Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The development of university archives in British Columbia: a case study O’Donnell, Jacqueline P. 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0582.pdf [ 2.67MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087570.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087570-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087570-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087570-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087570-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087570-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087570-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSITY ARCHWES INBRITISH COLUMBIA:A CASE STUDYbyJacqueline Patricia O’DonnellB.A., Wilfrid Laurier University, 1983M.A., The University of British Columbia, 1985A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARCHIVAL STUDIESinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(School of Library, Archival and Information Studies)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA1994We accept this thesis as conforming2iereyuired© Jacqueline Patricia O’Donnell, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that theLibrary shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree thatpermission 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 k-T-(ThIy rc\vr\ cimck \ rJcr saeThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE-6 (2188)AbstractThis essay attempts to determine how university archives in British Columbia have developedfrom their origins as collections of historical documents within university libraries, and whetherthey exemplify the larger trend of archival development evident in Canada. An examination of thehistory of the National Archives of Canada provides a model of developmental stages and keyelements necessary for a modern archival programme. In addition it exemplifies the Canadiantradition of “total archives”. Individual case studies explore the evolution of British Columbia’sthree university archives, in the light of this Canadian tradition. Archival programmes locatedwithin the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser Universityare examined, in order to determine how they were conceived, advanced and sustained. Anexamination of the administrative records of the three university archives including annual reports,correspondence, policies and committee minutes presents a historical overview of their growthand development. Following decades of progress, the emerging picture is one of an incompleteprocess with each institution having attained a different level of development. The conclusioncompares and contrasts the three institutions and assesses their progress in the broader nationalcontext of Canadian university archives generally. The state of university archives in BritishColumbia mirrors that of their national counterparts and the emerging picture is one of anevolution still incomplete.11TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstractTable of Contents iiiAcknowledgments ivINTRODUCTION 1Chapter One - The Public Archives of Canada: 4A Development FrameworkChapter Two - Case Study One - University 29of British Columbia.Chapter Three- Case Study Two The University 55of VictoriaChapter Four - Case Study Three - Simon Fraser 76UniversityChapter Five - The British Columbia Experience: 98Divergent Levels ofProgressBibliography 112111AcknowledgmentsThis essay could not have been written without the generous assistance of many individuals. TheUniversity Archivists at each of the institutions studied were supportive, co-operative andencouraging. I would like to thank Chris Petter, Don Baird, Jim Ross, Laurenda Daniells, andChristopher Hives. I am indebted to my supervisor, Professor Terry Eastwood, for hisknowledge, practical approach and dedication to the archival profession. Finally, I would like tothank Stephen Norbury for his sense of humour and patience.iv1IntroductionThe purpose of this thesis is to investigate the growth and development of university archivesin British Columbia and to assess their progress toward achieving effective archival programmes.The establishment of public archival institutions in Canada has emulated the experience andtradition of the National Archives of Canada. As the largest and one of the oldest institutions inthe country, the National Archives has provided leadership and a pattern of development forfledgling archives. A close examination of the history of the National Archives will delineateidentifiable stages of development against which the three university archives in British Columbiacan be assessed.Little has been written about the overall development of university archives in Canada. Theonly article produced to date which examines the state of Canadian university archives waspublished in 1976.’ Although a number of surveys have been undertaken by the Association ofCanadian Archivists, most recently in 1986, their findings have not been analyzed to evaluate theprogress achieved since 1976. In that study, Ian Wilson concluded that Canadian universityarchives are so diverse in character that it is difficult to generalize about them. He notes:Each university has its own character and self-image, producedby a blend of tradition, faculty or curricular interests and goals,and alumni spirit. This diversity is reflected in the extent of theresources, in the mandate allotted the archivist and in thedefined line between University records and private manuscripts.None of these archives are large and indeed, many of thearchivists maintain rather a lonely vigil, invigorated by the closecontact with faculty and students, but seldom content with theportion of limited resources allocated to archival service...Much depends on the resourcefulness and initiative of thesearchivists, in adapting to shifting circumstances.2Although Wilson’s article is useful as a summary of the general state of university archives it2does not identify the vital components of an archival programme. Nor does it evaluate theprogress achieved in establishing certain of those components. He merely finds diversity, and doesnot explain in any given case how or why a particular development has occurred. In contrast, thesurvey results published by the Association of Canadian Archivists provide only raw data, devoidof evaluation and interpretation. Clearly, university archives represent a portion of the nationalarchival network requiring further study and examination.The first chapter of this study will focus on a developmental model provided through anexamination of the historical evolution and experiences of the National Archives of Canada. Themodel will identify stages of development, as well as archival functions and components necessaryto each stage. This model will provide a tool for assessing the stage of development of archivalprogrammes at the University of British Columbia, University of Victoria, and Simon FraserUniversity. Chapters two through four will examine the evolution of each of these programmes.The three case studies investigated indicate that university archives often have their origins asculturally motivated initiatives within university libraries. The purpose of this study is todetermine whether and how these institutions grow from such origins and if they follow thedevelopmental pattern of the National Archives of Canada. The case studies strive to reveal howthe programmes were individually envisioned, created, advanced and sustained, as well as thepattern of development each has taken.The final chapter of the study will compare the achievements of the three programmes. It willsummarize the elements necessary for a fully effective university archival programme. What willemerge is the point each institution has attained along the continuum of progress. Data availablefrom the national surveys will provide a basis for comparing of the state of university archives inBritish Columbia with those in the rest of Canada.Introduction - EndnotesIan E.Wilson, “Canadian University Archives,” Archivaria 3 (Winter 1976 1977): 18-27.2lbid., 17-18.34CHAPTER ONEThe National Archives of Canada:A Developmental ModelThe cornerstone of the Canadian archival system is the National Archives of Canada. Forover one hundred years the National Archives has played a dual role as an essential arm ofgovernment and as an important research institution. In the former role, it is responsible formanaging of federal government records and ensuring that the federal administration is fullydocumented to serve its own and larger societal needs. In the later role, it is responsible foracquiring from any source, archival material of national significance relating to the development ofCanada. It is also responsible for providing the research facilities and services necessary to makethis material available to the public. The National Archives of Canada has been recognized asunusual, if not unique. It has developed as a storehouse of all types of material, from any source,recording the history of Canada. In contrast, the conventional national archives is responsibleprimarily for the records of the national government. Private papers have tended to be collectedby national libraries or private institutions.1 The National Archives of Canada’s practice ofconcentrating all forms of archival material of both public and private origin in one institution hasreceived international recognition and the descriptive label, “total archives”.Within Canada, the National Archives has served as a model for archives which havedeveloped at the provincial, territorial, and local government levels. In addition, other publiclyfunded institutions such as universities, libraries, museums, historical societies and researchinstitutes have followed the lead of the national and provincial archives. In the last forty years,Canada’s major publicly supported repositories have increasingly directed their attention toestablishing themselves as full-fledged records offices for the governments and administrationsthey serve and have expanded their programmes to collect a wide variety of records generated by5individuals and organizations in the private sphere.2 An outline of the development of theNational Archives of Canada will exemplifj the role of archives in government and in society.Furthermore, since the practices of the National Archives have had such an important impactupon the development of other archival institutions, a closer examination of its historicaldevelopment will also serve to illustrate first, key components of a full archival programme;second, any apparent stages of development; and finally, external factors or forces which mayhave influenced development. The pattern of development of the National Archives will provide amodel for the analysis of the three case studies.The impetus for the creation of the Public Archives of Canada came from the historicalcommunity. Only four years after confederation, a petition supported by the Quebec LiterarySociety was presented to Parliament outlining the necessity of creating a repository for historicalarchives. It was contended that authors and literary inquirers were at a disadvantage in Canada ascompared to their European contemporaries. This disadvantage arose from being debarred fromfacilities of access to public records, official papers and other documents illustrative of the historyof Canada.3At this time it was strongly believed that historiography was closely allied with the forces ofnationalism. Consequently, the availability of archival material for the study of the past was onemanifestation of a government’s interest in fostering a national consciousness.4 History, nationalin scope and patriotic in character, was expected to provide the spirit and justification for the newCanadian nation.5 The government of Canada responded to the request for a public archives in1872, when the House of Commons voted $4,000 for this purpose. Douglas Brymner, aMontreal journalist, was appointed Canada’s first Dominion Archivist. Brymner struggled toacquire the basic records for the historical study of Canada. During the next thirty years, his0efforts and dedication were to prepare a solid foundation for a national Canadian archives. ThePublic Archives of Canada was organized primarily for cultural rather than administrativepurposes. It did not develop as an extension of a government record-keeping department, butinstead as a support for historical research.In the Archives report for the year 1882, Brymner stated that the objective of his office wasto “obtain from all sources, private as well as public, such documents as may throw light onsocial, commercial, municipal, as well as purely political history.”6 Brymner’s perception of hisrole is fI.irther embodied in a later comment he made to the American Historical Association, thathe aimed to amass “a great storehouse of the history of the colony and colonists in their political,ecclesiastical, industrial, domestic, in a word, every aspect of their lives.”7 He applied himself tothe acquisition of documents related to the activities of the British military forces in Canada, aswell as copying official records and private papers in London and Paris concerning theadministration of the Canadian colonies.8 Brymner’s efforts were limited by an annual budget,which never exceeded $12,000 and averaged much less, and also by the fact that the Archives’responsibility for public government records was never clearly defined during his tenure in office.Despite this fact, government records were not completely ignored. Shortly after Brymner’sappointment, the Secretary of State appointed Henry J. Morgan as Keeper of the Records.Morgan was responsible for the rescue of old government records housed in vaults in Montreal.Again, the Quebec Literary Society intervened and a memorial was presented to Parliamentrequesting that “the Dominion Government... complete the measure of progress of 1870 byproviding the necessary legislation to create a Public Records Office... and take the necessary stepsto have copied and gathered there the archives of Canada.”9 In 1882, $2,000 was voted for thearrangement and indexing of the records of the old colonial government.7In 1889, the issue of records retention and destruction was raised when the Post Office requestedauthority to dispose of useless documents of a routine nature. The subject was referred to theMinister of Finance and was later considered in Privy Council. An Order passed on July 5, 1890,provided that comprehensive schedules of destruction be prepared for each department with thecollaboration of the Treasury Board and the sanction of the Privy Council. This Order wasprogressive in its proposal, but, unfortunately, its effects were not fully realized for more than halfa century.1°In 1895, efforts were made by the Dominion Archivist to consolidate historical manuscriptsand the records of government in one central repository. In response, the Privy Councilappointed a Departmental Commission to report on the state of public records. TheCommission’s report, published in 1898, outlined the lack of uniformity and systems withindepartments to arrange and preserve their records. It recommended that all public records becentralized under the care of an official to be called the Dominion Archivist and Keeper of theRecords. The Commission recommended that all records services be consolidated in one centralagency and public repository. This was achieved in 1903, through an Order-In-Council,11whichnoted that:it shall be the duty of the said Dominion Archivist and Keeper ofthe Records, under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture, tokeep and preserve the Archives of Canada and such otherdocuments, records and data as may tend to promote knowledge ofthe history of Canada and furnish a record of events of historicalinterest therein,’2Unfortunately, Brymner did not live to witness the amalgamation of historical manuscripts andgovernment records. He passed away before the Order-In-Council was implemented. However,he can be credited with locating and acquiring valuable records for the historical study of Canadaand thereby preparing a foundation for future archival growth and development.8Brymner was succeeded by Arthur Doughty, literary critic, historian and former assistantlibrarian of the Legislative Library in Quebec, in May 1904. Together with his close colleagueand advisor, Adam Shortt, Doughty reviewed the work of his predecessor and proposed toexpand it in a systematic manner. He presented a long-range programme for the Archives, whichwent beyond Brymner’s vision of a treasure house of Canadian history to envisage the institutionas an active participant in the writing, teaching and presenting of history. Shortt was a historianand professor of political science at Queen’s University. He shared with Doughty a similar viewof the social and cultural importance of historical writing and the consequent need to makearchival resources generally available.’3 Shortt’s views on the role of history were clearlyarticulated. He believed that historical study was vitally important to the development of aCanadian nation and recognized the tie between history and nation building. Such historical studyrequired both access to archival records and the dissemination of the information they contained.Dr. Doughty’s three decades as Dominion Archivist can be characterized as a period of intensearchival activity. During this time the Archives moved to a more prominent position as a culturalagency of government.’4In his annual reports of 1904 and 1905, Doughty indicated that he made a thorough review ofall aspects of the Archives work and had given careful consideration to developing long rangeprogrammes. He stressed that to write history, historians required access to both official recordsof government and the private papers of individuals. Therefore, his prime concern as DominionArchivist was to locate and make these records available.’5 Doughty systematically expanded theacquisition of archival material by seeking out official records and private papers on both sides ofthe Atlantic. A second component of his programme was to produce a guide to all collections ofpapers relating to Canada, wherever they were located. To accomplish this objective a HistoricalDocuments Publications Board associated with the Archives was formed with Shortt appointedchairman.To accommodate Doughty’s expanded acquisitions programme, a new Archives building wascompleted in 1906. The following year, all holdings were transferred to the new building, whichwas organized into three divisions: the Manuscript Division; the Map Division; and the PrintsDivision. Even after the move, the collections continued to grow through transfers fromgovernment departments, copies from London and Paris, and the donation of private papers. 