accessibility of allrecords at all stages are required. Together, these factors have blurred the once clear boundariesbetween archivists and records managers.' In addition, studies have demonstrated the negativeeffect of such a separation on the quality of the archival record." Finally, it is recognized that"total archives" includes the involvement of the archivist in the management of the record fromits creation to its final disposition." Now that the Richmond Archives is housed in its newquarters, it is the priority of the Chief Archivist to address the question of the relationshipbetween current and semi-current records management and archival preservation."One illustration of the impact of the separation between the records management andarchives program is the absence of schedules for municipal records. Because this function iswithin the mandate of the Records Manager, the Archivist has no authority to address thisproblem. Consequently, government records continue to arrive at the Archives as a result of"housecleaning" rather than the systematic application of schedules. But the development and57implementation of records schedules is not the only element absent in the records managementprogram. For example, the implementation and maintenance of a file classification system hasbeen limited to only a handful of departments. Other missing elements include: a vital recordsprogram, a training program for records officers in each department, a coordinatedmicrographics program, and a forms management program. These are all elements which arerecognized by both archivists and records managers as aspects of a complete records program.Unfortunately, Richmond is not unique in this regard. According to a study conducted byBillesberger, most municipalities in British Columbia lack a systematic approach to maintainingtheir information sources.'In the end, the inadequacies of the government record keeping program in Richmond canbe explained only as a failure of municipal policy. No longer are facilities, staffing, andresources the principal problems for the Archives. Instead, the failure by the municipalgovernment to recognize the need to develop systematic policies and procedures to administerall facets of the management of government records holds back the complete development of thearchival program in Richmond.58Chapter 2 - Endnotes1. Rob Watt, "The Role and Impact of Museums in the Preservation and Interpretation of BritishColumbia's History," Museum Round Up 91(1984): 5-7.2. Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Reports to the Social Sciencesand Humanities Research Council (Ottawa: Information Division of the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council, 1980), 19-20.3. Census 91. Census Divisions and Census Subdivisions. Population and Dwelling Counts(Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1992).4. Leslie Ross, Richmond: Child of the Fraser (Richmond: Richmond '79 Centennial Society,1979), 19-38, 163-187.5. Richmond Municipal Archives (hereafter RMA), Municipal Clerk's Correspondence Series,Municipal Records Series 3, Letter to the Governor of Northern Ireland from Mary A. Boyd,prepared by J.S. Matthews, 10 June 1947.6. Richmond Municipal Offices (hereafter RMO), Bylaw 1817, "A Bylaw to establish anHistorical and museum Advisory Committee," 17 April 1961.7. Blair, McMath, Anderson and Youngberg would later serve as members of the Richmond '79Centennial Society. Youngberg served as Chairman of the '79 Centennial Historical Sub-committee, and Blair, McMath and Anderson were also members of this committee as well.This committee was responsible for gathering documents for the writing of a local history,Richmond : Child of the Fraser, and they would later advocate for the creation of a municipalarchives.8. Robert Bish, Local Government in British Columbia (Richmond, B.C.: Union of BritishColumbia Municipalities and Victoria School of Administration, 1985), 101-102.9. RMA, Richmond Historical Museum Advisory Committee (hereafter RHMAC), ManuscriptGroup 25, Minutes, File 2, 22 March 1967.10. RMA, RHMAC, Mss. 25, Minutes, File 2, 25 November 1970.11. Chris Miller-Marti, "Local Museums and the Creation of the Past," Muse (Summer 1987):37.12. RMA, RHMAC, Mss. 25, Minutes, File 2, 22 March 1967.13. RMA, RHMAC, Mss. 25, Minutes, File 2, 26 March 1969, 25 June 1969, 22 April 1970.14. RMA, RHMAC, Mss. 25, Minutes, File 2, 23 October 1974.5915. In 1975, Council passed another bylaw to create the Richmond Historical Society. Thebylaw dissolved the Richmond Historical Museum Advisory Committee. The new Society hadthe same mandate as the Advisory Committee, but it could now apply for federal and provincialgrant monies and join the Richmond Arts Council, the umbrella citizen's organization connectedwith the Richmond Arts Centre. RMO, Bylaw 3177, "A Bylaw to amend Bylaw 1817," 27October 1975.16. RMO, Bylaw 3533, "A Bylaw to establish the Richmond '79 Centennial Society," 12December 1977.17. RMO, Department of Parks and Leisure Services, "Leisure Services - Museums andArchives," File M-12, n.d.18. RMO, Department of Parks and Leisure Services, "Leisure Services - Museums andArchives," File M-12, n.d.19. RMA, Files of the Archivist, Report by A. Anderson submitted to W. Preston,Administrator, 4 December 1978.20. RMA, Richmond Arts Council Records, Accession 87-65, Recreational Advisory Committee- Cultural Groups Sub-committee Report, 1973.21. RMA, Files of the Archivist,"Planning File," Report by John E. Kyte, "Richmond HeritageResources," 9 November 1981, 2.22. Ibid., 3.23. Richmond Municipal Archives, Richmond '79 Centennial Society Fonds, Mss 28, Series 6,File 74, "Municipal Archives Proposal," n.d.24. RMO, Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 9 February 1982.25. RMO, Department of Parks and Leisure Services, "Leisure Services - Museums andArchives," File M-12, 1978-83.26. Ibid.27. RMA, Files of the Archivist, "Planning File," Report by Leslie Ross, submittedto the Manager of Heritage and Cultural Services, 23 June 1982, 1.28. Ibid., 9.29. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, s.244(b). Under the Municipal Act, the Clerk isidentified as the officer responsible for the records of Council which includes by-laws andminutes and the records of Council appointed committees.6030. RMO, Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 9 September 1982. The $18,000 hadbeen raised by the Richmond '79 Centennial Society from the sale of the book, Richmond: Childof the Fraser and other Centennial activities.31. RMO, Richmond Municipal Council Minutes, 10 January 1983.32. The Municipality of Richmond supported the London Family Farmhouse, the StevestonMuseum, the Canadian Museum of Flight, and the B.C. Fisheries Museum by allocating annualgrants to each of these institutions. In addition, the Municipality administered and operated theRichmond Museum.33. RMO, Municipal Clerk's Department, File 4743, "Archives," Letter to Council from JeanGrover, 13 December 1982.34. RMO, Richmond Municipal Council Minutes, 10 January 1983.35. RMA, Files of the Archivist, Policies and Procedure Manual, c. 1985.36. Carl Berger, The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English Canadian HistoricalWriting 1900-1970 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1976), 26-30. Laura M. Coles, "TheDecline of Documentary Publishing: The Role of English Canadian Archives and HistoricalSocieties in Documentary Publishing," Archivaria 23 (Winter 1986-87): 69-85.37. Elizabeth Eso, "Promotion and Outreach in a Community Archives," (Vancouver:Association of British Columbia Archivists, 1988), 4-5.The Friends of the Richmond Archives Society was created in 1986 and its founding memberswere Gatz, Grover and Youngberg. In 1989, the Friends of the Archives completed their firstproject, a supplement to Richmond: Child of the Fraser. which updated a history of Richmondbetween 1979 and 1989. The Friends also represented the Archives in the development of thenew Art Centre and Library facility.38. RMA, Cornerstone Planning Ltd., Richmond Cultural Centre, Planning and FeasibilityStudy, 1986.39. RMA, Files of the Archivist, "Planning File,"Report by Leonard C. Delozier, "RichmondArchives: Report and Future," 12 March 1986.40. RMA, Files of the Archivist, "Planning File," Report by Leslie Ross submitted toCornerstone Consultants Ltd., "Report on Archives," 18 April 1966, 2.41. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, 244b and 244c42. RMA, Cornerstone Planning Ltd., Richmond Cultural Centre. Planning and FeasibilityStudy, 1986.6143. RMO, Municipal Clerk's Department Files, CAO - Records Storage System," File NO.4930-3, Memo to Department Heads from Municipal Administrator, W. Establishment, 28August 1979. RMO, Clerk's Department, Richmond Municipal Council Minutes, 9 October1979.44. RMO, Clerk's Department Files, "CAO - Records Storage System," File No, 4430-03,Memo to Senior Management Committee from Rod Drennan, Municipal Clerk, 25 August 1986.45. According to the report of the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, approximatelyone half of the archival institutions surveyed had budgets less than $20,000. These are archiveswith less than 150 square feet of public reference area, a part-time archivist and 500 shelf feetor less of storage. The report also states that the total budget for all archives in Canada, less thePublic Archives of Canada totals only $10,861.898. This figure is less than the acquisitionsbudget of several Canadian university libraries. Canadian Archives, 39.46. RMA, Files of the Archivist, Annual Report of the Richmond Municipal Archives, 1987,3.47. Ibid.48. RMO, Richmond Municipal Council Minutes, Resolution 1015, 25 July 1988.49. RMA, Richmond Municipal Archives Collection policy, 25 July 1988.50. Ibid.51. Ibid.52. RMA, Files of the Archivist, Annual Report of the Richmond Archives, 1989.53. RMO, Richmond Municipal Council Minutes, 22 October 1990.54. Jay Atherton, "From a Lifecycle to a Continuum': Some Thoughts on the RecordsManagement Relationship," Archivaria 26 (Winter 1985-86), 43-51.55. Bryan Corbett and Eldon Frost, "The Acquisition of Federal Government Records: A Reportof Records Management and Archival Practice," Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-84), 201-232.56. Wilfred Smith, "Total Archives': the Canadian Experience," Archives et Biblioteques deBelgique 58, no.2 (1986): 324.57. Discussion with Ken Young, Archivist, 13 April 1993.58. Valerie Billesberger, "Municipal Record Keeping in British Columbia: An ExploratorySurvey," (Master of Archival Studies Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1990), 83-85.62Chapter 3 'A Museum/Archives': The Delta Museum and Archives ExperienceLike the Richmond experience, the Delta archives program began in a museum setting as partof a municipal centennial celebration. Unlike Richmond, the archival program has remained partof the local museum and its activities closely linked in the preservation of historical materialsand the promotion of local history. Notably, Delta has failed to accomplish even the kind ofstrides that Richmond has made towards a program for the systematic archival treatment ofpublic records. On the surface, it is difficult to see why Richmond has developed a separateprogram along more or less the lines of senior archival institutions in Canada and Delta has not.The Municipality of Delta which is located south of Richmond, across the south arm of theFraser River, was incorporated in 1879. As in the case of Richmond, the early economicactivities in Delta were closely associated with agriculture and fishing. These were the primaryindustries of the area until the improvement of transportation links to the City of Vancouver,beginning with the George Massey Tunnel in 1959. These links contributed to Delta becominga residential, and light industrial suburb of the Greater Vancouver region, as well as continuingto be an agricultural area. In 1992, it was ranked as the sixth largest municipality in BritishColumbia with a population of 88,978.' Like their counterparts in Richmond, many people inDelta have also developed an attachment towards their community's heritage as expressed in theestablishment of both museum and archival programs.The first formal attempt to develop an organization concerned with the preservation of thehistorical documents occurred in 1961 with the establishment of the Delta Museum Society,which set itself the mandate to preserve the heritage of the community by creating a museum63collection.' Although Delta Council did not recognize the Society, it proceeded to collecthistorical documents, artifacts, and conducted an oral history program. After an enthusiasticstart, however, the Society soon lapsed, for reasons which are unclear.3A renewed interest in developing a historical society in Delta did not occur until 1967 whenmembers of the community began to consider what should be done to mark the Canadiancentennial of Confederation in that year and the centennial celebration of British Columbiajoining Canada to be observed in 1971. These centenary celebrations fuelled an enthusiasm andinterest in local history and heritage sites in general. However, interest soon fixed on thepossibility of converting the former town hall into a historical landmark. In 1912, Deltaconstructed its first town hall in an area known as Ladner, the former town centre, which is nowa historic area with heritage houses and landscapes. The possibility of saving the importantheritage site encouraged the Society to reorganize, and the following editorial in thecommunity's newspaper summarized the feelings and intentions of the group:...there is increasing pressure for space in which to store so many artifacts by historicallyminded residents. These people would heave a sigh of relief if they could turn overartifacts, photos, furniture, etc., to an organization that would protect and display them.The old Municipal hall deserves a better fate than demolition. Let's make it into amuseum. 