16In 1912, the Archives mandate was finally defined in legislation with the passage of the PublicArchives Act. The chief elements outlined in the Act called for a single archival agencyresponsible for the care, custody and control of public records, documents and other historicalmaterial of every kind, nature and description such as were deposited in the Archives.’7 TheArchives was further strengthened by its removal from the Department of Agriculture andcreation as a separate department, the Public Archives of Canada. The Act specified that theDominion Archivist was to be appointed by the Governor General in Council and was to beresponsible for the care, custody and control of the Public Archives. It was within the DominionArchivist’s power to acquire by gift, purchase, or copying, historical material of every kind,nature and description in addition to receiving the records of government departments. Finally,these holdings were to be made available .through indexing, publishing or copying. 18 As a policysanctioned at the highest level, the Public Archives Act served to legitimize the position of thePublic Archives in the eyes of the administrators, politicians and the general public. It includedtwo important components designed to enshrine rights and set down obligations. First, itestablished the administrative structure and authority for the archival programme; and second, itoutlined the basic element of that programme. By setting out the responsibilities of the archivistand the Archives, the 1912 Archives Act provided a legislative framework for archival activity, as‘Uwell as a measure of accountability in the sense that the Dominion Archivist was responsibledirectly to the Secretary of State for carrying out the functions of the Archives.Until the passage of the 1912 Archives Act, the Public Archives operated without a formallyapproved mandate and collections policy. Collecting priorities were determined to a large extentby the inclinations and philosophies of the two Dominion Archivists to date. However, despitethe absence of a formally sanctioned policy the Archives was acquiring material from both thepublic and private sector. The two commonly accepted forms of acquisition are institutional andnon-institutional. Institutional acquisition involves the transfer of custody of government recordsfrom the department of creation to the Archives, non-institutional acquisition focuses uponacquiring through gift, bequest or purchase, material produced by individuals or organizationsoutside the federal government.’9A formalized approval of the process of acquisition, evaluationand selection is a key component of an archival programme.During the same year that the Public Archives Act was passed, attention was once againdirected toward enquiring into the state of public records. Under the provisions of the 1903Order-In-Council, many pre-Confederation records were transferred to the Archives. However,there was great concern regarding the lack of continuing co-operation from governmentdepartments. Consequently, a Royal Commission was appointed to examine the state of federalrecords.2° Two years later, the Commission reported on the generally unsatisfactory care ofrecords more than ten years old. It recommended the establishment of a Public Records Office aspart of the Public Archives. Unfortunately, the outbreak of war canceled plans to construct abuilding to house the non-current records of departments. Despite this setback, a positive resultof the Commissions work was a 1914 Order-In-Council, authorizing the transfer of historicallyvaluable material to the Public Archives and the institution of a requirement that the destruction ofrecords needed authorization of the Treasury Board. Despite this important step to regularize11destruction, no procedures were put in place to effect the order, and the Archives therefore couldtake no regular role in scrutinizing disposition of public records. However, during the 1920sDoughty again returned to the idea of having a simple secure records storage building constructedto house the inactive records of the federal government. Although the Dominion governmentrecognized the record-keeping responsibilities of the Archivist, it did not provide the means forhim to live up to them.One area which did yield success was Doughty’s attempt to increase the size of the Archives.The existing building could not accommodate further growth of collections, therefore theconstruction of a new wing commenced in 1925. Opened in December of 1926, it provided muchneeded space for manuscript holdings and the growing number of researchers. It did nothowever, address the space requirements for the public records.2’The Depression was a period of retrenchment for the Public Archives. The policies andprogrammes of Doughty were crippled by the financial stringency of economic hard times. TheHistorical Documents Publications Board was allowed to dissolve after the death of Shortt in1931. Regional offices were closed and the number of staff was reduced through naturalattrition.22 In March of 1935, at the age of seventy-five, Doughty retired. J.F. Kenney wasappointed Acting Dominion Archivist.In Kenney’s first report as Dominion Archivist he pleaded for additional staff and space. Hestated that unless further storage was provided, the Department would be unable to discharge itsprimary duty of preserving govermnent records. He also noted his hope that Canada would notlose the eminence in archival circles which had been attained through the policy of preservingarchival records in one building under one control.23In 1937, Gustave Lanctot was appointed Canada’s third Dominion Archivist. A member ofthe Public Archives staff since 1913, his term as Dominion Archivist continued as had his12predecessors, plagued by a continuing lack of resources. During his decade as DominionArchivist, Lanctot led the Archives into new documentary media by acquiring both motion picturefilm and sound recordings.24 In 1948, Lanctot retired and William Kaye Lamb, former ProvincialArchivist and Librarian of British Columbia, became the fourth Dominion Archivist.The years of growth and development prior to the appointment of Lamb can be regarded as aperiod of establishment of basic infrastructure and rescue of materials. This phase of theArchives’ history included the founding and establishment of the institution, as well as theapproval of its mandate and authority to operate. Essentially, the years 1872 - 1948 were aperiod when the primary focus of the Archives was the acquisition of holdings mostly throughvarious informal means for public records and as opportunity arose for private records. The goalof the Dominion Archivist during these years was to amass a collection of material, in order toencourage historical research and writing, and, thereby, to foster a national consciousness andidentity for Canada. This premise is in part substantiated by Brymner and Doughty’s legendaryreputations as collectors.25Although efforts were made to effect regular transfer of the records ofgovernment the Archives produced only minimal success. The appointment of Lamb would marka shift in the Archives focus and direction away from informal acquisition to the creation of aformal and more systematic means for the control and disposition of public records and istherefore a watershed between the first and second phases of development.The period from 1872-1948 illustrates the Public Archives of Canada’s first stage ofinstitutional development. A key element implemented during this stage is legislated authority andmandate. An institution is formally sanctioned by its parent body with the authority to exist, andto acquire, preserve and make available for study a specified holding of archival material. Thespecifics of which materials will be acquired and how, is clearly defined in an approved collectionspolicy. Every archival institution needs official sanction to carry out its fhnctions. Often, the13establishment of an officially sanctioned mandate can take some time, even after the institution hasbegun preserving records and delivering services. The Public Archives did not have an act givingit formally sanctioned powers until 1912, and even then its authority over the disposition of publicrecords remained weak, and therefore it could not develop procedures and obtain support toimplement a systematic acquisition policy for records of the federal government. Its acquisition ofpublic records continued to rely on informal means of persuasion or the initiative of somesympathetic official. Thus, acquisition of both public and private records depended on initiative toidentify records which were at risk or to respond to opportunities as they arose rather than as theproduct of a clearly articulated policy and actions to realize it. Throughout virtually all of thisperiod, the Archives concentrated on acquiring all manner of documents, mainly pertaining to thepreconfederation era, in order to support the writing of Canadian history. This task also requiredthe Archives to establish physical facilities to house the materials and service them. Anotherimportant element established during an institution’s first stage is its administrative reportingstructure, or placement within the organization. Other key factors which must be addressed butcontinue to be relevant throughout all stages of development, are physical space, staff andmonetary resources.A number of factors would push Lamb to move the Archives into its second stage ofdevelopment. This stage saw the Archives enhance its authority and develop procedures for thesystematic management and disposition of public records. As well, the methods for acquiring,preserving, and making private records available were slowly improved, in particular byconcentrating on records of more recent origin. The scale of government activity during WorldWar II generated a sense of urgency regarding the proper selection and preservation ofgovernment records. Through Lamb’s determination, the Archives was able to play a significantrole in the development of a more systematic means for the disposition of public records. This14period featured an augmentation of the Archives’ role in administering government recordsthroughout their life cycle. The magnitude of the records problem came to the attention of theRoyal Commission of National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences (Massey-LevesqueCommission). The Massey-Levesque Commission reiterated the recommendations of the previousCommissions of 1903 and 1914 for a systematic means of disposing of public records. Lambhimself had very early on identified the need for a large half-way house to be constructed to storedepartmental files which were no longer required for day to day use, but not yet ready for transferto the Archives. This need was fulfilled in December 1955, with the opening of the PublicArchives Records Centre in Ottawa.26The opening of the Records Centre was an important step in the development of acomprehensive management programme for public records. Common components of such aprogramme include: first, the preparation of disposition schedules identifijing periods ofadministrative usefulness; second, the use of records centres for the storage of dormant records;third, the destruction of useless records; and finally, the transfer to the Archives of records whichhave enduring administrative, fiscal, legal and historical values.In 1956, the government’s Central Microfilming Unit was transferred to the Public Archives.The transfer of this records management function represented a recognition of the integralrelationship between records management and archives and the central position of archives inmaintaining records preservation standards through the use of technology such as microfilm.Another significant accomplishment was the creation of a separate Disposal and SchedulingSection within the Public Archives Records Centre. What was missing at this stage ofdevelopment was more detailed specification of the authority or responsibility of the DominionArchivist for all aspects of records management. This was recognized in 1959 by the RoyalCommission on Government Organization. The Commission argued in favour of the essential15unity of records management to encompass the care of active and dormant records, as well as thecontrol of destruction and selection for permanent retention.27 The recommendations of theCommission provided a framework for a comprehensive records management system which wasestablished by an Order-In-Council in 1966. The Order provided that an integrated programme ofrecords management be entrusted to the Dominion Archivist. The Dominion Archivist was givencomplete authority, under the direction of the Treasury Board, over the scheduling, destructionand transfer of public records. In addition, the Dominion Archivist was also responsible forreviewing and assessing the records management practices of departments and establishingstandards and guidelines. The approval and endorsement of the Dominion Archivist’s recordsmanagement responsibilities precipitated the transformation of the Records Centre into theRecords Management Branch one year after the Order-In-Council.28Lamb’s tenure as Dominion Archivist represented the second phase in the growth anddevelopment of the Public Archives of Canada. This phase can be described as the stage of“improved authority and infrastructure”. During the years 1948-1968, the Archives was able toestablish the infrastructure necessary to flulfill its mandate. This included the opening of theRecords Centre; transfer of the Microfilming Unit; creation of a Disposal and Scheduling Section;and finally, the strengthening of the Archives authority for records management under the PublicArchives Order. The creation of this infrastructure exemplified a recognition that recordsmanagement is a significant and essential component of a successful archival programme. Onlythrough records management could the Public Archives fulfill its primary responsibility topreserve the federal government’s records of enduring value.It has been recognized that as a rule archivists generate the first initiatives in recordsmanagement in order to serve archival ends. Archivists have considered the ultimate purpose ofrecord management as being the permanent preservation of “historically valuable” material in an16archives.29 The Public Archives of Canada has championed the “life-cycle” concept of therecords management - archives relationship. This concept is based upon a recognition of eightdistinct and separate stages in the life of a record. The first four stages are part of the recordsmanagement phase and consist of: first, the creation of information in the form of records; second,the classification of records into a logical system; third, the maintenance and use of records; andfinally, their disposition through destruction or transfer to the archives. The second or archivalphase is also comprised of four stages. These stages include: first, the selection and acquisition ofrecords by the archives; second, the description of these records in inventories and finding aids;third, the preservation of the records; and finally, the use of the records for government andresearch purposes.3° This life cycle concept evolved in order to promote a sense of order and asystematic approach to the overall management of recorded information.3’A number of different elements have contributed to the complexity of administration and theconsequent need for methods to manage information. These include: first, an increase ininformation and a greater volume of records; second, the filling of available storage space; third, aneed to locate information quickly; fourth, a legal obligation to retain more and more records forrelatively long periods of time; and finally, the need to retain some records permanently forhistorical study.32 The steps taken by the Public Archives to manage the records of the federalgovernment were the result of all of these factors.All records management programmes are comprised of a number of component elements.These include the creation, distribution and receipt of records, as well as the management ofactive, semi-active, in-active and vital records. Two additional elements which support thesecomponents are the records inventory and the retention schedule.33 An archival serviceresponsible for maintaining the records of an administration or parent body must implement all of17these elements in order to maintain a standard of control and thereby flulfihl its primaryresponsibility.Within this second stage of development, the Archives acquired the authority to implement allthe elements of a programme to manage the records of the federal government at every stage oftheir life-cycle, and in particular to work out for the first time procedures for their systematicdisposition.Following the incorporation of the records management function into the archives operation,the Public Archives entered the final stage of development. During this stage the Archives wouldachieve a greater degree of autonomy to manage its affairs. Management concerns would cometo the fore. Upon entering this phase, the Archives was operating with a clearly defined authority,policies and procedures to allow it to manage both private and public records. It could thenembark upon developing its capabilities to live up to its responsibilities and demonstrate itscompetence.Lamb retired from the Public Archives of Canada in 1968. He was succeeded by the formerAssistant Dominion Archivist, Wilfred I. Smith. A new building and increased resources allowedSmith to broaden the records management programme. During his term, six regional recordscentres opened across Canada. In addition, the collections expanded due to the growingimportance of new documentary media. Initiatives to preserve moving image, sound archives,architectural records, photographic images and machine readable records were developed in the1970s.34 Another important focus was the development of programmes designed to open theArchives to a wider public. Significant among these efforts was the compilation of the Union Listof Manuscripts in Canadian Repositories, published to alert researchers to the potential of archivalresources.18Within the final stage of development, the Public Archives of Canada illustrates the kinds ofinitiatives which can be undertaken to improve the institution’s infrastructure and the managementof records. All components of a modern archival programme exist at this stage and the institutionis a fully autonomous operation with the full range of responsibilities for the management ofrecords.Another important component of an archival programme which is an issue throughout allstages of development is adequate resources. These resources include such requirements asbudget, staff and storage space. Without these resources it is not possible for an institution toacquire, preserve and make its holdings available for public research. Acquiring and expandingthese resources is an ongoing battle for all archival institutions. This statement is supported in theReport of the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, published in 1980. The report notedthat the portrait of Canadian archives was one in which the cumulative effects of chronic lack offunding, facilities and equipment had blighted the development of most repositories. The resultsof the study revealed that archives were in need of various forms of assistance, such as basicsupplies, facilities, staff and access to technical facilities. All institutions are dependent upon acontinuing core of funding from their parent body in order to sustain an operation with a smoothlyfunctioning records management and reference service system.35 The methods for acquiring theseresources vary from institution to institution; however, since their requirement expands along withthe growth of collections, their need is ongoing.The issue of resources was a constant concern for the Public Archives of Canada.Throughout its history, successive Dominion Archivists struggled to acquire the necessary fUnds,staff and space to house, preserve and make accessible an ever expanding holding. A briefoverview of the acquisition of greater resources serves to exemplify the struggle common to all19archives and demonstrated the achievements which can be accomplished with progress anddevelopment.When the Public Archives of Canada was established in 1872, it was located in three emptyrooms in West Block of the Parliament Buildings. The Archives remained there until 1904,despite the efforts of Douglas Brymner to convince the Prime Minister that a new building wasneeded. Finally, in 1904, construction commenced on a new Archives building on Sussex Drive,which was completed two years later. By 1920, the pressures caused by an ever expandingholdings prompted Doughty to lobby for an expansion of the Sussex Drive building. A new wingwas planned which would double the available area. Construction commenced in 1925, and thefollowing year the Archives had an additional three floors of space. Further space was acquired in1955, when a records centre was constructed to store the inactive records of the federalgovernment. Sixty-three years after the construction of the first Archives on Sussex Drive, a newbuilding opened on Wellington Street, shared by the Archives and the National Library. The newArchives provided improved facilities for the preservation of collections and reference service.Space was available to accommodate two hundred researchers, as well as facilities for exhibitionsand meetings. In short, the Wellington Street building permitted a level and range of activities notpreviously possible.In addition to the ongoing requirements for additional space, the Public Archives alsostruggled to attain the financial resources necessary to support its operation. Over the years thebudget of the Archives increased as the collections, services and programmes grew. When theArchives was established in 1872, Brymner administered a budget of $4,000. By 1889, thisallocation had increased to $6,000. With the opening of a new building in 1906, and theexpansion of the acquisition and copying programme in Europe, the budget of the Archivesincreased 75%, to $20,000. The following year the budget doubled again and by 1937, when20Lanctot was appointed Dominion Archivist the budget had reached $173,435. However, with theoutbreak of war in 1939, the budget was reduced to $144,410. As peace and prosperity returnedthe budget again increased. By 1951, the Archives operated on a budget of $206,000 and thisincreased to two million dollars by the end of Lamb’s term.36 In 1991-92, the Archives expended$5.65 million exclusive of contributions to employee benefits. The procurement of resources,namely space, budget and staff are central to the success and progress of any archival institution.The attainment of these resources is dependent upon the growth of the collections, services andprogrammes and of course the availability of the means to provide them. During hard economictimes such as depression or war, institutions both large or small are vulnerable to measures ofrestraint or retrenchment. The experience of the Public Archives’ struggle for increased resourcesis indicative of the challenge facing all institutions throughout all stages of their development.Throughout its history the Public Archives of Canada has had two distinct but relatedmandates. The first, as a national cultural institution and the second as a contributor to themanagement of government records. The first evidence of this dual role can be found in theArchives report of 1882, where Brymner voiced the objective of his office to obtain from allsources public as well as private, documents revealing the social, commercial, municipal andpolitical history of Canada. This notion of collecting public as well as private records became anapproved mandate in 1903, when it was resolved by an Order-In-Council amalgamating thepositions of Dominion Archivist and Keeper of the Records and outlining the responsibilities ofthe new position. The concept of total archives was again endorsed in 1912 by the passage of thePublic Archives Act. The Act authorized the Dominion Archivist to acquire historical material ofevery kind, as well as the records of government departments, which revealed the truth aboutevery aspect of Canadian life. A revised mandate approved in 1982 again outlined the dual role ofthe Public Archives. It read as follows:21The mission of the Public Archives of Canadais the systematic preservation of governmentand private records of Canadian national significanceto facilitate the effective and efficient operation ofthe Government of Canada; historical research in allaspects of the Canadian experience; the protection of rights,and an enhancement of a sense of national identity basedon archives as the collective memory of the nation.37It has been recognized that the concept of total archives as developed in Canada includes fourelements: that all sources of archival material appropriate to the jurisdiction of the archives areacquired from both public and private sources; that all types of archival material may be acquired,including manuscripts, maps, pictures, photographs, sound recordings, film and machine readablerecords; that a repository should attempt to acquire material pertaining to all subjects of humanendeavour, in accordance with its territorial jurisdiction; and that both the creator of the recordsand the archivist recognize the life cycle of records, in order to ensure their efficientmanagement.38A total archives system has been acknowledged as having certain advantages. For example,related source material is consolidated in a single repository, thus making access easier forresearchers. A researcher studying a particular period or episode in Canadian history has theadvantage of having to visit only one institution for sources. If a similar study were to be pursuedin England, the researcher would be compelled to visit several widely separated institutions. Fororiginal manuscripts he would consult the Public Records Office; for maps, old newspapers orpamphlets and private papers he would visit the British Library; and for illustrative material hewould go to the one or another of the publicly supported art galleries.39By casting a broad net, total archives attempt to document all aspects of historicaldevelopment not just of officialdom, or of a governing elite, but all segments of a community. Bycombining official administrative records with manuscripts and other multimedia formats all22reflecting the development of an organization or region, the total archives approach makesefficient use of limited archival resources. It also takes advantage of the economies of scale inproviding proper archival facilities.4°The report of the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives comments on the development oftotal archives in Canada. The report notes that increasingly municipal, university, regional,corporate and theme archives are following the lead of the national and provincial archives inestablishing a total archives. However, it is suggested that there does exist a disadvantage to thetotal archives approach. Namely, that the acquisition policies of total archives institutions couldpotentially overlap.4’ To address the problem of competition inherent in the total archivesapproach, the Dominion, Provincial, and Territorial Archives have developed an annual forum forrationalizing acquisitions policies and the Canadian Council of Archives has issued guidelines toinstitutions for developing acquisitions policies. Given time, it is hoped that coordination andcooperation will extend to all institutions within the national archival system.42It was proposed by the Consultative Group that generally archives in Canada have not beenestablished in response to a clear plan. On the whole they have emerged from modest beginningsand have grown through the enthusiasm of a small number of supporters. These supporters haveset objectives to meet institutional needs and have been hampered by a level of funding which hasfallen short of the demand for services. The Group proposed that even the National andProvincial repositories bear this imprint of experience.43 The preceding discussion of thedevelopment of the National Archives exemplifies this statement. Despite its early beginnings theNational Archives did not develop a comprehensive archival programme until the late 1960’s.This represents nearly one hundred years of progress and achievement.23The impetus for the establishment of the National Archives was predominately culturalinspiration. However, in recent years this has changed with repositories being created out ofadministrative necessity. Despite the motivating force of their establishment, “within limitedresources, each of these archives mirrors the programs of the Public Archives of Canada..Since a strong emphasis had been placed on the National Archives as a role model for otherCanadian archives, its pattern of development can be used as a model to assess the archivalservices which exist within university settings.A number of surveys on university archives have been conducted in Canada and the UnitedStates. These surveys reveal that university archives are relatively young in terms of Canada’sarchival heritage. It was only in the 1960’s that a few of Canada’s older universities began toappoint archivists to care for their records, namely: McGill, Queen’s, Toronto, Laval, Alberta andMontreal. Yet, by 1971, the number of universities with hill-time archivists had increased tofifteen. A more recent survey conducted in 1985 by the University and College Section of theAssociation of Canadian Archivists revealed that of the sixty-five universities establishedthroughout Canada, only thirty-six of these had an archives programme.’University archives represent a significant portion of the overall national archival system.Consequently, it is important to understand their development and the factors which have shapedtheir progress. Have university archives developed in a manner similar to the National Archivesof Canada? What is the scope and character of their programmes? Do these programmes reflectthe key elements as outlined in the developmental stages of the National Archives? Do theyreflect any apparent patterns of development which are obvious and identifiable? Finally, arethere issues, factors, or forces unique to university archives which set them apart?24The following three case studies will examine the historical development of university archivesin British Columbia. Through a close examination of their progress and growth the answers tothe above questions will become evident.25Chapter One - End notes‘Wilfred I. Smith, “Total Archives’: The Canadian Experience,” Archives et Bibliotèqicsde Belgigue 57 (1986): 323.2 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Report of the AdvisoryCommittee on Archives (Ottawa: Information Division Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil, 1985), p. 39.Ian E. Wilson,”Shortt and Doughty: The Cultural Rise of the Public Archives of Canada,1904-1935,” The Canadian Archivist 3 (1973): 5.4lbid.Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to Social SciencesHumanities Research Council (Ottawa: Information Division of the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council, 1980), p. 20.6 Smith,”Total Archives”,328.7Wilson, “Shortt and Doughty”,5.I. Smith, Archives: Mirror of Canada’s Past (Toronto: Published for the PublicArchives by University of Toronto Press, 1972), p. 8.9lbid.10 Smith, “Total Archives”, 329.“Smith, Archives: Mirror of Canada’s Past, 10.12 Quoted in Wilson, “Shortt and Doughty”, 7.13Ibid., 12.Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences Humanities Research Council, 21.zo15 Smith, “Total Archives’”,lO.16 Smith, “Total Archives”, 330.17 Archives Act, R.S.C., ch 222, S.6. See also, Smith, Archives: Mirror of Canada’sPast, 11.‘8lbid., 8.Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences Humanities Research Council, #24.20 Smith, Archives: Mirror of Canada’s Past, 13.21 Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences Humanities Research Council. #24.22 Smith, Archives: Mirror of Canada’s Past. 14.23 Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences Humanities Research Council. #24.24thjd 24.25 Smith, “‘Total Archives”: “The Canadian Experience,” 333-334.26 Smith, “Total Archives”: “The Canadian Experience,” 334.27 Smith, Archives: Mirror of Canada’s Past. 16.28 Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences Humanities Research Council. #25.291ay Atherton, “From Life Cycle to Continuum’ Some Thoughts on the RecordsManagement Archives Relationship,” Archivaria 21 (Winter 1 985-. 1986): 45.30Ibid., 43.31 Ibid., 47.32 Carol Couture and Jean Yves Rousseau, The Life of a Document: A Global Approachto Archives and Records Management (Montreal: Vehicule Press, 1986), 170.33Thid.Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences Humanities Research Council, #25,35Ibid., 61-62.36 Ibid., 19-25.Smith, “Total Archives,” 339.38 Ibid., 343.39Ibid., 323.Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences Humanities Research Council. 64.41 Ibid.42 Ibid., 65; Canadian Council of Archives, “Guidelines for Developing an AcquisitionPolicy” (Ottawa, 1991).Ibid., 29.28Ibid., 26.‘ Ibid.46 Sweeney, Shelley, “Riding Off in All Directions: Colleges and University Archives inCanada.” Paper presented at the Society of American Archivists Conference, Chicago, 8 August1986.29CBAPTER TWOCase Study One: The University of British ColumbiaThe first case study will examine the growth and development of the University of BritishColumbia’s University Archives. Established not long after the turn of the century, the Universityof British Columbia is the oldest of the province’s three degree granting institutions. It was notuntil twenty years after its founding that the first impetus for archival acquisition was initiated atthe university. The following discussion will attempt to trace the growth and development of thisearly initiative. An examination of the history of the university’s archival programme, willdemonstrate what stages of development, if any, were achieved over the sixty year period from1929 to1989 and the factors which were integral to the developmental process and how they haveshaped it.The predecessor of the University of British Columbia was established in Vancouver in 1906by McGill University of Montreal. This small college ultimately led to the founding of theUniversity of British Columbia. The university was originally located on the Fairview slopes inVancouver and consisted of a number of temporary “shacks”. From its inception, the universityhoused a substantial library collection. Purchased on the instruction of University President,Frank Fairchild Wesbrook, the collection was selected in Europe by the University of Minnesota’slibrarian, James T. Gerould.’ In 1915, the library became the responsibility of John Ridington,the university’s first Chief Librarian. At that time the collection comprised 22,000 bound volumesand 7,000 pamphlets.2 For the next twenty-five years Ridington shaped the direction and growthof the library’s collection.The Ridington era can be characterized as one of restraint and difficulty.3 The libraryconstantly scrambled for the resources to find its objectives to support teaching and research.Collections development was made all the more challenging by the limited financial support30provided by the Provincial Government. The books and serials budget allowed only very few andcarefully selected purchases. However, despite these limitations, Ridington remained buoyant inhis search for books and donors. It is important to note that at this time, the library’s collectingfocused entirely on published material. The notion of collecting archives or manuscripts had notyet been conceived.In 1925, the university moved to its permanent location at Point Grey. The new neo-gothiclibrary was built for a total cost of $525,000 and was planned to allow future expansion. Thelibrary provided reading and study space for 350 students and shelf space for 135,000 volumes.4The affluence of the twenties came to an abrupt end with the stock market crash of 1929.During the next three years the provincial budget for the university was slashed by well over halfand the survival of the university itself was in question.5This scarcity of funds is exemplified bythe reduction in the library’s book and serial budget between 1927 and 1931 6 The library hadcome to the worst crisis of its history. Ridington’ s battle for survival is underscored by a letter hewrote to Donald Cameron at the University of Alberta in 1932:We have been working for years to build up acollection and service of books that so far as Iknow is among the best of any University libraryin Canada... and now the prospect is starvation,retrogression. I am weary at heart and sick of soul.7Amid these hard economic times a glimmer of hope lay in the support the Library receivedfrom the university faculty and student body. In 1929, a group of students, headed by Eric Northand Dr. Sage of the History Department, proposed to “form the nucleus of an organization forcollecting material relative to the history of British Columbia.”8 The group enthusiasticallyacquired stories from pioneers, books, manuscripts, and photographs. Although theseacquisitions drew the ire of the Provincial Archivist, the Class of 1931 presented the library with a31collection which did indeed form the nucleus of the Northwest Historical Collection, now in thelibrary’s Special Collections and University Archives Division.9This initiative of professors and students marked the beginning of an archival collectionhoused in the library. Traditionally, university libraries have established manuscript collections toprovide resource material for training graduate students, and also to support historical research.At many universities, professors have been the leaders of this movement. By encouraging andfostering such arrangements, faculty were ensuring the preservation of provincial heritage, whilealso promoting an interest in providing unique resources directly on campus for research andeducation.’