4On March 24, 1969, in response to these statements, the Delta Council approved in principlethe creation of a local museum in the former town hal1.5 The Delta Museum Society wasreorganized as the Delta Historical and Museum Society, and its mandate now included thepromotion of historical research, the acquisition of artifacts, the promotion and marking ofheritage sites, and the publication of historical literature.' The Municipality committed itselfto maintain the building and its grounds, and to provide a modest annual grant to the Society to64operate the Museum. Hence, the Society assumed the responsibility for the administration andoperation of the local museum, independent of the policies of Council and other Municipaldepartments.' This relationship between the Municipality and the Delta Historical and MuseumSociety remains unchanged. It is not an unusual arrangement, for many local museums inBritish Columbia are administered by similarly constituted societies. In many of thesecommunities, the preservation of historical documents is simply taken to be part of the programof the museums.In fact, there are over one hundred local museums, many of which are attached to historicalsites in British Columbia. Most of these museums are owned and operated by non-profit privatesocieties. Usually, they are managed by a committee of Council or by a board of managementwhich directly oversees the museum's operations.' According to Delozier, the formerProvincial Archives Advisor, a great many of these institutions are "museum/archives" and theyhave developed because no public archives exists in the community.' Furthermore, many ofthese institutions receive little support from their local governments because they are sometimesviewed as a service which should not be provided by government. According to a study ofmunicipal services by Bish, a professor of public administration at the University of Victoria,"museums do not possess any special characteristics of public goods, external effects, or utilitiesthat would lead logically to governmental provision."' In contrast, governments all over theworld have recognized that archives are "public goods" which provide proof of the conduct ofsovereign affairs and documentation of the rights and privileges of the individual. Because ofthe legal and administrative value of public records, governments have established publicarchival institutions to protect and preserve these documents. Therefore, it should be65emphasized that this administrative aspect of the mandate of public archival institutions cannot"logically" be provided by an organization other than by government itself.Although the value of museum services as public goods may be questioned, it should benoted that both provincial and federal governments have assisted in the development of bothpublic and private museums in all jurisdictions as cultural institutions by providing numerousgrants.' In contrast, although public archival institutions are directly responsible for mattersrelated to the disposition and accessibility of public records, they have received very little ingrant assistance from governments for their development.'Of course, Delta's archives began more or less as a program of the museum. From itsinception, the members of the private society operating the museum simply assumed thatpreserving historical documents was part of the mandate of a museum. Since 1967, the DeltaHistorical and Museum Society with its Board of Trustees has managed and operated theMuseum. The Board of Trustees has four members who serve a term of two years as theadministrators of the Museum and the Society. According to the constitution of the Society, theduties of the Board included the supervision of workers, the organization of policies andprocedures for the operation of the museum, as well as the care and control of all museumproperties and records.' Acting as volunteers, the members of the Board established policieswhich they believed were best for their institution. Indeed, their interest and enthusiasm incollecting artifacts and documents laid the groundwork of a combined museum and archivalprogram.Like most museums in British Columbia, the Delta Museum relies on volunteers, on federaland provincial grants, an annual operating grant from the municipality, and on other fund-raising66activities to operate the museum. For example, in 1971, the Society expanded the museumfacility to include an art gallery for Michael Duncan, who was the curator at the time. Duncanused the space to sell his artwork and a historical publication, Wind and Wild Grass to raisefunds for the museum. The monies raised were used by the Society to purchase supplies and"to supplement" Duncan's salary. In 1977, the Delta Council became aware of this additionalincome, and tried to reduce the museum's annual operating grant of $16,500 by almost fifty percent." After negotiations between the Society and the Delta Council, the salary of the museumcurator was maintained at its former level, but this incident illustrates how the Council lookedupon the museum not as a continuing financial responsibility of the Municipality, but as anadjustable grant depending on the financial situation of the Delta Museum and Historical Society.These difficulties, however, did not discourage the Society from initiating an archivalprogram in conjunction with the centennial of the municipality. On September 5, 1978, JulianGardiner, the museum curator of the day, presented to the Delta Centennial Committee, anadvisory committee to the Delta Council, a proposal for an archival program which wouldacquire both municipal and private records having historical worth. His proposal requested aone-time grant of $34,529 to hire a part-time archivist and a clerical assistant, and to cover thecost of a photocopying machine, archival and office supplies, office furnishings, shelving, andrenovations in the annex of the former town hall for temperature and humidity controls for astorage are,a.15 Although it made no commitment of continual operating funds, Councilapproved the request as a municipal centennial project on December 12, 1978.16 It wouldsimply be left to the Society to carry on the archival program. Acquisitions of historical records67would complement the artifacts housed in the museum, and both the artifacts and the archivaldocuments would be used in the promotion of local history and a sense of community pride.In February 1979, the Board of Trustees hired its first archivist, Mary Nickel. She reporteddirectly to the curator, who also acted as the chief administrative officer of the Delta Museumand Archives!' Both the curator and the archivist were employees of the Delta Museum andArchives Society. Under the supervision of Nickel, several summer students were also hiredwith a Provincial Youth Employment grant to index copies of microfilm Municipal Councilminutes and bylaws, to catalogue books, to conduct historical research, and to acquire privaterecords!' At this time, the Society adopted an acquisitions policy for the archival program.The Delta Archives would acquire "historical documents pertaining to Delta and personalitieswho live(d) within or achieved prominence in Delta."' The policy also made reference totextual, cartographic, and pictorial records, sound and moving images, and library materials,which were defined as "reference books, rare books, annotated books, posters and broadsides,pamphlets, newspapers, magazines and computer printouts."' No mention of governmentrecords was made.However, Gardiner and Nickel realized that one of the most important sources of localhistory are government records. Shortly after Nickel was hired, the curator and archivist jointlysent a letter to the Municipal Administrator Allen, outlining the role of the Delta Archives asa resource for local history, and emphasizing the historical value of municipal records. NeitherNickel nor Gardiner had any intention of recommending that the Municipality establish a recordsmanagement program as a systematic means of acquiring government records. Instead, theyhoped to acquire some of the older municipal records for the Delta Archives. In the same letter,68they emphasized the need to recognize the Archives as the official repository for both public andprivate historical records of the Municipality, because such a designation would encourage thepublic to donate their records to the Delta Archives.' The Municipality responded thefollowing year with a directive to Municipal Clerk Gairns to prepare "a list of documents thatwould be suitable for storage at the Museum, in consultation with the Archivist, and that the listbe approved by Council."' This directive reflected how the Council viewed the role of theArchives as a storehouse for old historical records. The directive apparently did not moveGairns, for he neither prepared a list nor transferred any records to the Archives, as might beexpected of an officer charged by law with the safekeeping of certain municipal records.Meanwhile, several problems had developed between the staff of the Delta Museum and theArchives, and the Board of Trustees over their respective roles in the administration andoperations of the museum and the archives programs. Since the early days, the Board hadgrown accustomed to having a direct hand in the operations of the museum and archivalprograms. As salaried staff were hired, they began to request more responsibility over the dailyoperations of the museum and the archival programs, and this caused some disagreementbetween the staff and Board members. In a memorandum to Alderman Mosner, Gardineroutlined his frustrations in managing the museum and the archives on a professional basisbecause of the interference of Board members in daily operations. Furthermore, the Board wasunwilling to increase salaries to a level equivalent with those paid by other museums in theregion. This kind of conflict is not uncommon where a board assumes executive functions.On one hand, the Board ultimately assumed responsibility for the Delta Museum and Archives,and on the other hand, the staff expected to have latitude to operate the institution without69interference from the Board. In addition, the staff needed resources to support both programs.Consequently, the absence of resources and the lack of autonomy of staff over operationaldecisions became underlying themes in the development of the Delta Museum and Archives forthe next several years.This divergence of opinion about the role of staff and the role of the board made it difficultto retain qualified staff for any length of time. Shortly after the opening of the Archives inNovember 1979, Nickel and Gardiner left their respective positions. Nickel's successor lastedonly until March 1980. The assistant, Rita Fradley, was later appointed to the post of Archivist.None of the three persons who held the post had any training in the management of an archivalinstitution. Between 1979 and 1984 the Board appointed six different curators. It is evidentthat the number of staff changes and the absence of training or education in archival and museummethods in many of the employees adversely effected the development of the Archives and theMuseum, since each new person had a different agenda and set of goals for the institution.Between May 1980 and June 1982, Fradley continued to focus on documentation projects,such as an oral history program, a series of historical vignettes, and the copying of historicalphotographs. In pursuing these projects, she neglected the development and implementation ofany policies and procedures for the Delta Archives. Further, Fradley did not record anyinformation about the provenance of many accessions. Consequently, when Fradley left, theholdings were in disarray.'Between July 1982 and September 1984, Linda Johnston served as the Archivist, and sheendeavoured to promote the Delta Archives as a resource for the community with outreachprograms which included displays on the George Massey Tunnel and May Day celebrations, and70oral histories with Delta pioneers. In addition, Johnston established a school program as partof her outreach activities which included teaching kits about the history of Delta, fishing in thecommunity, and archaeology. In fact, the Delta Archives was becoming a documentation centreby collecting both published and unpublished documents of a non-archival nature about thearea. 