° A number of factors have effected the growth of university archival holdings.Materials are acquired in many instances as a bid to rescue documents from destruction. Othersare acquired through close ties with a region or local community, in an effort to preserve moredetailed documentation located outside the sphere of public and other archives. Often, material isacquired through the generosity of graduates and benefactors and the acceptance of suchdonations combines the benefits of good public relations and prestige. Also, in some instances,donors prefer to entrust their personal papers or life long work to a university library closelyassociated with research and learning. All of these factors are significant to the development ofthe University of British Columbia’s historical manuscripts holding.Small gifts and donations continued throughout the library’s lean years, but it was anagreement made in 1937 which had notable implications for future archival development. InOctober of 1937, Ridington reached an agreement with Judge F.W. Howay to donate hiscollection of Northwest Canadiana to the library under specified conditions. Included in thisagreement was the stipulation that the materials be treated as a separate collection and be usedonly on the library premises by “serious” researchers. Up to this time the library’s “specialcollections” were handled in a number of different ways. All rare books and other books32considered valuable were housed in a vault and were only made available for use by specialrequest. Other books and material were kept in the Librarian’s office to protect them from theft.1’Clearly, the library had no designated space for the storage and preservation of its rare orespecially valued holdings. Nor did it have space where the public could gain access to thematerial under the supervision of library staff The Howay agreement required that thesedeficiencies be addressed.In 1940, Ridington retired and was replaced by Dr. Kaye Lamb, former Provincial Archivistand Librarian in Victoria. It was during Lamb’s tenure that the library’s special collections begunto flourish. In 1944, the material from Judge Howay’s collection arrived. Although Howay’scollection consisted largely of published material it expanded the library’s holding of specialcollections and raised issues related to security, storage and access. The expanded holding ofspecial collections provided Lamb with the impetus to extend the holdings of published books andpamphlets to include archival material. The Howay collection was stored in a locked room andwas available for use to accredited scholars and senior students under the supervision of thelibrarian. Although the collection was under lock and key, it was all catalogued and it becameknown that the materials were cared for and accessible. This knowledge was important for futureacquisitions. This was the beginning of a great era in acquisition at the library. The success of thelibrary’s acquisition of special collections and archival material during Lamb’s tenure can beattributed to Lamb’s background as a scholar, more expansive post-war budgets, and thepowerflul connections of the University’s new president, N.A.M. MacKenzie.12 The mostimportant acquisition of this period was the collection of Canadiana donated by Robie Reid, afriend and fellow amateur historian of Howay.’3It is obvious that the library’s early acquisition of special collections relied heavily upon giftsin-kind and the generosity of donors. These donations did not conform to a set of acquisitions33plans or policy. At this time, the library was developing its archival holdings with minimal controland within a very general subject field. The hazard of this type of collecting is the introduction ofan element of whim and the fact that acquisitions are subject to conditions of donation over whichthe library has only limited control.14 Archival material was acquired as part of a larger specialcollections and not as a distinct initiative. Therefore, early acquisitions were passively acquired ina broad area of Canadiana and primarily as a complement to the library’s holdings of rare booksand pamphlets.It soon became apparent that plans for the expansion of the library building were necessary.Through Lamb’s perseverance the north wing of the library opened in 1949. This additional spaceallowed an area formerly occupied by the catalogue department to become the home of theHoway-Reid Northwest collection.’5In 1948, Lamb resigned his position at the University to become Dominion Archivist. Hewas succeeded briefly by David Dunlap, formerly of the Library of Congress, who only remainedat the University for two years. In 1951, Neal Harlow became the new University Librarian.Harlow brought to his position a wealth of experience which included the development of theUCLA Special Collections Division. He can be credited with bringing the idea of having a fullfledged Special Collections Division to the University of British Columbia Library. It was hisbelief that the function of such a division was essential to a maturing research library. Harlowperceived a need for an improved library and realized that to accomplish this, additional financialresources were necessary. To this end, one of his first efforts was to form the “Order of LibraryFriends”. Its purpose was to assist with the development of a plan for the expansion of the library.For the next twelve years the Library Friends were instrumental in providing additional funds, aswell as locating and acquiring important collections. Prominent among the group were such men34as Walter Koerner, H.R. MacMillan and P.A. Woodward, each of whom made an enormouscontribution to the growth of the library.’6During his years as University Librarian, Harlow’s most conspicuous achievement was theaddition of a south wing. According to his original idea, the wing included a new SpecialCollections Division. At long last, all collections which had previously been housed in theLibrarian’s office, the vault and the Howay-Reid Room were brought together in one location.With the creation of the Special Collections Division, it became feasible for the library to acceptdonations which required specialized care and security. The new south wing was officiallyopened in 1960.Basil Stuart-Stubbs was appointed the first Head of Special Collections in 1961. Hecharacterized the collections as general Canadiana, strong in source material for British Columbia,the Fur Trade, the War of 1812, the Riel Rebellion and Canadian travel and description pre-1900.The aim was to make a centre for the study of Canadian history and politics. In actual fact,however, its programme fell somewhere between the extremes of a closed “rare book” library anda busy Special Collections Division servicing faculty and students. 17With the appointment of Stuart-Stubbs as University Librarian in 1964, the SpecialCollections Division entered a period of expansion under the headship of Ann Yandle. TheDivision’s stack space was doubled. Manuscript acquisitions continued and descriptions ofholdings were sent to the Public Archives for inclusion in the Union List of Manuscripts.’8TheDivision entered a new phase in which reference service became a priority and the material whichhad been so diligently acquired was being used to great advantage by students and scholars.During the Stuart-Stubbs years, a number of important and prestigious acquisitions increasedthe strength of the Special Collections Division. Its role expanded from passively acquiringarchival material as part of large rare book collections, to an active yet adhoc undirected35acquisition of archival fonds. Such notable fonds as the C.C.F. papers, British Columbia ElectricCompany records, Ethel Wilson papers, and Roderick Haig-Brown literary manuscripts andpapers were acquired by donation.’9The expansion of acquisition into the archival realm was anatural progression for a library division dedicated to promoting and supporting scholarship andresearch. These early initiatives later expanded in specific thematic subject areas such as labour,business, and ethnic minorities.In addition to an increase in acquisitions, the strength of the Division was further enhanced bythe addition of new staff Originally, Special Collections was staffed by a Department Head, onereference librarian and two assistants. This changed in 1967, when a specialist in historicalcartography was hired, and again in 1970 when two persons were hired to do archival work. Thefirst was responsible for non-university archival materials and the second for the records of theuniversity. This year has been recognized as the true beginning of the University Archives.20Although the University Archivist was not hired until 1970, there was an active interest in thearchives of the university as early as 1956. At this time a President’s Archives Committee wasestablished. This committee was active for three years, distributing suggestions to faculty andadministrative staff regarding record keeping and voluntary preservation of historical materials.By 1960, the committee had lapsed, but the Special Collections Division continued to receivesporadic transfers of records and memorabilia.21 The accumulation of this material over the nextten years led to an appointment of a full-time archivist.The collecting of historical university records by university libraries has been a commonoccurrence. Librarians have recognized the research and cultural importance of these materialsand voluntarily elected to care for them. A 1966 survey conducted by the Society of AmericanArchivists on College and University Archives in the United States and Canada, provided data insupport of this trend. The survey revealed that most university archivists were in fact librarians36who managed some institutional records as a part-time or incidental fbnction of their otheractivities. Nearly all surveyed acquired both records and published materials relating to theirinstitution. In many cases, artifacts were reported to be housed, for example, class relics or aspade for breaking ground of a new building. This rescue method of acquisition was described bythe librarian of a New England institution who noted:”.. .the college archives could more rightly becalled a morgue, documents of college records of all sorts stuffed in odd boxes and in filingcases..,,22 As in the case of the University of British Columbia, the unbridled growth andaccumulation of university records and memorabilia collected in this manner eventuallynecessitated attention and action.The programme to preserve university records was administratively located within the SpecialCollections Division of the Library. The first University Archivist, Laurenda Daniells, reported tothe head of the Special Collections.23 This reporting structure resulted from university recordsbeing a natural outgrowth of other archival activity within the library, rather than a consciousdecision of university-wide administration. The acquisition of university records was motivatedby a desire to serve cultural rather than administrative ends. The prime factor determining theiracquisition and preservation was scholarship, historical research and a complementary associationwith other fonds not an administrative need to manage the records of the university. Thisexperience is similar to that of the Public Archives of Canada in that the concern to preservehistorical material for scholarship and the writing of histories contributed to the eventualacquisition of public records. Also, the transfer of public records resulted from randomhousecleaning activities in offices and not from a systematic selection process initiated by theuniversity archivist.The University Archivist drafted a developmental plan for university records in August 1970.The plan included a proposed acquisition policy and outline of objectives for future growth and37development. In broad terms, the plan described the role of the records programme as thecollective memory of the University. Ideally, the Special Collections Division would house allrecords and printed material of enduring value created by the university through its dailyoperation. Records and transactions were to document the activities of faculty, students,administrators, as well as elected and appointed governing bodies. The plan proposed that theSpecial Collections Division would acquire non-active general administrative records, minutes andcorrespondence of the President, Registrar, Bursar, Schools, Faculties and other Divisions. It wasalso to acquire the personal papers of faculty and publications of students, alumni and othersocieties. Other media formats to be collected included: photographs, paintings, microfilm, taperecordings, film as well as architectural drawings and plans. The final group of records to beacquired were those of other bodies related to the University. All of the above mentionedmaterial was to be appraised according to its evidential value specifically, how it reflected theorganization and functioning of the University and also for its informational value, or how itrevealed what the University dealt with. The drafting of collecting priorities for the UniversityArchives was a recognition of the distinction between University records and the other generalmanuscripts and archival fonds acquired and managed by the Special Collections Division.Furthermore, this policy represents a total archives approach. It included not only records in allmedia, but also institutional records of the University as well as extra-university records of outsidesocieties and personal papers of faculty members. This plan is significant since it laid out astrategy for what material should be included in the holdings of the Archives. Prior to this plan,acquisition was haphazard, passive, and driven externally. This was the beginning of anunderstanding and appreciation of the need for standards, control, and parameters defining thescope of the institution’s holdings of University records. Although at this stage the Plan was not38formally approved outside the Library, it represents an important element in the first stage ofdevelopment.In addition to outlining acquisition priorities, the 1970 plan also set out a developmentproposal. Issues addressed in the plan included such concerns as consolidation of collections,storage space, public profile, administrative authority, transfer of records and reference service.The first goal focused upon the consolidation of existing holdings of University records into onecentral location within the Special Collections Division. It also addressed the problem ofinadequate storage space and environmental controls. It was recommended that controls beinstalled in the back room which housed the University Archives and that until this problem wasrectified, it would not be possible to actively solicit additional records. The second goaladdressed the profile of the Archives within the University and outside community. It suggestedthat prior to any attempt to acquire new records, it was necessary to make the existence of theArchives known. This was to be accomplished through theVancouver Press, as well as Universitypublications, in cooperation with the University’s Information Services Office. The third goaldealt with the transfer of non-active records to the University Archives. It was pointed out that inorder for this objective to be accomplished, the Archivist required authority from the governingbody of the University. The recommended method of achieving this authority was to revive thePresident’s Archives Committee. Suggested members included, a representative from thePresident’s office, the University Librarian, the Chairman of the History Department, a legalexpert, and finally, a financial expert. This committee was to be responsible for the appraisal andscheduling of University records. The fourth and final goal of the plan addressed the issues ofarchival arrangement, description and reference service. It emphasized the responsibility of thearchivist for the ongoing arrangement and description of University records, as well as makingthem accessible to researchers.2439Following the drafting of the plan for the University Archives, steps were taken to accomplishthe first and second objectives. University records were gathered together in one central storagelocation. Having been located in various sections of the Special Collections Division, they wereconsolidated inside “the cage”, an environmentally controlled area of storage. In addition, muchneeded acid-free supplies were purchased to properly store the University Archives.Recommendations to publicize the Archives were also initiated. Contact was made with theInformation Services Department, in order to run articles on the function and services of theprogramme in the UBC Reports. These steps were taken in an effort to establish the UniversityArchives programme as a distinctive function within the Special Collections Division and to attaina measure of recognition and legitimacy.With regard to the third goal outlined in the plan, a progress report submitted to the Head ofSpecial Collections in March 1971 reiterated the need for reactivating the President’s ArchivesCommittee. The report again stated the need for the Archivist to be empowered to acquireUniversity records. The value of an archives committee has been widely supported in theliterature on university archives. Nicholas Burkel, Director of University Archives at theUniversity of Wisconsin-Parkside, stresses the importance of such a committee as a vehicle forincreasing the visibility of the archives to all segments of the university community. It is