26 However, a conflict arose between the Board and Johnston over the administration ofthe archival program which led to her dismissal in September 1984.Shortly afterwards, in November 1984, the Assistant Archivist, Leigh Hussey, was promotedto Archivist. She also had little knowledge of archival management. Indeed, Hussey believedthat archival endeavours were an extension of museum activities. In a report submitted to theBoard, the newly appointed archivist made her stand clear, "As Archivist, my view has been todevelop the Archives as a working department of the Museum rather than to promote anindividual identity."' Hussey believed that the archives program should restrict itself tocollecting and preserving historical documents as a support for the interpretation of museumartifacts, that is, as a kind of museum documentation centre, a common view in museum circles.Nonetheless, Hussey's documenting activities ceased in 1985 when the Board appointed her asthe Curator of the Delta Museum, a position which she still holds today."The question of transferring historical public records arose again in 1986. The newarchivist, Paulette Falcon, tried to approach the problem of acquiring public records from theperspective of a records management program with an emphasis on the scheduling of governmentrecords. In May 1986, she contacted the Municipal Clerk, Jack Copland, about the deposit ofmicrofilm copies of Council Minutes in the Archives. Although Council had approved thedeposit in 1979, the microfilming project had not been carried out." This question about71obtaining microfilmed minutes led to a discussion about the need to develop a general policy forthe retention and disposition of municipal records which had recently become an issue becauseof the shortage of office space and records storage in the Municipal Hall. To alleviate theproblem of office space, the Municipal Clerk's Office was microfilming its inactive records.On the issue of the larger problem, Copland asked Falcon for advice on the question of theretention and disposition of municipal records." On September 6, 1986, Falcon respondedwith a letter which outlined the requirements of a records management and archival program.She emphasized the need for appropriate resources and staff, and she advised that Councilendorse the mandate of the Archives to preserve public records. She also recommended that aninventory of inactive records be conducted to provide some basis for disposition actions.'Falcon's advice failed to move the Municipality for two reasons. First, the Clerk and theMunicipality were unwilling to provide any resources for a records management program. Butbeyond that there was a legal problem. Under the Municipal Act, the clerk is responsible forthe safe preservation of minute books and original bylaws as well as the "other records of thebusiness of council and its committees."' In the early days, the municipal clerk was theprincipal administrative officer of a municipality. As modern municipal administration hasgrown, the various departments have tended to care for their own records, but the clerk hasmaintained the ancient responsibility for the safekeeping of the records of council. In fulfillingthis mandate, the municipal clerk may delegate the authority for the safekeeping of these recordsto another municipal employee, as in the case of Richmond where the archival program is adivision of the Clerk's office. It is also conceivable that a municipal council might dispose ofcertain inactive records of no continuing administrative value to a private institution such as72Delta. A contract would be needed, which outlines that the ownership of the records is retainedby the Municipality. However, it is difficult to conceive that such an arrangement could bemade for original minutes and bylaws, because they are permanently valuable as the register ofrights and duties, regardless of what other values they may have. These circumstances preventthe Delta Museum and Archives from properly acquiring responsibility for the preservation ofmunicipal government records.In January 1987, Falcon left the Delta Archives to continue her university studies. For thenext few years, several archivists administered the Delta Archives, but little changed. Theprimary emphasis of the archival program in Delta continues to be the acquisition of historicaldocuments of all kinds to support the institution's heritage objectives. Falcon's successor,Andrea Gamier, continued the acquisition of private records, the documentation of the historyof Delta canneries and the publication of historical information. She held the post for less thansix months." After Gamier left, Jacqueline O'Donnell was appointed as Archivist. BetweenJuly 1987 and May 1988, she began a project to automate the description of the holdings of theArchives. In the course of her work, she noted that many of the photographs acquired by theArchives were copyprints. Because previous archivists were primarily interested in theinformation contained in an image, they saw little or no distinction between copies and originals.Consequently, O'Donnell spent a great deal of time trying to locate originals still in thecommunity.34Since July 1988 when O'Donnell left to take an archival position in another municipality,Ramona Rose has been the Archivist of Delta. Under Rose, the Archives has remained a non-public agency with no official mandate to collect municipal records. Although the Delta73Archives has acquired some public records, including by-laws, ledgers, photographs and subjectfiles from the period 1900 to 1950, the municipality had microfilmed these documents prior totheir donation to the Archives. Their acquisition was the result of "housecleaning" at theMunicipal Hall rather than systematic transfers to the Archives.35In September 1989, a fire broke out in the building adjacent to the Delta Museum andArchives causing extensive damage to some holdings. Although no archival collections werelost, the Archives was closed to the general public until January 1990 and regular public hoursdid not resume until June 1990.3'Also during 1989, the Delta Museum and Archives Society employed a consultant to conducta feasibility study and to develop a long-range plan for the operations of both the Museum andthe Archives. The report from the consultant surprisingly recommended that the Archivesremain an operation of the Museum, and that it become a depository for municipal recordsincluding by-laws and minutes, "on the condition that the professional decisions as to what [sic]and how to preserve these records are respected" by the Municipality.37 It is evident that theconsultant did not understand what was involved in the preservation of public records, for hisreport made no reference to the need for proper legal procedures and for the integratedmanagement of records at all stage of their existence.Several interrelated aspects of the Delta experience suggest that it will be difficult for thenumerous archival programs in a museum settings to preserve government records properlytoday. According to a recent survey conducted by the British Columbia Archives Council, 45of the 63 archival institutions sampled were administered by a museum, a library or a privatehistorical societies.33 To a large extent, 71 per cent of the sample have similar programs to74the one in Delta whereby archival activity is often equated with other heritage activities such asmuseums, archaeological sites and the preservation of historical buildings.There are several aspects of the Delta Archives which probably can be found in othermuseum operated archival programs. The first noteworthy aspect of the Delta Archives andMuseum is the most telling. Most of the material acquired by the Delta Archives is not in factarchival, and represents little more than a collection of documents to support the museumfunction. Acquiring single documents or copies of them because they assist in the interpretationof museum artifacts is the wrong foundation for any archival program. Furthermore, thisprocess of acquiring materials fails to recognize the importance of the nature of archives as aninter-related complex of documents whose content and structure needs to be preserved to be ofvalue to the creator and other researchers.Second, serious legal obstacles prevent private institutions such as the Delta Museum fromtaking on the responsibility to preserve permanently valuable municipal records. As pointed outearlier, it is difficult to conceive that an arrangement could be drawn up between the DeltaCouncil and the Delta Museum and Archives for the care of records such as original minutesand by-laws which have continuing administrative and legal values. Furthermore, the MunicipalAct clearly assigns responsibility for these records to one record keeper, the municipal clerk.These circumstances prevent the Archives from properly acquiring the mandate for thepreservation of municipal records.The third aspect is administrative. Modern integrated management of records during thecontinuum of their existence requires a complex regulatory framework which only theadministration generating the records can articulate. Because institutions like the Delta Museum75and Archives are not part of the municipal administration, they are in no position to influenceinformation policies nor can they take part in the systematic management of public records.In the end, archival programs in museum settings, such as Delta are hindered in theirdevelopment towards the Canadian model of total archives, because of the absence of bothappropriate administrative and legal structures. These archival programs are often establishedwith the intent to create documentation centres which will support the heritage goal of museumprograms. Although this objective can provide the impetus to establish an archival program, itdoes not address the administrative role of a public archives. Together, these factors hinder theorganization of record keeping programs for the systematic archival treatment of public recordsof continuing value in the many communities in British Columbia which have assigned archivalresponsibility to local museums, libraries and historical societies.76Chapter 3 - Endnotes1. Census 91. Census Division and Census Subdivisions Population and Dwelling Counts(Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1992).2. Research for this Chapter was conducted in the Delta Archives using the records of the DeltaMuseum and Archives Society. Although the records of the Society are housed in the Archives,they were not arranged and described.3. Delta Museum and Archives (hereafter DMA), Delta Museum and Archives Society Records(hereafter DMAS Records), Delta Museum Society Minutes, 3 February 1961, 10 March 1961and 8 April 1961. Minutes of the Society indicate that it ceased operating shortly after 8 April1961. The reorganized Society's minutes do not begin again until 4 November 1968.4. DMA, The Optimist , 24 January 1968.5. Delta Municipal Offices (hereafter DMO), Municipal Clerk's Department (hereafter Clerk'sDept.) Delta Municipal Council Minutes (hereafter Council Minutes), 24 March 1969.6. DMO, Clerk's Dept., Administration Records, File 2-8-5, The Delta Historical and MuseumSociety Constitution, 1969.7. DMA, DMAS Records, Delta Historical and Museum Society Minutes, 24 February 1969,31 March 1969.8. Robert Bish, Local Government in British Columbia (Richmond, B.C.: Union of BritishColumbia Municipalities, 1987), 101-102.9. Leonard Delozier, "Archival Cooperation," Museum Round Up 86 (1982): 29.10. Bish, Local Government, 101.11. Since 1967, the federal government