usuallyrecommended that members bring financial, historical, legal, and administrative expertise to bearon the question of records disposition.25Throughout the 1970’s, the acquisition of University records continued on a piecemeal basis.Although significant success was achieved through the voluntary transfer of records, the archivesprogramme was still operating without the authorization of a governing body. The Archivist’splans remained unapproved by either the University President, the Board of Governors or theSenate. During this time, University records were received from various University offices,including: the President, Ceremonies, Information, Bursar, Registrar, Academic Planning,Instructional Media Centre, School of Architecture, Senate Food Service and the Department ofChemistry. Special Collections also acquired records of the Alumni Association, the Alma MaterSociety, the Faculty Women’s Club, the Faculty Association, International House, and severalfaculty members. The records of presidents Wesbrook and MacKenzie were also taken in.In addition to textual records, significant progress was achieved in the acquisition of nontraditional forms of records. Over the years, Special Collections had collected photographs of theUniversity dating from the earliest days of the University. These photographs were turned over tothe University Archives in April 1974. The Division had been entrusted with the care of acollection of recordings of University ceremonies, lectures, broadcasts, and certain oral historyrecordings. Upon their transfer to the University Archives in 1974, a project was embarkedupon to expand these holdings. Arrangements were made through the Combined Services TrustCommittee for an Oral History Project to interview people associated with the armed services andwar efforts on the campus. The following year, further initiatives resulted in an agreement for theregular deposit of tapes from the Vancouver Institute, Cecil Green Lectureship Committee,Department of Ceremonies and the Information Office.26Throughout the University Archives first decade, a number of issues and problems remainedunaddressed. This continuing lack of attention from the administration was an ongoing cause ofconcern and frustration for the University Archivist. Each year, a summary of these problems andsuggested solutions were outlined in her annual report to the Head of Special Collections. Themost pressing problems included the absence of an officially sanctioned mandate and collectionspolicy; insufficient storage space; and also, inadequate clerical assistance.In order to evoke action on the implementation of an approved mandate and collectionspolicy, the University Archivist recommended that the Senate Library Committee make a41recommendation similar to one passed by the Senate of the University of Victoria 1961 anddesigned to empower the University Archivist to examine records in university offices and arrangefor their final disposition.27 Unfortunately, the Senate Library Committee never acted on theUniversity Archivist’s recommendation and a motion was never passed.By the mid-1970’s the problem of adequate storage space had become a priority. TheArchivist suggested that serious consideration be given to moving University records outside themain library building, such as in a facility for infrequently loaned books. The Archivist also badlyneeded more than the five hours per week clerical assistance she was allotted.Another issue which presented an ongoing challenge for the University Archives waspublicity. Throughout the period 1970-1975, the Archivist relied upon the circulation of bulletinsrequesting the transfer of records and publications to the archives. In addition, numerous articlesdescribing the services provided by Special Collections were published in the UBC Reports andthe Alumni Chronicle. By 1975, it was evident that the Library’s programme for Universityrecords was still not widely known in the academic community. The Archivist continued herefforts, but publicity alone could not make up for a lack of sanction for the programme.28In 1976, the Archivist attempted yet again to develop a records policy in the hopes that itwould be approved by the administration and implemented by the Library. As she put it:The University Archives is seeking to developa university records program which will:1) Collect and preserve the permanent recordsof the university.2) Index the records and make them availablefor administrative and historical research.3) Provide a central secure storage forpermanent records.2942With regard to procedures for the retention and disposition of University records, theArchivist proposed that records were to be transferred to the Archives when they are no longerneeded in their office of origin. Furthermore, each department, office, faculty and committee, inconsultation with the Archivist, was to develop a records retention schedule. This schedule wasto indicate which materials were to be saved and after what period they were to be transferred tothe archives. The final section of the proposal detailed the types of material the UniversityArchives was to acquire. Except for the introduction of a proposal for records scheduling, thisinitiative merely reiterated those outlined in the Archivist’s plan of 1970. They represent littlemore than testimony to her frustration that the efforts to bring about a records programme hadreceived little recognition and support, and certainly not the vital sanction needed from theadministration.30Thus far, attempts of the University Archives to implement a systematic records managementprogram faltered on the matter of authority. Although limited success had been achieved insecuring the interest and cooperation of a few administrative offices, this informal approach torecords selection and acquisition proved to be inadequate. The University Archivist required theadministrative authority and position to deal with university officials. Ian Wilson suggests that anarchivist reporting to a Chief Librarian will result in administrators’ questioning the ability of thearchivist to fi.ilfihl good intention. However, instances can be cited of programmes located withinthe library that have attained the authority necessary for records management responsibilities. Theissue of placement of the archives in the structure of administration needs to be distinguished fromthe issues of the archivist’s authority to regulate disposition and thereby develop systematicacquisition of records. Presumably a strong authority can coexist with almost any administrativeplacement, but weak authority almost always produces poor results. The archivist is forced to43adopt a rescue mentality and soon finds that piecemeal acquisition dependent on good fortune isthe order of the day.The University’s Archivist found herself on a treadmill in this regard. Once again in 1980, adecade after taking up her post, she submitted a report to the Head of Special Collections callingfor initiatives to develop a full-fledged records programme. It reiterated the need for approval ofa records policy by the Board of Governors, development of the means to regulate disposition ofUniversity records, and a role in facilitating better records management practices. Of course theserecommendations required multiple levels of approval including the Head of Special Collections,University Librarian, senior administrative officers and Board of Governors before the Archiveswould be able to apply the sanction necessary to act. As will become clear, it is not impossiblefor this to occur, but the greater number of approvals required, the greater chance there is for anyinitiative to die on the vine.The degree of frustration inherent in this situation became apparent two years later, when aUniversity Records Task Force was set up without the Archivist on it. As the Archivist put it tothe Head of Special Collections:If future Committees are set up to discuss universityrecords, I cannot stress sufficiently how importantit is that the function of the Archives be represented.Failure to do so will mean that the archives will not beable to collect the official records of the university andwill not therefore be serving its correct fhnction.31Despite the fact the Archivist’s work was not officially sanctioned by the University, greatstrides were made in the areas of acquisition, description, and outreach. Through the assistanceof Youth Employment Grants and School of Librarianship practicuum students, the Archives wasable to continue the indexing of university photographs, as well as the preparation of inventoriesfor numerous accessions of faculty papers. Each summer the Archives employed three to five44Youth Employment students and throughout the school term, ten to thirteen library schoolstudents completed practica under the Archivist’s supervision. In order to promote a continuedawareness on campus of the University Archives, an average of five displays were prepared eachyear. These displays were placed in the Main Library, Faculty Club and Cecil Green Building. Inaddition, the Archivist continued to submit articles on the archives to the UBC Reports, LibraryNews and Alumni Chronicle.As in the past, the Archives continued to receive support from outside sources. In December1979, $2,000 was received from the Koener Foundation to arrange and describe the papers ofCharles E. Borden. A library school student was hired to work on the project throughout 1980and 1981, when a second Koener Foundation grant was received. Financial support was alsoreceived from the Alumni Association. In 1980, the Association presented the archives with asubstantial grant to index and microfilm the student newspaper, The Ubyssey. Further supportwas provided again in 1983, when the Association established a Heritage Committee to work onprojects relating to the history of the University. One project which received the Committee’ssupport was the indexing of university photographs. To assist with this the Committee donated$8,000 to the Archives.32 These projects illustrate how the Archivist had to occupy herself withinitiatives which lay far from her central concerns to develop a records programme. Indexingnewspapers and photographs provided a focus of activity in the absence of policy developmentand implementation which she could not get off the ground.The securing of adequate financial resources to assist the archives with projects to arrange anddescribe collections is a sad reality for most Canadian institutions. The report of the ConsultativeGroup on Canadian Archives in 1980 found that in 33% of Canadian archives there was not evena part-time paid archivist, while another 17% had to make do with only the half-time services ofan archivist. If this pitifully low number of staff is compared with the staff time required for45arranging and describing holdings and servicing users, the situation looks even more bleak. Onaverage, archivists reported spending 20% of their time dealing with research visits and a flirther17% of their time handling enquiries.33 In a one-person operation, if 37% of the archivist’s timeis spent on public service, that does not leave much for managing collections. Consequently, thereliance on contract, summer and student assistance to arrange and describe collections is anecessary reality for institutions with one staff person or less. An examination of the budgets ofCanadian archives further explains why certain activities can only be accomplished through grantsof one kind or another. The bulk of budgets are devoted to personnel costs and basic equipmentand supplies. Once these are paid for, there is very little money remaining for such crucial needsas conservation, records management, or public relations, or even basic arrangement, descriptionand indexing in many cases.34 This reality is clearly evident at the University of British Columbia.Outside funding was secured in 1982 to conduct a records survey of the University. Theproject was funded by a grant from the Public Archives of Canada, under a Summer CanadaStudent Employment Programme, and ran for two consecutive summers. The goal of the projectwas to determine what records existed at the university and to develop a programme to ensure thepreservation of permanent records and the disposition of all others. The project team spent twoweeks studying the history of the university and receiving instruction in records management andsurveys. University offices were then notified about the survey. Throughout the summer, theteam visited various offices on campus examining records which were retained and their extent.By the end of the first phase of the project a considerable number of records were transferred tothe University Archives. A disturbing result of the survey was the confirmation that manyhistorical records were lost or destroyed, due to the casual records management practices.35 Therecords survey was completed in 1984 and resulted in a greater understanding of the recordsexisting at the University. Another positive result of the project was that numerous offices46transferred their inactive records to the Archives. The records inventory represents an importantcomponent of a records management programme. It is a necessary element for any archivalservice responsible for maintaining the records of a parent body. By completing the recordsinventory the Archives accomplished one step in managing the records of its parent body. Despitethe absence of an approved mandate, collections policy or legislated authority, efforts were beingmade to create an infrastructure for future progress.Another important development for the Archives at this same time was the expansion ofstorage space. Inadequate space had been an ongoing problem for the archives practically fromits inception. As a result the records survey and the transfer records, space was finally madeavailable on the seventh floor of the Main Library for the preservation of University records.As in previous years, the issue of official authorization continued to be a cause of concern.All past attempts to achieve prompt action and attention in this regard had fallen on deaf ears. Bythe mid-i 980s it was evident that the Archivist was experiencing a great deal of frustration intrying to gain the necessary authority to perform the responsibilities of the University Archivesprogramme. A number of probable causes can be cited for this lack of attention. It is possiblethat the draft records policy statement did not progress to approval because it originated in theLibrary and may have been viewed as an interference in what was recognized as an administrativematter. Without this approval, progress achieved within the Library could only be limited at best.Since most libraries are hard pressed for space to house the published documents of theinformation explosion, they cannot easily support the budget, staff and space requirementsneeded for the management of university records.Funding from outside sources continued to allow the Archives to embark upon projects whichwould otherwise have not been possible. One such project was initiated in 1985, through fundingfrom the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council of Canada. Christopher Hives was hired47as a project archivist to produce a guide to the archival and manuscript holdings of the SpecialCollections Division using new computer hardware and software. Through renewed funding andother grants, the B.C. Heritage Trust and the provincial government’s Challenge programme, theguide project continued for three years, resulting in completion in February 1988.36 This was asignificant project for the Archives in that it generated interest and attention both provincially andnationally. With the assistance of the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies, aworkshop and demonstration of the MARCON system was presented to over sixty archivists.Purchased for the Guide project, MARCON was a database management system designedspecifically for preparing archival finding aids. In addition, an article on the project was submittedto the Association of British Columbia Archivists Newsletter and a lecture was given at the annualmeeting of the Association of Canadian Archivists.37During 1986-1987, the reorganization and the realignment of many University offices,coupled with public awareness generated by the records survey, led to the transfer of morerecords to the Archives. To accommodate the growing number of acquisitions, additional spacewas secured in the Library Processing Centre.38 Another important achievement was thepreparation of a brochure promoting the University Archives programme, its mission, history, andacquisitions policy.39 The University Archivist’s annual report for the year concluded with anendorsement of the 1979 “Plan for the Future” report. It stated that when the plan was submitted,the University Librarian responded with a promise to give it consideration in the near future. Thisconsideration never materialized, due to the fact that other matters took priority. The Archivistcontended that even in 1987, the plan was still valid and an opportunity was needed to discuss itwith senior administration.4048Laurenda Daniells retired from the University of British Columbia’s Special CollectionsDivision in the summer of 1988. Christopher Hives was hired as the new archivist for universityrecords. A professionally trained archivist, Hives had worked during the previous three years onthe Guide project. Following his appointment, Hives embarked on a course of action aimed atproviding the University records programme with an officially approved mandate and policy. Tothis end, a letter was submitted by Hives to President Strangway in October 1989, outlining theurgent need for an officially sanctioned mandate and policy statement. This letter wasaccompanied by a proposed policy statement prepared by the Archivist including a missionstatement; materials to be acquired; the function and responsibilities of the archivist; andconditions of access to University records. Hives stressed the importance of a policy for theUniversity records programme and noted that a recent survey of ten University Archives inCanada revealed that the University of British Columbia had the only programme operatingwithout the official endorsement of the University’s governing body. Summarizing the situationhe stated:.Lacking a policy statement for its first twenty years ofexistence, the University Archives at U.B.C. has experiencedvarying degrees of success in obtaining and preserving the archivalheritage of the University. The University Archives operating ofits own accord, simply lacks the ‘clout’ necessary to ensure thatthe permanently valuable archival material generated on campuswill be eventually deposited in the Archives.. 