has provided various programs of assistance to museumsthrough the Canadian Museums Corporation. The British Columbia government has alsoassisted museums through the Cultural Fund Act, S.B.C. 1967, c.7, which set aside five milliondollars. The interest from which is to be used to stimulate cultural development. Since 1975,the interest generated has been augmented with revenue from the B.C. Lottery Fund.12. In 1986, the Federal government announced an additional seven million dollars in fundingto support specific archival projects, such as the arrangement and description of backlogs ofrecords. In April 1990, the British Columbia government announced a commitment of fundstowards the establishment of a Community Archival Assistance program. Neither of theseprograms provide monies for the on-going operations of archival institutions. Both programsare intended to support special projects. In fact, to qualify for these grants, archival institutionsmust demonstrate that there is a commitment of on-going funding from their parent organization.7713. DMO, Clerk's Dept., Administration Records, File 2-8-5, The Delta Historical and MuseumSociety Constitution, 1969.14. DMA, DMAS Records, Executive Board Minutes, 21 September 1977.15. DMA, DMAS Records, Files of the Archivist, Correspondence, Memo to the Administratorfrom Julian Gardiner, 29 August 1978. DMO, Clerk's Dept., Administration Records, File 2-8-5, Letter to Delta Centennial Committee from Julian Gardiner, 5 September 1978.16. DMO, Clerk's Dept., Council Minutes, 12 December 1978.17. The name of the Delta Museum was changed to include the Archives in 1979. There is norecord to indicate that an archival institution was officially created. DMA, DMAS Records,Files of the Archivist, Correspondence, Memo to the Administrator from Julian Gardiner, 29August 1978. Delta Optimist, 13 June 1979.18. DMA, DMAS Records, Delta Historical and Museum Society Minutes, 13 June 1979.19. DMA, DMAS, Files of the Archivist, Archives Collection Acceptance Policy, 4 July 1980.20. Ibid.21. DMO, Clerk's Dept., Administration Records, File 2-8-5, Letter to Administrator M.W.E.Allen from Julian Gardiner, 17 March 1979.22. DMO, Clerk's Dept., Council Minutes, 15 September 1980.23. DMO, Clerk's Dept., Administration Records, File 2-8-5, Memo to Alderman Mosner fromJulian Gardiner, 14 September 1979.24. In 1983 alone, the Delta Museum and Historical Society employed five different curators.President's Report on the Year's Events. Annual General Meeting. 12 April 1983.25. DMA, DMAS Records, Files of the Archivist, Progress Reports, 2 July 1982.26. DMA, DMAS, Files of the Archivist, Archivist's Report, Annual General Meeting, 17 April1984. DMA, DMAS, Files of the Archivist, Letter to M. Adam, School District 37 (Delta)from M. Rogers, Executive Committee Delta Museum and Archives Society, 24 July 1980.27. DMA, DMAS Records, Files of the Archivist, Progress Reports, 9 April 1985.28. DMA, DMAS Records, Delta Museum and Archives Society Board Minutes, 13 August1985.29. DMA, DMAS Records, Files of the Archivist, Correspondence, 22 October 1985.30. DMA, DMAS Records, Files of the Archivist, Progress Reports, 10 June 1986.7831. DMA, DMAS Records, Files of the Archivist, Correspondence, 6 September 1986.32. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, ss. 244b and 244c33. DMA, DMHS, Files of the Archivist, Archives Report, Annual General Meeting, 1987.34. DMA, DMHS, Files of the Archivist, Archives Report, 1988.35. DMA, DMHS, Files of the Archivist, 1988 Annual Report, Annual General Meeting, 1989.36. "Fire Damage at Delta Museum and Archives," Association of British Columbia ArchivistsNewsletter, 15, 2 (1989), 4.37. DMA, DMAS Records, Lord Report for the Delta Museum and Archives, 1989, 2-22.38. British Columbia Archives Council, Needs Assessment Survey Reports, (Vancouver, B.C.:B.C. Archives Council, 1988), 13.79Chapter 4The Development of Local Archival Repositories in British Columbia --A Conceptual FrameworkAlthough Canadian archivists have recognized the pattern of "total archives" in thedevelopment of public archival institutions at all three levels of government, there continues tobe an absence of a commonly accepted conceptual framework for the organization of archivaland records programs. Smith's analysis of the aspects of total archives is based on the Canadianfederal experience when, during the nineteenth century, the Public Archives of Canada wasestablished with the primary purpose of serving as a repository for historical records whichwould be used in the writing of nationalistic histories for a nation of diverse religious and ethnicgroups.' Furthermore, this strong belief in the cultural orientation of archival institutions haspersisted well into the current era. Indeed, for most of the post-war period, Canadian archivistscontinued to see records management programs in government primarily as a means ofsystematically acquiring historically significant public records, rather than as an integral part ofa global scheme of managing government information. Recently, Canadian archivists haveadopted a more wholistic approach to the question of managing public records, or indeed therecords of any organization.' The sheer volume of records and the need to identify those ofenduring value, the advent of electronic records, and a more open environment of access havetogether pushed archivists to re-assess the conceptual foundations of their practices. It wouldappear that local archival institutions, such as those in Richmond and Delta, began much as theirsenior government counterparts did in earlier times. Some of the same misconceptions aboutarchival institutions that plagued their development at senior levels have also stunted the growth80of local archives. These misconceptions explain the difficulties of developing fully-fledgedarchival programs in Delta and Richmond.The first misconception is the most fundamental. It is clear that the persons responsible forestablishing archival activity in Richmond and Delta did not understand the nature of archives.Concerned citizens and persons appointed to carry out archival duties equated archives with allkinds of historically valuable documents. For example, both the Richmond Museum andHistorical Society and the Richmond '79 Centennial Society collected all manner of documentsto record the progressive history of their community. Indeed, the latter was responsible for apublication on local history. In Delta, the Historical Society and its employees concentrated ongathering historical materials to complement the interpretation of artifacts in the museum. Infact, the Delta Archives was becoming a documentation centre by collecting both published andunpublished documents of a non-archival nature about the area. In both cases, the acquisitionof historical documentation was closely associated with centennial celebrations and with thedesire to build a historical sensibility in the community. The members of the historical societies,as well as local government staff and elected officials, viewed archives as being associated withthe preservation of history, and therefore saw archives as logically associated with a museumor a library serving that purpose.However, it is evident that the nature of an archives or an archival fonds is quite distinctfrom either a book in a library or an artifact in a local history museum. According to Bautier,the archival fonds is an organic creation of documents received or created by an individual,family, business, church or government agency, whereas libraries and museums house anaggregation of autonomous items selected because of their subject matter. Furthermore, library81and museum materials are acquired by purchases and donations. The books in libraries exist toexchange information and knowledge or to express views or feelings for a general culturalpurpose. At the same time, a museum houses individual artifacts which are acquired becauseof their material history value, and each artifact is autonomous of others held in a collection.By contrast, the value of the archival document is determined by its natural accumulation in thecourse of practical activity as a record of actions and transactions. Bautier compares the inter-relationship of documents within an archival fonds to the progressive layers of a sedimentaryrock formation in that each document exists in an interrelated complex arising from the way inwhich affairs are conducted.' Therefore, it is the capacity of archives to serve as evidence ofaffairs which gives them original value to the persons or organizations which generates them,and later to researchers who seek knowledge of the past.'Those individuals interested in the collection of archival documents, however, often failedto appreciate the inter-relationship of archival documents, and this is most noticeable on the areaof public records. In both Delta and Richmond, the petitioners of archival programs tended tosee the cultural value of archives and not their administrative dimension. At the same time,public officials recognized the value of public records for the conduct of government affairs, butthey have had difficulty conceiving methods of preserving the administrative utility of the recordwhile recognizing its value for cultural purposes. For instance, in Delta, municipal records weremicrofilmed to preserve their administrative information, but government officials failed torecognize the need for the systematic selection and preservation of records with continuingvalue. Instead, they viewed the Delta Archives as a program which collected historicaldocuments that no longer had administrative value. In Richmond, the situation is not much82different. Although local government officials recognized the archival program as an extensionof the record keeping duties of the municipal clerk, they too have continued to view governmentrecords as administrative documents and archives as historical documents. This is evident in theabsence, in Richmond, of a wholistic approach toward the management of government records.The second misconception about public archival institutions is the legal status of publicrecords. In English speaking countries, public records are inalienable, in that they cannot bealienated from control of the public authority which generated them -- except by due process.In British Columbia, however, there is no legislation outlining such a process. Under theMunicipal Act of British Columbia, the municipal clerk is given statutory responsibility for thesafekeeping of certain records of council, but there is no legislation dealing with both recordkeeping practices and archival programs. For example, although it was the declared policy ofthe Delta Museum and Archives to accept municipal records, Delta Council has not mandatedthe institution to preserve them, and probably will not do so as long as it is a private institution.In Richmond, the legal problem of the archival institution being designated as a repository forinactive records has been solved with the archival program becoming a part of the city'sadministration. Like federal and provincial archival institutions, the Richmond Archivesoperates from within the office given statutory responsibility for council records -- that of themunicipal clerk.The experience in Richmond, however, highlights another aspect of the legal status of publicrecords, namely, the need for archival legislation. Although Richmond Council adopted aresolution on July 25, 1988, which approved the collections policy for the Archives, no archivalor records management by-law has since been written. 