41The President responded to the proposed policy by referring it to Vice-President Srivastava forreview and recommendations.In addition to the proposed policy, Hives also submitted a detailed report to the Presidentaddressing all operations of the Archives and these three areas of most critical concern. First wasthe absence of an official mandate; second, insufficient resources, primarily stafl and finally, anineffective reporting structure. Furthermore, the report included comparative statistics from other49Canadian universities demonstrating the deficiencies of the University of British Columbia’sarchival programme. The report outlined the current difficulties facing the Archives, namely,processing deficiencies; underutilization of archival resources; inadequate reference service; andinefficient use of the archival programme. The causes of these problems were identified as theabsence of a mandate/policy statement, an insufficient operating budget, ineffective reportingstructure and the space shortage. In summary, the report offered two possible solutions: either tostop collecting or to expand the scope of the programme. The report concludes by stating:.1 feel we must address these issues immediately to ensurethe continued existence of a functional University Archivesat U.B.C. The difficulties confronting the University Archivesare not passing problems that can be resolved through stopgapmeasures. They will only be compounded in the future. Indealing with archival records one must confront the grim realitythat once these unique materials are lost, no amount of moneyin the world will ever replace them. This makes it all the moreimperative that some long-term strategy be developed very quickly.42The year ended with Vice-President Srivastava requesting Hives to prepare rough budgetaryrequirements for a University Archives in two scenarios, first as part of the President’s Office andsecond as part of the Library.The Archivist had prepared well researched, planned and articulate reports aimed ataddressing the Archive’s stagnant position and lack of progress. Although no decision wasreached in 1989, the hard work and dedication resulted in an open dialogue between the Archivesand President’s Office which had not previously existed. Ultimately, this dialogue resulted inapproval of a records management policy by the Board of Governors in January 1994.This policy, the first ever endorsed as an official records policy of the University, commits theinstitution to implement a fill-fledged scheme of records management. It also gives authority toapprove all schedules to a University Records Disposition Committee, on which the University50Archivist will sit. This policy was accomplished through the work of a University ArchivesAdvisory Committee set up to advise the University Librarian, to whom the Archivist nowreports, regarding records matters. Thus, to some extent the reporting arrangements have beenstreamlined. Proposals are now developed through the Advisory Committee, proceed to the VicePresident, and when necessary by the Board of Governors.The approval of this new records policy ends the first stage in the development of an archivesprogramme for the university. The long period of establishment of a basic infrastructure andrescue of materials at risk has begun to give way to a planned approach to the management ofuniversity records. The University Archivist is in the forefront of developing more systematicmeans of records management. To give further impetus to this initiative, an assistant to theArchivist was hired in 1993. Clearly, the University Archives is just entering the second stage ofdevelopment outlined in Chapter One with regard to the National Archives. With its authority toact finally established in university policy, it can begin working out systematic procedures for thecare and disposition of records. As yet, it remains far from the relatively autonomous position ofthe National Archives of Canada, but it has grown beyond the stage of informal rescue of records,even if the building of basic infrastructure remains incomplete.51Chapter Two - EndnotesThe University of British Columbia, Library, Special Collections Division, Records of theUniversity Archivist. File on FG1 00, Daniells, Edith Laurenda, 1970-1987. Manuscript entitled“The Special Collections of the Library of U.B.C.,” undated, p.42. Hereafter, the records of theUniversity Archivist will be cited as RUA.2 Ibid.3lbid.The University of British Columbia, Office of Community Relations, President’s Reporton the Library (Vancouver: The University of British Columbia, 1987), p. 7.5lbid.6RUA, File on FG100, Daniells, Edith Laurenda, 1970-1987. Manuscript entitled “TheSpecial Collections of the Library of U.B.C.,” undated, p.44.The University of British Columbia, Office of Community Relations, President’s Reporton the Library (Vancouver: The University of British Columbia, 1987), p. 7.8RUA, File on FG100, Daniells, Edith Laurenda, 1970-1987. Manuscript entitled “TheSpecial Collections of the Library of U.B.C.,” undated, p.44.9lbid., 45.10an Wilson, “Canadian University Archives,” Archivaria 3 (Winter 1976-1977): 25.RUA, File on FGIOO, Daniells, Edith Laurenda, 1970-1987. Manuscript entitled “TheSpecial Collections of the Library of U.B.C.,” undated, p.46.12 Ibid 47.52The University of British Columbia, Office of Community Relations, President’s Reportof the Library (Vancouver: The University of British Columbia, 1987), P. 9.14Robert L. Clark, ed., Archive-Library Relations (New York: R.R. Bowker Company,1976), p. 23.‘ RUA, File on FG100, Daniells, Edith Laurenda, 1970-1987. Manuscript entitled “TheSpecial Collections of the Library of U.B.C.,” undated, p.48.‘7lbid., 52.18Ibid., 53.University of British Columbia, Office of Community Relations, President’s Reportof the Library (Vancouver: The University of British Columbia, 1987), p. 13.20RUA, File on Reports, Plans, Policies, 1970-1987. Document entitled “Guidelines andProposals for the Future dated July 1971,” p.1.21 Ibid.22 M. Warner, “The Status of College and University Archives,” AmericanArchivist 31 (July 1968): 237.23Rujs, File on Reports, Plans, Policies, 1970-1987. Document entitled “Guidelines andProposals for the Future dated July 1971,” p.1.24RUA, File on Reports, Plans, Policies, 1970-1987. Document entitled “Suggested Plansfor the University Archives of the University of British Columbia dated August 1970,” p.1.25 C. Burkel, “Establishing a College Archives: Possibilities and Priorities,”College and Research Libraries 36 (1975): 386,5326RUP, File on Annual Reports of the Archives, 1970-1987. Document entitled, “Reporton Archives, Special Collections Division dated July 1974,” p.1.27Ibid.28RUA, File on Annual Reports of the Archives, 1970-1987. Document entitled, “Reporton Archives, Special Collections Division dated July 1976,” p.1.29RU1s4File on Reports, Plans, Policies, 1970-1987. Document entitled “The Acquisitionof Manuscript Collections, UBC Archival Collections Policy. The Library, University of BritishColumbia, Policies and Procedures, 1976,” p.1.30Ibid.31 RUA, File on Annual Reports of the Archives, 1970-1987. Document entitled“Archives Interim Report August 1980-April 1981,” p.2.32 Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences Humanities Research Council (Ottawa: Information Division of the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council, 1980), p. 35.Ibid., 40.RUA, File on Annual Reports of the Archives, 1970-1987. Document entitled, “Reportof the University Archives, March 1986-1987,” p.3.35Ibid., 4.36RUA, File on Annual Reports of the Archives, 1970-1987. Document entitled, “Reportof the University Archives, March 1986-1987,” p.3.37Ibid.38Ibid.,1,39Ibid.,4.5440Ibid., 6.“ RUA, File on Archives Committee: Background Material, 1989-1990. Letter,“Christopher Hives to President Strangway, October 18, 1989,” p.1.42 RUA, File on Annual Reports, 1988-1990. Document entitled “Report of the Universityof British Columbia Archives, October 1989,” p.10.The University of British Columbia, 1994 Policy Handbook (Vancouver, 1994), p. 67.55CHAPTER THREECase Study Two:The University of VictoriaThe University of Victoria was the second degree granting public educational institution to beestablished in British Columbia. Affiliated with McGill University and later the University ofBritish Columbia, it did not attain degree granting autonomy until 1963. Archival activity wasinitiated two years prior to this. This chapter will trace the development of this early initiativeover the next twenty-six years, in order to determine the factors influencing progress and change.The growth and development of the University of Victoria is a story of change and contrast.The academic leaders of the community of Victoria faced many obstacles in their efforts toestablish an institution of higher education. Numerous makeshift campus sites were occupiedbefore the eventual creation of the present University in the Gordon Head area of the city.Initially, university-level programmes in Victoria, as well as Vancouver, were affiliated withMcGill University of Montreal. The Principal of Victoria High School, Edward B. Paul, had beena leader in the move to introduce university studies to the young province of British Columbia. In1902, McGill University in Montreal responded by establishing branch campuses in Vancouverand Victoria.’ Classes began in the fall of 1903 in the old Victoria High School building, withseven students in attendance. As enrollment steadily increased, a small wooden annex wasconstructed near Fort Street, and Victoria College had acquired its first permanent building.2 In1908, Samuel J. Willis, became Dean of McGill University College in Victoria and Principal ofVictoria High School. Facing an accommodation crisis, Willis planned construction of a newcampus. In April 1914 the new Victoria College and High School occupied a building on thecorner of Fern and Grant Streets.3 However, College-level courses were only given in it for one56year; they were discontinued in 1915 when the University of British Columbia opened inVancouver.Refusing to admit defeat, Paul continued to fight for higher education through his position asSuperintendant of Schools for Victoria.4 In 1920, he convinced the University of BritishColumbia to re-establish Victoria College as a branch campus. After sharing facilities withVictoria High School for one year, it moved in 1921 to its third campus, the Dunsmuir Mansion,also known as Craigdarroch Castle.5 For a quarter of a century, Victoria College prospered inCraigdarroch Castle, offering scholarly instruction in the first two years of arts and science.A new phase of growth began for the College with the return of World War II veterans. Thesmall quarters could not accommodate an enrollment which grew to six hundred students by1949. Dr. John M. Ewing, the Principal, began the search for yet another campus site. Followinga student protest parade to the steps of the Parliament Buildings, the Government proposed thatthe College move to the Landsdowne Campus of the Provincial Normal School.6 The Collegemoved there in 1946 and remained for the next decade. Upon Ewing’s death in 1952, hissuccessor, Dr. W.H. Hickman, began the construction of the new Ewing Building to house thecollege’s expanding library.7By 1959, a third year of the curriculum was added in arts, science and education. In 1961, astudent could complete degree studies at Victoria College, the degree being awarded byUniversity of British Columbia.8 This same year, a decision which would effect the future growthand development of the College was made. Following spirited debates within the faculty and thecommunity at large, it was decided that the College would move to an undeveloped tract of landin Gordon Head which had been acquired from the Department of National Defense and theHudson’s Bay Company.9 During the next two years construction was completed on the57Clearihue Building, a general classroom block, and the Student Union Building. In addition,funds donated by the estate of local benefactor, Thomas S. McPherson, provided for theconstruction of a new library building. On July 1, 1963, the efforts and determination of thepioneers were rewarded when an act passed by the provincial legislature established the Universityof Victoria as an autonomous institution.Concerns regarding the preservation of the University of Victoria’s documentary heritagewere first voiced two years prior to its official establishment. On May 16, 1961, Victoria CollegeCouncil approved the establishment of the library and appointed Dean Halliwell both CollegeLibrarian and Victoria College Archivist. The Council expressed the hope that “a start could bemade on assembling the important historical documents in connection with the college.”1° SinceHalliwell was appointed both Chief Librarian and College Archivist, it was clearly established atthe outset that college records would be preserved in the College Library.During the early years, archival activity focused upon special collections, rather thanuniversity records. Special collections existed within the Library from the very beginning. Itconsisted of twelve display cases and a number of “special” drawers, shelves and closets, whichhoused both rare books and manuscript material. The separation of this material from otherlibrary publications seems to have been prompted by the unusual circulation problems theypresented.1’ The impetus for actively expanding these small holdings came from professorsRoger Bishop, Ann Saddlemyer, and Robin Skelton, who recognized the need for creating aholding of books and non-university archival materials that would act as a “research laboratory”for the honours and graduate students in the field of Modern English Literature.’2 Under theguidance of William Taggart, who was appointed Head of Collections in 1966, a writtencollections policy was developed. Acquisition concentrated on rare books and literarymanuscripts in the field of Anglo-Irish and Modern British Literature. However, the focus soon58expanded to making the Special Collections Division as relevant as possible to all academicdisciplines. This resulted in the acquisition of original and reprint publications and archivalmaterials in the subject areas of Vancouver Island and British Columbia history; Canadian Militaryhistory; Northwest American anthropology and linguistics, as well as selected areas of theatre,music and art.13 The policy developed by Taggart was largely a rationalalization of acquisitionsalready existing within the Special Collections Division.In 1966, the Division was given a permanent home, in a large room in the basement ofMacPherson Library. The following year, the position of Rare Book Librarian was created. Earlyacquisition initiatives were similar in motivation to those of the National Archives of Canada, inthat they were a response to a perceived need for scholarly research. The University of Victoriawas actively acquiring a holding of archival materials in conjunction with non-archival materialswhich would support academic research and study in a wide range of disciplines. This effort tomake archival resources available for social, cultural and historical research was a model adoptedby most Canadian Provincial Archives and many other university libraries.It was not until 1973 that the issue of acquiring the records of the University was seriouslyraised. At this time, the Commission on Academic Development recommended that there be animprovement of the University’s archival facilities.’4 In a letter to University President H. E.Farquhar, History Professor Peter L. Smith endorsed the Commission’s recommendation andsupported an immediate response. In his letter of February 1973, Smith stated:.1 have always felt that we were far too casualabout the preservation of our own historical record...May I suggest that this can be one Commissionrecommendation that can be swiftly effected withoutreference to any legislative body. I am sure Mr. Halliwellwould welcome any effort in this direction, especiallynow that Library Extension is approaching completion...’559The efforts of the Commission and Smith were rewarded on October 10, 1973, when the Senatepassed a motion requesting the Librarian, who still held the position of Archivist, to establish aprogramme for the preservation of University records.’6The development of this programme received both financial and moral support from theUniversity’s Alumni Association. In March, 1974, the Association presented a grant of $2,000 tothe library, in order to hire an assistant to work on the University’s archival records held inSpecial Collections. Joan Wenman, an alumna and former employee of Special Collections, wasemployed for a term of four months. The Librarian noted that the limited period of the projectwould not permit the total organization of the material, nor any extension of the collection, butwould enable the archives to make substantial progress. 17 Wenman’s appointment received theofficial approval of President Farquhar.18The employment of an assistant to work on the University records holdings represented thefirst effort to establish a University archives. The President of the Alumni Association, OliviaBarr, expressed her support for the work in a memo to the University Librarian in July.I stopped into Special Collections today tosee what Joan Wenman has been doing. Iwas most impressed by the amount she hadmanaged to do and the interest she isdeveloping on campus. All sorts of materialseems to be coming in.. .what provisions arebeing made to continue her work? What canthe Alumni do to see that this work havingbeen begun is continued?’9Although the effort to acquire, organize and manage the records of the University was a step inthe right direction, at this point it represented only a marginal effort on the University’s part. TheSenate motion, Alumni grant, and short term employment of an assistant were not substantialenough to ensure the long term management and preservation of the University’s records.60During her term of employment in Special Collections, Wenman organized and inventoriedthose records which had accumulated, and also contacted offices on campus to assess indetermining what historically significant records existed and their extent. To this end, a memowas sent to various offices explaining the nature and purpose of the University records projectand requesting the transfer of all non-current records. The memo was signed by D. Halliwell asUniversity Archivist and distributed to the following offices: University Relations, Social Scienceand Research Centre, Registrar’s Office, President’s Office, Malahat Review, FacultyDepartments, Faculty Association, Graduate Studies, Alma Mater Society and ContinuingEducation. As a result of these efforts material was transferred from the offices of UniversityRelations, Continuing Education, the Alumni Association, the Registrar’s Office and the MalahatReview. While records were brought together from numerous departments and offices, it quicklybecame apparent that a records survey and retention policy were needed.2° However, it wasrecognized that this activity required greater authority if it were to proceed. To achieve thisauthority, an archives policy was needed. Wenman was responsible for drafting the University ofVictoria’s first policy statement. In drafting the policy she consulted archivists Laurenda Daniellsof the University of British Columbia and Liisa Fagerlund of Simon Fraser University. The threearchivists met in Vancouver to discuss a possible “Tn-Universities Archives Policy”. 