5 In fact, that 1988 council resolution83is comparable to the federal declaration in 1912 which identified the Public Archives of Canadato be a repository for public records of the government of Canada. Like the Public ArchivesAct, the Richmond resolution created a special agency to care for records, but it did not ensurethe preservation of records in the departments of the Municipality and it did not provide for theorderly disposition of records by archives staff. Consequently, these types of declaration byboth Richmond and the Federal government are inadequate. Some additional legislation in theform of a bylaw or policy statement is required to establish policies and procedures for thesystematic management and disposition of records across all departments before the Archivescan act as a repository for all permanently valuable records of the Municipality. Lacking sucha single overall policy, the Richmond Municipal Archives is left to develop ad hoc arrangementswith various departments.It is evident that the authorization for an overall records keeping and archival program policyin any jurisdiction requires sanctioning at the highest level of authority, which in this case is theMunicipal Council. Such legislation can provide authority for a records keeping program, aswell as educate administrators, elected officials and the public. Based on a survey of localgovernment record keeping practices in British Columbia, Billesberger recommends that a policyto standardize record keeping practices be articulated in each municipality in a by-law. This by-law would include a statement about the establishment of a record keeping system as acontinuing administrative function of a municipality, a definition of records or informationresources to be covered, a statement of goals and objectives, a description of basic components,a description of personnel authorized to organize and maintain information, and finally the optionof creating a records management committee.6 According to Bryans, policy sanctioned at the84highest level of authority should define the terms of a records program, provide a mandatestatement, and detail the records management structure.' Thus, the development of a by-lawwhich provides the statutory authority for the organization of a records and archival program isan important characteristic of a conceptual framework which should not be overlooked, becauseit articulates the components of a record keeping program and its goals and objectives. Moreimportant, it is a statement of Council's endorsement of the implementation and developmentof such a program.Compounding the absence of records keeping and archival by-laws in municipalities is theinadequate authority for the creation of such legislation. At the moment, it is unclear whetherthe Municipal Act gives local governments authority to enact records by-laws. Under the BritishNorth America Act of 1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982, the provincial governments wereempowered to delegate certain authority to local governments. In British Columbia, theMunicipal Act is the primary chapter of legislation which establishes the framework for localself-government, mandates certain functions and provides the authority for the undertalcing ofother municipal services. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing which isthe provincial body which generally oversees the activities of local government, supplements theAct through the development and the issuance of ministerial regulations. Currently, however,neither the Municipal Act nor any other provincial acts specifically govern records keeping,although arguably the Act may provide such authority under references to "general goodgovernment of the municipality"  8 Thus, although the Municipal Act does not compel localgovernments to systematically preserve their documents other than specific records of councilsuch as by-laws, council and committee minutes and other unspecified records, municipalities85have a general authority to develop their own rules to control records disposition.' No doubtsome direction from the provincial government, such as exists in Quebec, is possible and couldassist local governments, but the municipalities themselves seem to lack the wherewithal toaddress this problem.'The third misconception about archival programs is in connection with their administrativerole. Archival institutions, of course, have a cultural role, but in government administrationthey act as an agent responsible for carrying out the disposition and preservation of valuablepublic records. The archival institution requires a proper administrative position and a policyframework to carry out these duties. In both Richmond and Delta, the early administrativeplacement and development of archival programs in heritage and cultural agencies, such as amuseum or library, as indicated previously, can be attributed to the "old fashioned" belief thatarchives are cultural establishments primarily responsible for the "memory-making" of acommunity. For instance, in Richmond, the initial placement of the archival program in thedepartment of Parks and Leisure Services, an area of the Municipality responsible for sportsfacilities and cultural activities, at first guaranteed that the archival program of the communitywould be a government function; however, the inappropriateness of such an arrangement soonbecame apparent to both the archivists and administrators. The reporting structure wassubsequently amended with the transfer of the archival program late in 1986 to the MunicipalClerk's office. In Delta, the organization of an archival program within a museum operated bya private society, is also an unsuitable administrative framework to carry out responsibilities forgovernment records. Furthermore, it is evident that a clear distinction must be made betweenthe museum function and the archival function if the institution is to become an agency of the86municipality. It must be emphasized that the purpose of a museum is strictly cultural in that itdoes not perform the role of an archival institution in providing administrative services to allmunicipal agencies in preserving their inactive records.In fact, it takes a proper administrative setting together with formal procedures for thesystematic disposition of public records for an archival program to succeed. According to Jones,one of the most important aspects of a records keeping program is its placement within agovernment bureaucracy. He argues that such a program must be placed within a governmentinfrastructure to give it sufficient status and authority to effectively implement and maintain acorporate records program!' Ideally this would be in the municipal clerk's office, which isa department at the centre of the administration of local government. There are two reasons forthe development an archives and records program within such an infrastructure. First, themunicipal clerk has statutory responsibility for certain records of Council, although furtherclarification is needed on exactly which records the Municipal Act or its regulations are referringto. Nevertheless, the organization of a records keeping program within the municipal clerk'soffice is a logical extension of the statutory competence of the clerk. Second, the municipalclerk is at the centre of government adminstration and has sufficient status to direct a recordskeeping and archival program. According to Crawford,The task of coordination and overall direction is, to a degree exercised by the clerk ofcouncil, because not being the head of the service departments, he is in a somewhat impartialposition and because he has continuous contact and access to Council!'Along with the proper administrative setting, an archival program requires procedures forthe systematic disposition of public records, however, this is often hindered by the separationbetween active and semi-active records and archives. Recently, archivists have adopted an87integrated approach in the management of government information, whereby a single agency isresponsible for public records, because there is no distinction between active and semi-activerecords and those held in an archives -- they are one and the same. According to one archivist,public records are "documents created or received and preserved in the legitimate conduct of thesovereign or its agents."' Therefore, it is logical that one government agency be responsiblefor the management of public records from their creation to their final disposition.The need for the consolidation of the legal authority for public records under a single agencywas apparent in the case of the Richmond Municipal Archives. Although the transfer of thefunction of the archives from the Department of Parks and Leisure Service to the MunicipalClerk's office was a response to a need to preserve historical government records, the divisionof record keeping responsibilities according to "old fashioned" concepts of archives and publicrecords has affected the systematic selection and preservation of municipal records of enduringvalue. Indeed, such records continue to arrive at the Richmond Archives as a result of"housecleaning" rather than a systematic application of disposition by the Archivist.Exacerbating the inefficient management of semi-active and inactive records is the lack of otherstandard elements of a records program, such as a comprehensive file classification scheme,records standards, micrographics, vital records management, the authority to reviewdepartmental record keeping practices, advisory services, and the training of records officers inother municipal departments. All of these elements have been recognized by the Archivist inRichmond as standard record-keeping practices, but they are not within his mandate.Consequently, the public records of the Municipality continue to be ineffectively administered88because of the lack of procedures for their disposition and the absence of other standard recordkeeping practices.Another misconception about archival programs in general is the lack of adequate andspecific financial and personnel resources to fulfil their mandate. The difference in financialcommitment towards a local archival program was significant between the Delta Museum andArchives and the Richmond Municipal Archives. For example, in 1986, the archivist inRichmond received an annual salary of $33,285, while the archivist and the assistant archivistin Delta together received a total annual salary of only $23,662.'. One might speculatewhether this difference in funding contributed to the ability of the Delta Archives to retainqualified staff, since each archivist had a well-intentioned agenda which was often based neitheron sound archival nor on practical management principles. For instance, in 1983, in spite oflimited resources, the Delta Archives purchased a large format camera to produce "archivalquality" copy-prints. Three years later the camera was put up for sale because it was seldomused by staff.°Further complicating this lack of resources is the absence of fiscal autonomy. In Delta, thearchives budget was a sub-component of the Museum budget, whereas in Richmond the budgetof the archival program was separate from that of the museum even when it was part of theDepartment of Parks and Leisure Services. However, this fiscal characteristic is not limited tothe Delta Archives. According to a survey conducted by the (then) British Columbia ArchivesCouncil, the lack of fiscal autonomy and staff solely devoted to archival activities is a commonproblem of smaller archives in a museum, library or historical society. In fact, the reportdescribed many of these types of local archival institutions as operating on "an ad hoc basis" .1689According to Jones, a prerequisite for an archival program is a commitment from "the seat ofpower". He asserts that this commitment does not require large amounts of money, but ratheran investment of allocated time and resources.' Without such a commitment, the continuityof a program is threatened by the absence of qualified and trained staff, the lack of supplies, andby inadequate physical facilities. Thus, the development of an archival program requires morethan the simple acquisition and creation of a culturally significant collection of documents fora single celebration, it requires a continual commitment of resources to preserve and to provideaccess to archival records.Finally and most important, local governments need to recognize that an archival and recordskeeping program is an essential public service in the effective administration of governmentinformation, which itself is of continuing administrative, financial and legal value. In 1899, thePublic Archives Commission formed by the American Historical Association stated,Fundamental to the proper care and preservation of local records is an appreciativeunderstanding of their importance by those who have them in custody. Local archivesare valuable as business or administrative records; and second, as historical records.18Until recently, local governments have not been compelled to deal with the management and thepreservation of local government records. In fact, most municipal governments have neglectedthe management of their information.According to the survey of local government record keeping practices conducted byBillesberger mentioned earlier in this chapter, most municipalities lacked a systematic approachto maintaining their information sources. Her study revealed that there is an absence of controlover the generation and receipt of records, and that it is questionable whether those surveyedmunicipalities, which stated that they have uniform control over their records, in fact have90systematic programs in place -- as they reported. In addition, most municipalities have noformal control over their filing or indexing of information.' For example, although Richmondinstituted a block numeric file classification scheme in several administrative departmentsincluding the Municipal Clerk's office and the Law department, this filing system has not beenextended to all other departments, such as Planning and Engineering. Thus, several filingsystems continue to be in operation throughout the Municipality. In addition, Billesberger foundthat most municipalities lack control over the administration and maintenance of their currentand non-current records, such as systematic microfilming programs and vital records." Delta,for example, implemented a microfilming program to reduce the volume of records in the office,however, there is no systematic appraisal of the contents of the files, since the program includesthe microfilming of all documents. One might speculate whether the absence of standard recordkeeping practices and policies is a reflection of how little local governments value themanagement of their information. Nevertheless, the recognition that a record-keeping andarchival program is an essential public service and a responsibility of accountable and opengovernment, is probably the most important aspect of a conceptual framework for theorganization of a local archival institution.Although this lack of attention to archives and records keeping has been inadvertentlyreinforced by senior levels of government by the absence of archival and record keepinglegislation, both federal and provincial governments have recently encouraged the developmentof local archival programs through special grants. In 1986, the Federal government announcedan additional funding of seven million dollars to support specific projects of archives andarchival organizations, such as description and arrangement and later, conservation. In April911990, the British Columbia government committed funds towards the establishment of aCommunity Archival Assistance Program to be administered by the British Columbia Archivesand Records Service. By 1992, $235,015 was allocated towards some forty-eight one timeprojects, two of which specifically assisted the organization of archival programs in localgovernment." Nevertheless, both the British Columbia and Federal governments haverecognized local archival responsibility as an activity of municipal government because to qualifyfor these grant programs, municipal archival institutions must demonstrate that they have acommitment of continuing funding from their parent organization. Again, no studies have beenconducted on the impact of these grant programs on the organization of municipal archivalinstitutions.Perhaps the importance of a systematic record keeping and archival program will becomemost apparent with the promulgation of freedom of information and protection of privacylegislation at the local government level. On September 1, 1992, the Government of BritishColumbia issued a discussion paper about the extension of provincial freedom of information andprivacy legislation to include local government which was under consideration by the ProvincialLegislature in mid 1993." If adopted, such legislation would bring municipalities in BritishColumbia in step with those in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which are currentlyoperating under freedom of information and privacy legislation." Again, no studies have beenconducted on the impact of such legislation on record keeping practices in Canada, however,archivists and records managers have acknowledged that freedom of information legislationcompels both the archivist and government administration to deal with records in their currentenvironment. Further, the legislation identifies access to public documents as a right of the92citizen and the onus to prove otherwise falls upon government. In fact, the Provincialgovernment's discussion paper points out that it is not too early for local governments to preparefor the legislation by upgrading records management systems and practices, training staff, andestablishing the administrative structure to handle information requests.24In addition, local governments need to acknowledge the important cultural role that anarchival institution plays within a community in the management of heritage resources bypreserving and making available both public and private records. Moreover, this role is distinctfrom the cultural role of creating and promoting a common memory. According to J.M.S.Careless in a 1962 report on "Government and Historical Resources in Canada",The significance of archives can hardly be overstressed. They contain the essential rawmaterials of history; for history is basically the study of the written record. The datasupplied by sites and building, or held in museums, must all be checked against therecord and woven in with it.. .In general, therefore, through collecting and conservingrecords, the function of archives remains fundamental to any programme for thedevelopment of historical resources.., there is vital importance in the role generallyassumed by governments in supporting archival institutions. The accuracy of plaques,of building restorations, or archaeological research and museum information, may alldepend in greater or lesser degree on the material available in archives. Thus, it followsthat governments which do not make adequate provisions for archives development areskimping at the very centre of a historical resources programme: and in the long run willnot get the best returns from their historical budget.'An archival program, therefore, is the cornerstone of any community heritage program, becauseit provides the raw data necessary for the accurate documentation of in situ heritage sites,archaeological sites, as well as for the interpretation of museum artifacts. Without such aprogram, the funds dispersed through community heritage programs, for plaques, museumexhibits and building restorations are public monies squandered.In today's world, therefore, the principal motive for the establishment of a governmentarchives should be to fulfil the obligation to be accountable to, and to protect the interest of the93people governed. Local government must recognize the importance of the systematicpreservation of public records. As pointed out by Jones,Public records are public property, owned by the people in the same sense that citizensowned their courthouse or town hall, sidewalks and streets, funds in the treasury. They areheld in trust by custodians -- usually the heads of agencies in which the records have beenaccumulated, but sometimes by other officers to whom custody has been officially transferredby the governing authority. Public records may not be sold, given away, destroyed, oralienated in accordance with provision of any state law relating to their care anddisposition.15He further argues that the public record as public property is of greater value than buildings,equipment and even money, because it documents and protects the rights and privileges andproperty of the individual citizen, and if such a record is lost it cannot be easily replaced. Theserecords also provide evidence of government decisions and transactions. They should bepreserved and made available to the citizen, since the measurement of good government isclosest at the local government level. According to Crawford,...in the local field the interval between decision and result is usually sufficientlyshort, and the result is sufficiently evident, that the citizen can measure the result.His understanding of local issues, his intimate knowledge of members of localgovernment, and the direct impact of local government policies enable him tomeasure performance against promises. He thus acquires the ability to weighconflicting programmes against proposals; he learns to discount extravagant electionpledges; he develops a healthy scepticism which is his protection against demagoguein politics; and what is most important, he learns that according as he calls the tune,he must pay the piper.'In fact, the quality of decision making should improve in municipal government, if people areinformed of the process and functions of local government.In conclusion, local governments should preserve and make accessible both public andprivate records to the citizen in keeping with the tradition of public archival institutions inCanada. First, local governments should develop municipal archival institutions based on an94understanding that the preservation of the complex structure of the archival fonds and itsinformation is the primary purpose of such an institution, not the creation of a memory orhistorical documentation centre for a community. Second, although public records have acultural quality, they are created primarily for administrative, legal and fiscal transactions, andtheir cultural value is derived from the preservation of their structure and the circumstances inwhich they were created. Third, local governments need to recognize the legal status of publicrecords and that they are inalienable except by due process. In addition, an archival and recordskeeping program also requires a single wholistic policy for government records from theircreation to their final disposition. Such a policy should be sanctioned at the highest level ofauthority which in the case of local government is the municipal council. Furthermore, toimplement such policies and procedures, an archival and records keeping program requiresproper placement within a government bureaucracy and the most logical department at this levelof government is the municipal clerk's office. Of course, an archival program also requires acommitment of adequate resources for supplies and facilities and to retain trained andknowledgeable staff. Finally and most important, local governments need to acknowledge thepreservation of municipal records and their information as an essential public service, becausethey document and protect the rights, privileges and property of the individual citizen.Together, these aspects provide a framework for the establishment of a municipal archivalinstitution which fits into the Canadian tradition of total archives.95Chapter 4 - Endnotes1. Wilfred Smith "'Total Archives': The Canadian Experience," Archives et Biblioteques deBelgique 57, no.2 (1986): 323-346.2. Carol Couture and Jean Yes Rousseau, The Life of a Document: A Global Approach TowardsArchives and Records Management, (Montreal: Vehicule Press, 1986).3. Robert-Henri Bautier, "Les Archives," in L'Histoire et Ses Methodes. Edited by Samran,Charles Maxime Donaton. (Paris: Ballinard Encylopedie de la Pleiade, 1961), 1121.4. Elio Lodolini, "The War of Independence of Archivists," Archivaria 28 (Summer 1989): 40-41.5. Richmond Municipal Offices, Council Minutes, Resolution 1015, 25 July 1988.6. Valerie Billesberger, "Municipal Record keeping in British Columbia: An ExploratorySurvey," (Master of Archival Studies Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1990), 87-88.7. Victoria Bryans, "Canadian Provincial and Territorial Legislation: A Case of Disjunctionsbetween Theory and Law," (Master of Archival Studies Thesis, University Of British Columbia,1989),4.8. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, ss. 239a, 2429. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 260, ss. 244b, 244c10. The Archives Act (Statutes of Quebec 1983, c. 38), includes records of all public bodies.Within the Act's schedule these bodies include municipalities.It should also be noted that although the B.C. Legislature controls the Municipal Act,amendments to this piece of legislation can be brought about through political lobbying. Interestgroups, such as the Union of British Columbia Municipalities which is composed of electedofficials, and the Municipal Officers Association which comprises municipal administrators aretwo active organizations which have successfully lobbied the government to enact legislativeamendments. According to Bish, there are other groups which have also successfully influencedmunicipal legislation, namely the British Columbia Museums Association. Therefore, it ispossible for the archival community to bring about amendments to the Municipal Act or otherchapters of legislation regarding record keeping and archival programs by lobbying throughorganizations such as the Archives Association of British Columbia, as well as throughcontacting their own elected members of the legislature.11. H.G. Jones, Local Government Record: An Introduction to their Management. Preservation and Use, (Nashville, Tenessee, 1980), 32, 33.9612. Kenneth G. Crawford, Canadian Municipal Government, (Toronto: University of TorontoPress, 1954), 169.13. Trevor Livelton, "Public Records: A Study in Archival Theory," (Master of ArchivalStudies Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1991), 93-157.14. Delta Museum and Archives, Delta Museum and Archives Society, Financial Records,Statement of Receipts and Disbursements for year end, December 31, 1986, Archives Account.Discussion with Payroll Clerk at the Municipality of Richmond, 14 April 1989.15. Delta Museum and Archives, Archivist's Report, January 1983. Archivist's Report,November 18, 1986.16. British Columbia Archives Council, Needs Assessment Survey Report (Vancouver: BritishColumbia Archives Council, 1988), 13.17. Jones, Local Government Records, 29.18. Ibid., 13.19. Billesberger, "Municipal Records Survey," 84.20. Ibid., 85.21. Archives Association of British Columbia Newsletter, 12 (1992). Two grants were awardedtowards the development of local archival programs in the municipalities of Maple Ridge andWest Vancouver.22. Discussion Paper. Extending Freedom of Information and Protection Privacy Rights. 