21 In areport to the University Librarian, Wenman stated that the meeting was very beneficial, resultingin a revised draft policy, which could be reviewed by the Senate in the fall. This first policy wasentitled “University Archives Policy”, dated July 26, 1974, and was intended to be applicable toall three university archives.22The draft policy statement described the objectives of the University Archives, and listedtypes of materials to be acquired. The objectives were to collect and preserve the permanentrecords of the University, to index the records and make them available for administrative and61historical research, and to provide centralized secure storage for the permanent records. Thepolicy empowered the Archives to act on the behalf of the university to negotiate and accept thetransfer of non-university records. Furthermore, it proposed the University Archivist beempowered with a right of access to all current and non-current university records housed incampus offices. It proposed that it was the responsibility of all record creating divisions to releasenon-active records to the custody of the University Archivist. Unfortunately, no action reslutedfrom Wenman’s proposals.Wenman completed her term of employment in August 1974. Following her departure,Special Collections was without a staff person to care for University records. However, thisproblem was addressed in February 1975, when the University advertised an opening for a generallibrarian in Special Collections.23 The duties of the new position were to include organizing,listing, indexing and cataloguing manuscript and holograph collections, as well as administeringuniversity records.24 Chris Petter was hired to fill this new position. With the official job title ofArchivist/Librarian, Petter was directly responsible to Dean Halliwell, who retained the titleUniversity Archivist.The addition of a full-time archivist responsible for university records represented a positivestep toward stability and continuity essential to an orderly and planned course of development.From this point, care of the University records component of Special Collections was assigned toa single position. What had evolved as a natural outgrowth of Special Collections acquisition wasrecognized as an identifiable function reporting to the University Archivist. In this regard theexperience of the University of Victoria differs slightly to that of the University of BritishColumbia, whose archivist with responsibility for University records reported to the Head ofSpecial Collections.62During the first year of his appointment, Petter identified a number of priorities for Universityrecords. The first was the drafting of a policy on records. It was intended that the policy wouldcover access and the constitution of an Archives Committee. Once complete, the policy was to bepresented to the Senate by the University Archivist. It would also cover the establishment of arecords management programme and the promotion of archival services within administrativedepartments. The third focus was outreach and publicity, while the fourth was acquisition.Finally, Petter intended to improve the description and indexing of photographic collections.25The support and financial assistance of the Alumni Association continued even after anarchivist was hired. A second donation of money was received in 1975, with instructions that thefunds be used for “special archival projects”.26Despite the progress which had been achieved during the preceding two years, there was stillconcern that the Archives was not receiving the financial support necessary to properly fulfill itsmandate. In a letter to President Petch, in June 1977, the University Librarian and Archivistoutlined the problems which were impeding the development of the university archives. The letterstated:...the primary function of the University of Victoria Archivesis to maintain and preserve its own institutional recordsand private papers of its administration, faculty, andstaff., at present the University of Victoria Archives hasno separate budget and very little true Archives. Thereis not sufficient room in the McPherson Special Collectionsto house even a small part of administrative papers letalone the private papers of administration, faculty and staffGiven the reduced library budget it will be difficult if notimpossible for the library to initiate a full archival programmeto collect the masses of papers currently tucked away insmall store rooms around campus. I am concerned thatunder the circumstances the University Archives will remaina sadly neglected area of our University...2763President Petch did not respond to the University Archivist’s appeal. Both Halliwell and Petterrecognized the importance of administrative approval and support for the archives programme.The absence of any substantial support from senior level administration forced the Archives tocontinue the ad hoc method of acquiring and managing the University’s archival material.Four areas were identified as being integral components of a University Archives programme.The first was the approval of archives and records management policy; second was animprovement of the archives profile and recognition within the university; third was an increase inbudgetary and staff support for the Archives. The final area involved encouraging the transfer ofrecords and increasing archival acquisitions. Throughout the next two years the efforts of theUniversity Librarian and the Archivist/Librarian concentrated on these four areas.During 1978, Halliwell and Petter prepared a draft policy for the University Archives. Theintention was to submit it to the Executive Council of Senate for consideration. Once approved,it would proceed to the Board of Governors for final approval. With the endorsement of theBoard, the policy could then be implemented.28 Petter’s annual report for 1978/79 noted that anapproved policy would undoubtedly result in an expansion of the University Archivist’s role andresponsibilities. Also, an additional staff person would be required to undertake the componentsof a records management programme. The report also acknowledged that the responsibility formanaging the University’s records through sound records management practices wouldnecessitate an increase in the Archive’s storage space. Furthermore, a Records ManagementBoard would have to be established as a forum for advice and input from the other administrativedepartments. Unfortunately, progress on the approval of the legislation came to a standstill inApril 1979. On April 20, President Petch received a letter from the Secretary to the Board ofGovernors regarding the proposed policy. The Board referred it back to the President for further64study with a view to developing terms of reference first and then determining what is to beaccomplished under those terms of reference.29Unaware of the status of the policy, Petter expressed concerns of his own to Halliwell inAugust 1979. He raised the question of having adequate space, shelving and personnel to run thekind of operation outlined in the draft policy.30 He suggested that the University Archives moveto another location. In addition, he expressed concern over the lack of authority to act within theUniversity to identify and preserve records of enduring value. He questioned the location of thearchival programme in Special Collections, where he found it difficult to generate enthusiasm forthe mundane records of administration among librarians accustomed to managing prestigiousliterary manuscripts. 31 In conclusion, he agreed that “it is incumbent to suggest at this time thatthe University Administration be approached.. .and an effort be made to increase the support forthe University Archives.”32Halliwell responded to Petter by revealing that the Board judged the draft policy to be “toodetailed and overly prescriptive; it could lead to empire building and a bureaucratic monstrosity;there should be no place in the archives policy for any type of student records,”33 Clearly theBoard did not appreciate that a properly constituted archives policy makes provision forpreservation of all records, whether located in the Archives or not. Halliwell responded, “I see nohope of getting further staff until a clearer role and more substantial mandate for the Archiveshave been accepted, and given some of the reaction at Board meetings, it may not be easy toaccomplish.”34 As a result, Petter was assigned the task of developing “Terms of Reference” forthe University Archives, based upon the draft policy and procedures previously developed.65Despite the Board of Governors’ criticisms of the draft archives policy, Halliwell defended itand expressed reluctance to develop a shorter more general policy. In a letter to President Petch,he emphasized the adequacy of the draft policy.I feel reasonably sure that there are sufficient checksin existence to ensure against unbridled growth of theArchives in terms of space, personnel, facilities, or anyother aspect with budgetary implications. The safestguarantee against bureaucratic hyper-developmentwould appear to be for the Board to approve a detaileddocument, such as that presented to them, rather than topin its faith on a briefer, necessarily more generalstatement. In other words, I am reluctant to give upthe attempt to have what I believe is a good basic documentapproved..This response to the Board’s rejection of the archives policy was understandable given theBoard’s reasoning. It is clear from the Board’s comments on “empire building” and “beaurocraticmonstrosity” that there was a concern that the Archives could become too powerfhl andcommand a disproportionate share of resources. The Board’s concern that the policy was toodetailed and overly prescriptive was entirely illogical. The University Librarian’s response insupport of a detailed document to prevent hyperdevelopment was a more appropriate assessmentof what would in reality be in the best interest of the University. The Board’s reaction to thepolicy was focusing on the immediate and short term costs associated with its implementation,rather than the long term saving which would result. It is unfortunate that the UniversityLibrarian’s response did not outline the cost effectiveness and efficiency which would result fromthe implementation of the policy, namely the proper management of the University’s records. Allin all, 1979 was a disappointing year for the University Archives, To sum it up, Petter reportedthat the records programme of the University remained “inadequately fhnded, housed, staffed andwith little direction or purpose.”3666Despite these setbacks, Petter proceeded to consult with colleagues and redraft a shorterpolicy statement which was submitted to President Petch on July 22,1980. With some revisions,it was formally approved by the Board on November 18, 1980. Although the policy did notinclude detailed procedures, it did provide that records could only be destroyed with thepermission of the University Archivist and that records management policies were to be developedwith the aid of a University Archives Committee and Records Management Board.During the period 1961 to 1980, efforts were concentrated on acquisition. Despite theapproval of the archives policy in November 1980, a number of components essential to the firststage of development of an archival institution remained unaddressed. These included theresources necessary to ensure the stability and security of the operation. The University Archivesdid not have adequate staff resources. The Archivist/Librarian position was not dedicated tomanage university records on a fhll-time basis. The position remained shared between theUniversity Archives and Special Collections. Until these basic needs were met, the recordsprogramme continued to struggle to establish its basic authority and infrastructure.To address space and budgetary concerns Petter began gathering data from archivalrepositories to develop a base of information which the Archives could use to draft a budget anddetermine the requirements of a sound archival programme. Don Baird, Simon Fraser UniversityArchivist advised Petter that a University Archives should have at least 2,000 square feet of stackspace and 1,000 square feet of office space. Petter determined that approximately 400 linear feetof shelving would be needed each year’s acquisitions. Other equipment recommended includedtables for sorting and research use, microfilm readers, desks for personnel and a computeroutlet.37 This request was forwarded to Mr. Taggart, Head of Collections, no action resulted.Following the approval of the archives policy in 1980 by the Board of Governors, the nextstep necessary to ensure the implementation of a sound archival programme was the development67of specific policies and procedures related to records management. To this end, the UniversityArchivist appealed to President Petch in 1981. The President’s approval was requested for theappointment of an Archives Committee and Records Management Board. Once appointed theCommittee and Board could begin the implementation of records management procedures.38 ThePresident accepted Halliwell’s recommendation and agreed to the appointment of such acommittee with a mandate to serve in an advisory capacity to facilitate the development of theUniversity Archives. On the recommendation of the Executive Council of Senate the membershipof the Committee was to consist of the Registrar, the University Librarian or his designate, threemembers of faculty with one being appointed Chairman by the President and finally the UniversityArchivist in the position of Secretary.39 Although the establishment of the Archives Committeewas favourably supported by President Petch in 1981, it did not receive the official approval ofthe Executive Council until February 23, 1982. The composition of the University of Victoria’sArchives Committee and Records Management Board did not include representation from theUniversity’s finance or legal departments. Although the Registrar’s office was represented, thecommittee was composed largely of ordinary faculty members. From its inception it was limitedin the scope of what it could accomplish due to lack of authority and its isolation fromadministrative officers in charge of records.The Archives Committee proved ineffectual. It first met on October 31, 1983, with ProfessorArtibise of the Department of History as chair, later replaced by Professor Smith of the ClassicsDepartment. The committee had little choice but to embark on a policy of persuasion, given thatthe Board of Governors was not prepared to give it or the Archivist the requisite authority todevelop records management programme. It decided to appeal to the University community toretain potentially valuable records, to solicit the cooperation of records officers to identifyvaluable records, and to approach all departments to make contact regarding records matters.4°68This attempt to implement these plans predictably brought little substantial change in thesituation of records. The Committee met regularly from 1983 to 1987, but then its activitieslapsed. It did make an appeal to the President that all records “prior to 1975 now be transferredto the MacPherson Archives.” It also directed an assessment of presidential records stored in abasement vault of the Sedgewick Building.4’ At its December 1984 meeting, the Committeeconsidered a proposal to implement a survey of all existing records on campus, but efforts toobtain fi.inds from the administration failed.42 In the main, the Committee received reports fromPetter and supported certain of the initiatives he proposed, but it did not, and perhaps could not,make any significant changes or decisions on its own, for it was merely advisory.In 1987, Mr. Halliwell, University Librarian and Archivist retired. A report for the newlibrarian, Marnie Swanson, described the archives as an “ad hoc and passive operation43 heavilydependent on grants to accomplish projects.” The archives operation received a steady stream ofgrants or grant-funded workers in this period to mount special arrangement, description, orindexing projects, often for non-University records. The grants came from the Social Science andHumanities Council of Canada, The Canadian Council of Archives, and University relatedsources. At the end of 1988, Petter reiterated the need for a reactivated archives committee witha stronger mandate, better facilities, more stafl basic equipment, and finding for a recordssuwey.”In 1989, the title of University Archivist was conferred upon the Archivist/Librarian and wasno longer held jointly with that of University Librarian. In order to plan for the futuredevelopment of the University Archives, a list of goals and priorities was forwarded to theUniversity Librarian in July 1989. The list included issues which had been raised numerous timesin the past, namely, space, the Archives Committee, public relations and the records survey. The69only issue which was resolved was the Archives’ inadequate space allocation. Following years ofappeals, the Archives was finally given additional storage space by the Library Space Committee.The Alumni Association continued its support by providing funding for the purchase of newshelving. By the end of the year, one-quarter of the new space was filled and it was estimated thatthe entire storage area would be full within four years.In the area of public relations a small accomplishment was achieved when Petter was grantedpermission to purchase business cards for the University Archivist. In addition, a brochure whichhad been recommended in 1988 was in the initial stage of production. Other publicity for theUniversity Archives was fostered through the publication