1September 1992, (Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1992).23. Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56.In Quebec, all public bodies are covered under An Act Respecting Access to Document held byPublic Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information, R.S.Q. 1977, c. A 2.1.24. Extending Freedom of Information and Privacy Rights,  4.25. J.M.S. Careless, "Government and Historical Resources in Canada," (1962), 50. cited in"Editorial/ Project Pride" Association of British Columbia Archivists Newsletter, 13, 1 (1987),1, 2.26. Jones, Local Government Records, 23.27. Crawford, Canadian Municipal Government, 7.97Primary Sources for Case StudiesChapter 2 -- Richmond Municipal ArchivesRichmond Municipal Archives (hereafter RMA). Files of the Archivist. Annual Reports. 1987-90.RMA. Files of the Archivist. "Planning File." 1981-86.RMA. Files of the Archivist. "Planning File." Report by John E. Kyte. "Richmond'sHeritage Resources." 9 November 1981.RMA. Files of the Archivist. "Planning File." Report by Leonard C. Delozier, submitted toCornerstone Consultants Ltd. "Richmond Archives: Report and Future." 12 March 1986.RMA. Files of the Archivist. "Planning File." Report by Leslie Ross, submitted to CornerstoneConsultants Ltd. "Report on Archives." 18 April 1986.RMA. Files of the Archivist. Policy and Procedure Manual. c.1985.RMA. Files of the Archivist. "Progress Reports." 1983-86.RMA. Municipal Clerk's Correspondence Series. Municipal Records Series 3. Letter to theGovernor of Northern Ireland from Mary A. Boyd, prepared by J. S. Matthews. 10 June1947.RMA. Richmond '79 Centennial Society Records. Manuscript Group 28.RMA. Richmond Arts Council Records. Accession 87-65. Recreational Advisory Committee- Cultural Groups Sub-Committee Report. 1973.RMA. Richmond Museum Historical Advisory Committee. Manuscript Group 25.Richmond Municipal Offices (hereafter RMO). Department of Parks and Leisure Services.Cornerstone Planning Group Ltd. "Richmond Cultural Centre Planning and FeasibilityStudy." 1986.RMO. Department of Parks and Leisure Services. "Leisure Services - Museums andArchives." File M-12, 1978-83.RMO. Municipal Clerk's Department Files. Administration Committee Minutes. 4 January1983.98RMO. Municipal Clerk's Department Files. Administration Committee Minutes. 5 April 1983.RMO. Municipal Clerk's Department Files. "Archives." File No. 4743, 1986-88.RMO. Municipal Clerk's Department Files. "CAO - Records Storage System." File No.4430-3, 1979.RMO. Municipal Clerk's Department Files. "CAO - Records Storage System." File No.4430-3. Memo to Senior Management Committee from Clerk Rod Drennan 25 August1986.RMO. Richmond Bylaws. Bylaw No. 1817. "A Bylaw to establish a Historical and MuseumAdvisory Committee." 17 April 1961.RMO. Richmond Bylaws. Bylaw No. 3177. "Historical and Museum Advisory Committee BylawNo. 1817, Amendment Bylaw No. 3177." 27 October 1975.RMO. Richmond Bylaws. Bylaw No. 4342. "A Bylaw to establish a Municipal HeritageAdvisory Committee." 28 May 1984.RMO. Richmond Council Minutes. 10 January 1983.RMO. Richmond Council Minutes. 28 March 1988.RMO. Richmond Council Minutes. 11 July 1988.RMO. Richmond Council Minutes. 25 July 1988.RMO. Richmond Council Minutes. 24 July 1989.RMO. Richmond Council Minutes. 9 April 1990.RMO. Richmond Council Minutes. 22 October 1990.RMO. Richmond Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. 9 February 1982.RMO. Richmond Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. 18 February 1982.RMO. Richmond Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. 9 September 1982.RMO. Richmond Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. 29 November 1982.RMO. Richmond Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. 8 February 1983.99Chapter 3 -- Delta Museum and ArchivesDelta Museum and Archives (hereafter DMA). Delta Museum and Archives Society Records,Delta Museum Society Minutes. 1961, 1968-69.DMA. Delta Museum and Archives Society Records. Executive Board Minutes. 1970-85.DMA. Delta Museum and Archives Society Records. Files of the Archivist. "ArchivistCorrespondence." 1972-86.DMA. Delta Museum and Archives Society Records. Files of the Archivist. "ArchivistReports." 1979-86.DMA. The Optimist 24 January 1968.DMA. The Optimist 13 June 1979.DMA. The Optimist 1 August 1979.DMA. The Optimist 8 August 1979.DMA. The Optimist 1 November 1979.DMA. The Optimist 28 November 1979.Delta Municipal Offices (hereafter DMO). Delta Council Minutes. 24 March 1969.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 3 July 1973.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 30 December 1974.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 27 January 1975.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 17 July 1975.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 2 February 1976.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 7 June 1976.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 19 September 1977.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 17 October 1977.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 12 December 1978.100DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 18 June 1979.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 18 February 1980.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 15 September 1980.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 9 February 1981.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 25 January 1982.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 10 January 1983.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 21 February 1983.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 12 December 1983.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 15 January 1984.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 19 March 1984.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 9 April 1984.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 7 January 1985.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 18 February 1985.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 25 February 1985.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 13 January 1986.DMO. Delta Council Minutes. 12 January 1987.DMO. Municipal Clerk's Department Files. Administration Records. "Centennial Committee."File No. 1-3-12. 10 October 1978.DMO. Municipal Clerk's Department Files. Administration Records. "Delta Museum." FileNo. 2-8-5. 1977-87.101BibliographyAlexander, Edward P. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions ofMuseums. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1979.Anderson, W.P. "Richmond Museum." Museum Round Up 76 (Fall 1979): 10-11.Archer, John H. "A Study of Archival Institutions in Canada." Ph.D. diss., Queen's University,1969.Association of Canadian Archivists. Association of Canadian Archivists Bulletin. 2 (November1989).At the Crossroads: National Museums of Canada Annual Report. Ottawa: National Museumsof Canada, 1986.Atherton, Jay. "From Life Cycle to Continuum' Some Thoughts on the Records Management -- Archives Relationship." Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-86): 43-51.Atherton, Jay. "Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1897-1956." Archivaria 8(Summer 1979): 35-60.Barlee, Kathleen. "Cooperative Total Archives for Kelowna, British Columbia." Master ofArchival Studies Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1986.Bartlett, Nancy. "Respect des Fonds: The Origins of the Modern Archival Principle ofProvenance." Primary Resources and Original Works 1 (1992): 107-111.Baskerville, Peter A. and Chad M. Gaffield. "The Crisis in Urban Documentation: 'The Shame'of Cities Revisited." Urban History Review 13 (June 1984): 1-8.Baskerville, Peter. A. and Chad M. Gaffield. "The Vancouver Island Project: HistoricalResearch and Archival Practice." Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-84): 173-187.Bautier, Robert-Henri. "Les Archives." In L'Histoire et Ses Methodes. edited by CharlesMaxime Donatun. Paris: Ballinard Encylopedie de la Pleiade, 1961.Beauchamp, Rick. "Problems Encountered with Records Management." Paper presented at theOkanagan Municipal Officers' Association of B.C. Spring Meeting, Penticton, B.C., April1986. Photocopy.Berger, Carl. The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English Canadian HistoricalWriting, 1900-1970. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1976.102Berner, Richard C. Archival Theory and Practice in the United States: A Historical Analysis. Seattle: University of London Press, 1983.Beyea, Marion. "Records Management: the New Brunswick Case." Archivaria 8 (Summer1979): 61-77.Billesberger, Valerie M. "Municipal Record-Keeping in British Columbia: An ExploratorySurvey." Master of Archival Studies Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1990.Bish, Robert L. Local Government in British Columbia. Richmond, B.C.: Union of BritishColumbia Municipalities and the University of Victoria, School of Public Administration,1987.Bloomfield, B.C. "Relations between Archives and Libraries." Archivum 30 (1984): 28-35.Bovey, John. "The Provincial Archives of British Columbia. Part One." British ColumbiaHistorical News 17, no.4 (1984): 4-8.Bovey, John. "The Provincial Archives of British Columbia. Part Two." British ColumbiaHistorical News 18, no.1 (1984): 11-13.Bower, Peter. "Archives and the Landon Project." Archivaria 5 (Winter 1977-78): 152-155.Boylan, Patrice L. "Museums and Archives in the Contemporary World." Archivum 30(1984): 39-50.Brashner, James G. Managing Archives and Archival Institutions.  Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1989.British Columbia Archives Council. Needs Assessment Survey Report. Vancouver: BritishColumbia Archives Council, 1988.Brown, George W. "The Problems of Public and Historical Records in Canada." CanadianHistorical Review 25 (1944): 1-5.Brown, George W. "Provincial Archives in Canada." Canadian Historical Review 16 (1935):1-18.Brumberg, David G. "Sources and Uses of Local History Material." Bookmark (Winter 1981):116-132.Bryans, Victoria L. "Canadian Provincial and Territorial Archival Legislation: A Case Studyof the Disjunction between Archival Theory and Law." Master of Archival Studies Thesis,University of British Columbia, 1989.103Cameron, Duncan F. "The Museum, a Temple or the Forum." Curator 14, no.1 (1971): 11-24.Canada. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Museumsin Canada: The Federal Contribution. 1986"Canadian Archives: Reports and Response." Archivaria 11 (Winter 1980-81): 3-35.Carroll, Carmen. "Developing a Historical Laboratory: Genesis of the Public Archives of NovaScotia." In The Archival Imagination, edited by Barbara Craig. Ottawa: Association ofCanadian Archivists, 1992.Champ, Joan. "Arthur Silver Morton and his role in the Founding of the Saskatchewan ArchivesBoard." Archivaria 32 (Summer 1991): 101-103.Colbert, Edwin H. "What is a Museum?" Curator 4, no.2 (1961): 138-146.Cook, Michael. The Management of Information from Archives. Brookfield, Vermont: GowerPublishing, 1985.Cook, Terry. "The Tyranny of the Medium: A Comment of 'Total Archives'." Archivaria 9(Winter 1979-80): 141-149.Consultative Group on Canadian Archives. Canadian Archives: Report to Social Sciences Humanities Research Council. Ottawa: Information Division of the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council, 1980.Conzen, Kathleen Neils. "Community Studies, Urban History and American Local History." inThe Past Before Us, edited by Michael Kammen. Ithica, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,1980.Corbett, Bryan and Eldon Frost. "The Acquisition of Federal Government Records: A Reporton Records Management and Archival Practice." Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-84): 201-232.Couture, Carol and Jean Yves Rousseau. The Life of a Document: A Global Approach toArchives and Records Management. Montreal: Vehicule Press, 1986.Cox, Richard J. "A Re-appraisal of Municipal Records in the United States." Public Historian3, no.1 (Winter, 1981): 49-63.Cox, Richard J. "The Plight of American Municipal Archives: Baltimore, 1792-1979."American Archivist 42 (July 1979): 281-292.104Craig, Barbara. "Records Management in the Ontario Archives, 1950-1976." Archivaria 8(Summer 1979): 3-34.Crawford, Kenneth G. Canadian Municipal Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,1954.Cuthbertson, B.C. "Thomas Beamish Aikins: British North America's Pioneer Archivist."Acadiensis 7, no.1 (1977): 86-102.Delozier, Leonard C. "Archival Cooperation." Museum Round Up 86 (Summer 1982): 27-30.Delozier, Leonard C. "Around the Archives." Museum Round Up 74 (Spring 1979): 33-34.Delozier, Leonard C. "Focus." Association of Canadian Archivists Bulletin. Vol. 5, no.4(1980): 5-7.Duranti, Luciana. "Education and the role of the Archivist in Italy." American Archivist 51(1988): 346-351.Eastwood, Terry, ed. The Archival Fonds: from Theory to Practice.  Ottawa: PlanningCommittee on Descriptive Standards, 1992.Eastwood, Terry. "Attempts at National Planning for Archives in Canada." Public Historian8, no.3 (1986): 74-91.Eastwood, Terry. "R.E. Gosnell, E.O.S. Scholefield and the Founding of the ProvincialArchives of British Columbia, 1894-1919." B.C. Studies 54 (Summer 1982): 38-62.Eastwood, Terry. "Reflections on the Development of Archives in Canada and Australia."Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of Australian Archivists. Hobart, Australia, 3June 1984. Photocopy.Eastwood, Terry. "The Structure, Dynamics and Responsibilities of the Canadian ArchivalSystem." In Report of the Advisory Committee on Archives. Ottawa: Information Divisionon Social Sciences and Humanities, 1985.Eso, Elizabeth. "Promotion and Outreach in Community Archives." Association of BritishColumbia Archivists. Publication No. 2, 1988.Evans, Frank B. Development of Archives and Records Management Programme. Paris:UNESCO, 1982.Fergusson, C. Bruce, "The Public Archives of Nova Scotia." Acadiensis 2, no.1 (1972): 71-81.105Flanagan, Thomas. "Archives: An Economic and Political View." Archivaria 8 (Summer1979): 91-101.Gagan, David. "Rediscovering Local History: The Problems of Archival Resources for the NewHistory." Communique 4, no.1 (1980): 14-15.Gardiner, Julian. "Portrait of Delta." Museum Round Up 74 (Spring 1979): 6-8.Gracy, David B. "Archivists, You are what people think you keep." American Archivist 52,1 (Winter 1989): 72-78.Gracy, David B. "Is There a Future in the Use of Archives?" Archivaria 24 (Summer 1987):3-9.Gracy, David B. "What's your Totem: Archival Images in the Public Mind." Midwestern Archivist 10, no.1 (1985): 17-23.Gray, Charlotte. "Museum Pieces." Saturday Night 103 (September 1988): 11-14.Greene, John P. "The Provincial Archives of Newfoundland." Acadiensis 3, no.1 (1973): 72-78.Hackman, Larry. James M. O'Toole, Liisa Fagerland and John Dojka. "Case Studies inArchives Program Development." American Archivist 53 (1990): 548-561.Higgins, Donald J.H. Local and Urban Politics in Canada. Toronto: Gage Press, 1986.House, Janet, "The Preservation of Local Government Records." Archives and Manuscripts 11,no.1 (1983): 38-46.Howarth, Kent M. "Local Archives: Responsibilities and Challenges for Archivists." Archivaria3 (Winter 1976-77): 28-36.In Your Community: National Museums of Canada, 1984-85.  National Museums of Canada,1985.Invervarity, Robert Bruce. "Thoughts on the Organization of Museums." Curator 2, no.4 (1959):293-303.James, R. Scott. "Administration of Municipal Records: The Toronto Experience." GovernmentPublication Review 8A (1981): 321-335.Jenkinson, Hilary. A Manual of Archive Administration. 2d. ed. London: Percy Lund,Humpheries and Co., 1937.106Jones, H. G. Local Government Records. An Introduction to their Management. Preservationand Use. Nashville, Tennessee: American Association for State and Local History, 1980.Jones, H. G. "The Pink Elephant Revisited." American Archivist 43 (Fall 1980): 473-483.Kierstead, Robin G. "J. S. Matthews and an Archives for Vancouver. 1951-1972." Archivaria23 (Winter 1986-87): 86-106.Lemieux, Louis. "Canadian Museums and their Role in Social Issues." Curator 14, no.1 (1971):50-55.Leonard, David W. "Establishing the Archives of the Northwest Territories: A Regional CaseStudy in Legality." Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984): 70-83.Livelton, Trevor. "Public Records: A Study in Archival Theory." Master of Archival StudiesThesis, University of British Columbia, 1991.Lodolini, Elio. "The War of Independence of Archivists." Archivaria 28 (Summer 1989): 36-47.Lord, Clifton. Keepers of the Past. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965.Lowenthal, David. "Heritage and Interpreters." Heritage Australia (Winter 1986): 42-45.MacDeramid, Anne. "Federal Support to Archives, Libraries and Museums." In Report of theAdvisory Committee on Archives. Ottawa: Information Division on Social Sciences andHumanities, 1985.Magnusson, Warren and Andrew Sancton, ed. City Politics in Canada. Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1983.McCarthy, Michael P. "Politics of the Suburban Growth: a Comparative Approach." In Powerand Place, edited by Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan Artibise. Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Press, 1986.McLeod, Donald. "Our Man in the Maritimes: 'Down East' with the Public Archives of Canada,1872-1930." Archivaria 17 (Summer 1983-84): 86-105.McLeod, Donald. "Quaint Specimens of the Early Days': Priorities in Collecting the OntarioRecord, 1872-1935." Archivaria 22 (Summer 1986): 12-39.Miller, Frederick N. "The Current State of Urban Historic Documentation." Drexel LibraryQuarterly 15 (October 1977): 1-15.107Miller-Marti, Chris. "Local History Museums and the Creation of the Past." Muse (Summer1987): 36-39.National Museums of Canada 1986-87. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 1987.Noel, Ginette. "L'Archivistique et la gestion des documents dans les Municipalites du Quebec."Urban History Review 11 (February 1983): 15-23.Official Directory of Canadian Museums and Related Institutions 1984-85.  Ottawa: CanadianMuseums Association, 1984.Ormsby, William G. "The Public Archives of Canada, 1948-1968." Archivaria 15 (Winter1982-83): 36-57.O'Toole, James. Understanding Archives and Manuscripts.  Chicago: Society of AmericanArchivists, 1990.Page, James E. "Canadian Studies and Archives" In Reflections on the Symons Report. theState of Canadian Studies in 1980. Ottawa: Secretary of State, 1981.Parr, Albert Eide. "History and the Historical Museum." Curator 15, no. 1 (1972): 53-61.Posner, Ernst. American State Archives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.Posner, Ernst. "European Experience in Protecting and Preserving Local Records." Archivesand Libraries, 1940, edited by A. F. Kuhlman. Chicago: American Library Association,1940.Posner, Ernst. "Some Aspects of Archival Development since the French Revolution." InModern Archives Reader: Basic Reading on Archival Theory and Practice, edited byMaygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch. (Washington, D.C.: National Archives andRecords Service, 1984."A 'Practical' Plea." Canadian Historical Review 15 (1934): 245-247.Rees, Athony L. "Masters in Our Own House." Archivaria 16 (Summer 1983); 53-59.Report of the Advisory Committee on Archives.  Ottawa: Information Division Social Sciencesand Humanities Research Council, 1985.Rhoads, James B. and Wilfred I. Smith. "Why Records Management is Important?" ARMARecords Management Quarterly 10 (January 1976): 5-8.Rose, Ian B. "Steveston Museum." Museum Round Up 52 (Spring/Summer 1982): 321-335.108Schellenberg, T. R. "The Appraisal of Modern Records." In Modern Archives Reader: BasicReadings on Archival Theory and Practice,  edited by Maygene F. Daniels and TimothyWalch. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1984.Schellenberg, T.R. Modern Archives. Principles and Techniques. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1956.Seff, Judy. "Archives as Museum Objects." Archives and Manuscripts 13 (May 1985): 39-48.Shipton, Clifford K. "The American Antiquarian Society." Curator 8, no.1 (1965): 8-17.Smith Wilfred I. Archives: Mirror of Canada's Past. Toronto: Published for the PublicArchives of Canada by Toronto University Press, 1972.Smith Wilfred I. "Total Archives': The Canadian Experience." Archives et Biblioteques deBelgique 57 (1986): 323-346.Standards Recommended for the Operation of Local Archives in Canada.  Association ofCanadian Archivists, June 1980.Stelter Gilbert A. "Current Research in Canadian Urban History." Urban History Review 9(June 1980): 110-128.Stelter, Gilbert A. and Alan F.J. Artibise, eds. Power and Place: Canadian Urban Developmentin the North America Context. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986.Stelter Gilbert A. "A Sense of Time and Place: the Historian's Approach to Canada's UrbanPast." In The Canadian City: Essays in Urban History, edited by Gilbert A. Stelter and AlanF. J. Artibise. Ottawa: Macmillan of Canada Limited in Association with the Institute ofCanadian Studies, Carleton University, 1979.Swift, Michael. "Management Techniques and Technical Resources in the 1980's." Archivaria20 (Summer 1985): 94-104.Stanley, Gordon. "The Municipal Archives -- Where the Archivist meets Records Manager."ARMA Records Management Ouarterly 5 (1971): 14-15, 23.Symons, T.H.B. "Archives and Canadian Studies." Archivaria 15 (Winter 1982-83): 58-69.Symons, T.H.B. To Know Ourselves: The Report of the Commission on Canadian Studies.  2vols. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 1975.Taylor, Hugh. "Archives for Regional History." In The Landon Project: Interdisciplinary Studieson Historical Evolution of Southwestern Ontario Second Annual Report. 1977-78.109Taylor, Hugh. "The Collective Memory: Archives and Libraries as Heritage." Archivaria 15(Winter 1982-83): 118-130.Taylor, Hugh. "Information Ecology and the Archives of 1980's." Archivaria 20 (Summer1984): 25-37.Taylor, Hugh. "The Provincial Archives of New Brunswick." Acadiensis 1, no.1 (1971): 71-83.Taylor, John. "Urban Autonomy in Canada: Its Evolution and Decline." In Power and Place: Canadian Urban Development in the North America Context, edited by Gilbert A. Stelterand Alan F.J. Artibise. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1986.Ten Cate, Ann. "Outreach in Small Archives: A Case Study." Archivaria 28 (Summer 1989):28-35.Thomas, Lewis H. "Archival Legislation in Canada." Canadian Historical Association Papers(1962): 28-35.Tirrul-Jones, James and Rod Denman. "Local Museums: a Provincial Perspective." MuseumRound Up 88 (Winter 1982-83):7-8.Traux, Denise and Johanne La Rochelle. "Marcel Masse: I intend to have my say." Muse 3(Summer 1985): 14-17.Warner, Sam Bass. "The Shame of Cities: Public records of the Metropolis." MidwesternArchivist 2 (1977): 27-34.Wichern, Phillip. "Metropolitan Reform and the Restructuring of Local Governments in theNorth American City." In Power and Place: Canadian Urban Development in the NorthAmerica Context, edited by Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise. Vancouver: Universityof British Columbia Press, 1986.Wilson, Ian E. "A Noble Dream': The Origins of the Public Archives of Canada." Archivaria15 (Winter 1982-83): 16-35.Wilson, Ian E. "Shorn and Doughty: The Cultural Rise of the Public Archives of Canada, 1904-1935." The Canadian Archivist 2 (1973): 4-25.Wilson, Ian E. and Donald S. Richan. "The Archives of Canadian Urban Municipalities, 1985."Unpublished paper prepared for the Canadian Urban Studies Conference, Winnipeg. 15August 1985. Photocopy.Woadden, A.R.N. "Toronto's Venture into Paperwork Control and Orderliness." AmericanArchivist 27 (1964): 261-264.110World of Learning 1991. 41st Edition. London, England: Europa Publications Ltd., 1991.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 35 4
United Kingdom 9 0
Canada 9 0
France 8 0
China 5 65
Ireland 4 0
Russia 4 0
Indonesia 4 0
Unknown 4 0
Switzerland 1 0
Philippines 1 1
Germany 1 30
Kenya 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 21 40
Buffalo 6 0
Saint Petersburg 4 0
Arlington Heights 4 0
London 4 0
Ashburn 4 0
Dublin 4 0
Jakarta 4 0
Sioux Falls 4 0
Belfast 4 0
Richmond 3 0
Shenzhen 3 65
Fredericton 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items