of articles in university publications andacademic journals including, The Ring, The New Informer, The Bulletin and Archademe.The Archives Committee remained inactive despite numerous appeals for its reappointment.The records survey which had originally been proposed by the 1985 Archives Committeeremained in the realm of discussion, however the approach to the survey was amended by Petter.It was recommended that the survey initially be conducted in only a few offices and departmentsand be expanded to others as funds and staff resources permitted.45 Although the University ofBritish Columbia’s University archives programme did not have an approved archives policy itwas successful in conducting a survey of University records. The University of Victoria’srepeated attempts to secure funding for a survey both within and outside the universityrepresented an understanding of the necessity of a survey to the subsequent development ofretention and disposition schedules. Undoubtedly the administration was cognizant of theadditional resources which would be required for staff and storage once the survey wascompleted. Perhaps this understanding blocked the availability of funding.The Archives Committee was established in 1983, three years following the approval of theArchives policy. Although the original intent of the Committee was to develop policies and70procedures related to records management, it was mandated by the President to serve only in anadvisory capacity. It was not empowered with the authority necessary to implement procedures.Nor did its membership include anyone from the President’s Office who could have assisted theCommittee in translating its recommendations into action. Clearly, the vision of the Committee’srole as articulated by Halliwell and Petter, and its actual authority and function were disparate. Inits years of operation only seven Committee meetings were held. At these meetings topics andissues significant to the progress and development of the University Archives were addressed.However, with the exception of publicity and promotion, no appreciable advances were madetoward the implementation of a comprehensive archival and records management programme.Disbanded in 1987, after the retirement of the University Librarian, repeated attempts toreconvene the Committee proved unsuccessful.During the period 1980 to 1989, the University of Victoria archives laboured to implement arecords management programme and to properly manage the records of the University. However,beyond the approval of the archives policy, no progress was achieved toward improving thearchives authority and infrastructure. Although repeated attempts were made to initiate aUniversity records survey, they all proved unsuccessful. Material acquired by the Archives duringthis period was solicited from individual offices and departments through memos and otherpublicity, not through retention and disposition scheduling. The University Archives was plaguedwith resource deficiencies, namely monetary, staffing and space. These deficiencies consumed thetime and energy of both Petter and the Archives Committee. The inadequacy of the Archivesoperation was acknowledged by Halliwell and Petter on numerous occasions. It was described asa sadly neglected area of the University and also, an ad hoc passive operation. In the period,1989-1993, some headway was made, the basic situation of the records programme remains thesame. A second archivist has been hired to help the Universtiy prepare for access to information71and privacy legislation, but policy and reporting issues still keep the archives operation essentiallyin the first stage of its development. It can hardly be thought of as an autonomous unit capable ofmanaging affairs officially assigned to it without administrative support for the archives policy.There has been no lack of vision as to the needs of the archives programme, but a continuing lackof administrative will has obstructed this vision. Consequently, the University Archives at theUniversity of Victoria remained in the first stage of development.72Chapter Three - EndnotesThe Unviersity of Victoria, Special Collections, McPherson Library, McPherson LibraryAdministrative Records. D.W. Halliwell, File on University Archives General, 1983-1986. Articleentitled “U.Vic. the Growth of a Campus,” undated p.1. Hereafter McPherson LibraryAdministrative Records. D.W. Halliwell will be cited LAR, DH.2lbid.,2.Ibid.4lbid.Ibid.6lbid., 3.7lbid.8lbid.9lbid.10 University of Victoria, Office of the University Librarian, D.W. Halliwell, File onUniversity Archives Policy, 196 1-1979. Memo Victoria College Council to D. Halliwell datedMay 16,1961. This series of office files had not yet been transferred to Special Collections at thetime of research. Hereafter cited as OUL‘ Interview between J. O’Donnell and D. Halliwell, March 1986.12 OUL, File on Special Collections Reports, 1964-1968. Document entitled “TheMcPherson Library of the University of Victoria, Special Collections” undated, p.1.13Ibid., 2.7314 LAR, DH, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Letter Peter Smith,Professor, to President H.E. Farquhar dated February 16, 1973, p.1.‘5lbid.16 OUL, File on University Archives Policy, 196 1-1979. Letter P. Ferry, to D. Halliwelldated October 12, 1973, p.1.17 LAR, DJ-I, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Letter D. Halliwell, toOlivia Barr dated March 18, 1973, p.1.18 LAR, DH, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Letter President Farquhar,to D. Halliwell dated April 18, 1974, p.1.19 LAR, DH, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Letter Olivia Barr,President Alumni Association, to D. Halliwell dated July 15, 1974, p.1.20 LAR, DH, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Document entitled “Reporton Canadian Archives 1974,” p.3.21 Ibid.22Ibid.23LAR, DH, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Document entitled“Position Opening, February 5, 1975,” p.1.24Ibid.25LAR, DH, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Memo D. Halliwell, to W.R.Taggart dated January 23, 1976, p.1.26LAR, DH, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Memo D. Halliwell, toAccounting dated March 17, 1975, p.1.7427 LAR, DH, File on Special Collections General, 1965-1980. Letter D. Halliwell, toPresident Petch dated June 28, 1977, p.1.28 The University of Victoria, McPherson Library, Office of the Archivist Librarian, File ofAnnual Reports, 1978-1990. Document entitled “University Archives Annual Report, 1978-1990,” p.1. This series of office files had not yet been transferred to Special Collections Divisionat the time of research. Hereafter cited as OAL.29 OUL, File on University Archives Policy, 1961-1979. Letter Secretary of the Board ofGovernors, to President Petch dated April 20, 1979, p.1.° OAL, File on Archives Policy, 1975-1982. Letter C. Petter, to D. Halliwell datedAugust 23, 1979, p.1.31 Ibid.32Ibid.OAL, File on Archives Policy, 1975-1982. Memo D. Halliwell, to C. Petter datedSeptember 4, 1979, p.1.Ibid.OUL, File on University Archives Policy, 1961-1979. Letter D. Halliwell, to PresidentPetch dated December 19, 1979, p.1.36 OAL, File on Annual Reports, 1978-1990. Document entitled University ArchivesAnnual Report, 1979-1980, p.1.OAL, File on Annual Reports, 1978-1990. Memo C. Petter, to W.R. Taggart datedFebruary 11, 1981, p.1.38 OUL, File on Special Collections, Archives, 1979-1981. Letter D. Halliwell, toPresident Petch dated December 15, 1981, p.1.OUL, File on University Archives Committee, 1983-1985, Memo University Librarian,to Archives Committee undated, p.1.75° OAL, File on Archives Committee, 1980-1986. Minutes of the Archives Committeedated October 31, 1983 and November 28, 1983.41 OAL, File on University Archives Committee, 1980-1986. Letter Dr. Smith, ArchivesCommitte Chairman, to President Petch undated, p.1.42 OAL, File on Archives Committee, 1980-1986. Minutes of the Archives Committeedated November 20, 1985, p.1.OAL, File on Annual Reports, 1978-1990. Document entitled Overview of the ArchivesPresent and Potential Operations, 1987, p.1.OAL, File on McPherson Library. University Archives, Office of the ArchivistLibrarian, Annual Reports, 1978-1990. Document entitled, “University Archives, Annual Report,1988,” p. 2-3.OAL, File on McPherson Library. University Archives, Office of the Archivist Librarian.Annual Reports, 1978-1990. Document entitled, “University Archives, Annual Report, 1990,”p.1.76CHAPTER FOURCase Study Three: Simon Fraser UniversityThe final case study will examine the historical development of the Simon Fraser UniversityArchives. Established in 1965, Simon Fraser University is the youngest of the three universitiesunder discussion. Despite its short history, the university began an archival initiative quite soonafter its charter was granted and made headway more quickly than its older counter parts.Concerns regarding the preservation of Simon Fraser University’s history were first voiced inearly 1965. At that time, University Librarian, Mr. Donald Baird, raised the question of archivalmaterials at a staff meeting of department heads, held at the University’s Dunsmuir Streetheadquarters in Vancouver. At first, the proposal met with the reservation that perhaps theinitiative was premature. Following a discussion of the importance of documenting the earlydevelopments of the University, it was resolved and the Library was given unofficial approval tocollect material documenting the new university’s history.During the first two years of the University’s operation, the Library collected newspaperclippings, photographs, student, and faculty publications. Toward the end of 1967, Bairdexpressed the desire to expand the effort to include University records. In a memo to PresidentMcTaggart, he noted that interested parties from the library and Department of History hadreviewed the Library’s collection of material and determined that “many documents should bebrought together and maintained for examination in the ftiture.” He aimed to acquire the minutesof committees; newspaper and magazine clippings; student and faculty publications; photographsand correspondence of the Chancellor and President.2 He also recommended that material betransferred after three years.Following the presentation of the memo to President McTaggart, Baird drafted an archivespolicy. He proposed that the archives of the University be maintained as a section of the Library’s77Collection Division, with records being preserved in a restricted area. The Senate LibraryCommittee approved the policy in principle, and suggested that a letter be sent to variousUniversity bodies asking them for their co-operation in the establishment of “schedules for depositof archival materials.”3 In April 1968, Senate approved the policy, and in May the Board ofGovernors endorsed it.The sanctioning of the University Archives by the Senate and Board of Governors at such anearly date in the University’s history was a noteworthy accomplishment. At this stage allconcerned in building a new institution eagerly sought to assure their efforts would be recorded.This initiative was not a recognition of the life cycle of records or other records managementprinciples, but simply an effort to provide posterity with a sense of these foundingaccomplishments. It is safe to assume that the university’s governing body did not understand thelong term implications of sanctioning an archival programme. Later developments will supportthis position.Two years later, the first archivist was appointed. The event was reported in an article whichappeared in the Vancouver Sun on August 5, 1970. The article was entitled, “SFU FeelsHistorical at Tender Age of Five.” The article stated the Simon Fraser University was alreadyrecording its history and had just recently appointed a librarian, Liisa Fagerlund, as UniversityArchivist. Her position as archivist was held in addition to her regular duties in the Social ScienceDivision of the Library. The article quoted Mrs. Fagerlund as stating, “the University, whichopened only in 1965, is so young that we have a unique opportunity of recording in detail theprocess of our founding and the development of educational goals and techniques.”4During the early years, the University Archives was physically and administratively locatedwithin the library’s Special Collections Division. A report explained that the primary reason forthis relationship was due to similar environmental, security, and research space needs. Special78Collections consisted mainly of contemporary poetry, literary manuscripts, and a magazinecollection, while the University Archives holdings consisted of two sections; first, the records ofthe University; and second, local history materials with a focus on the surrounding municipalities.The University Archives made arrangements to store municipal records against the day whenneighbouring local governments could take up the task of preserving their own records. Themotivation behind the storage of these records was a belief in a mutual benefit to the universityand the municipalities. The arrangement relieved the municipalities of the difficulty involved instoring infrequently used materials, requiring extensive space and professional handling, and yetstill enabled them to retain ownership and access to the material. The benefits to the Universityincluded an increased accessibility of primary material for research by students and faculty, as wellas the ensured preservation of historically significant archival fonds. By 1974, Simon FraserUniversity Archives was providing archival facilities for Burnaby and Port Coquitlam, with aproposal for Maple Ridge under consideration.5Each of the university archives examined in this study originated within university libraries.They were administratively linked to the libraries’ Special Collections Divisions, reporting toeither the Head of Special Collections or the University Librarian. The impetus for the initiationof university records acquisition was a natural outgrowth of existing historical recordsprogrammes. The acquisition of both non-university and university records was motivated by adesire to serve the needs of researchers thereby promoting and supporting historical writing andscholarship. This motivation and impetus is similar in experience to that of the Public Archives ofCanada. The acquisition of public and private records was a response to cultural needs and not ameans to manage the records of an administration. The key factor in the early development ofeach of these archival institutions is the preservation of documentary heritage to supportscholarship, research, publication and indirectly national, regional, local or institutional pride.79The initial policy at Simon Fraser University focused primarily upon outlining which groups ofrecords the University Archives was to acquire. By 1974, concerns for the implementation ofproper records management procedures prompted its revision. On July 26, 1974, the UniversityArchivist submitted a revised policy clearly outlining the objectives of the University Archives, theauthority of the University Archivist, and the rights and responsibilities of University departmentsrelating to their records. The first section of the policy stated that the objectives of the universityarchives were to collect, preserve and make available for research the permanent records of theuniversity.The University Archivist, on behalf ofthe University, is authorized to negotiatefor the transfer of and to receiveUniversity Archives from the custody ofany Office of administration or instructionor other record creating division.Any record-creating division at theUniversity is hereby directed andempowered to release to the UniversityArchivist such University records in itscustody as are not needed for thetransaction of the current business ofthe office.6The policy also made provisions for the automatic transfer of the records of any Division, in theevent of the termination of its existence. Furthermore, the archivist was given the right ofreasonable access to examine all current and non-current university records. As in the earlierpolicy, the revision included a specific listing of fourteen categories of records to be collected bythe Archives.The 1974 policy was an attempt to establish a full archival programme. It is clear that therewas a recognition of the importance of records management as a necessary component of asuccessfiul Archives. The University Archivist strongly supported the implementation of records80management at the university. This was demonstrated by her active membership in the VancouverChapter of the American Records Management Association. Her belief in the value of recordsmanagement was expressed in a 1974 memo to the University Librarian. The memo stated thatrecords management was directly related to a good archival programme and it was hoped that inthe near future the university would take a more active interest in records management andpersonnel of administrative departments would join the American Records ManagementAssociation.7The revised policy aimed to ensure the long term stability and success of the UniversityArchives but it never reached the President or the Board of Governors being held up by theUniversity Librarian. The University had entered a period of restraint, and the economic climateproved unfavarable to the adoption of policies which involved increasing the library’s budget.In the summer of 1975, Liisa Fagerlund resigned from the position of University Archivist andSpecial Collections Librarian. Due to budgetary restraint a replacement was not hired. Thearchival community of British Columbia responded vocally concerning the vacant Archivistposition at Simon Fraser University. On behalf of the profession, George Brandak, President ofthe Association of British Columbia Archivists, complained to the University Librarian about thecutback. Baird replied that he had:put the original proposition for an Archivistto the President and was instrumental in seeingthat the position was successfully approved byboth the Senate and the Board of Governors.Those were the affluent days of the sixties andthey bear little relationship to the realities of thesummer of 1975. Priorities have to be set andthat exercise never produces a consensus. Thereit is: we cannot afford an Archives this year..81Concern over the replacement of a University Archivist did not end with the UniversityLibrarian’s reply to the Association of British Columbia Archivists. Despite the fact that HelenGray, Senior Librarian for History and Political Science assumed some of the UniversityArchivist’s responsibilities, the archival profession continued to voice concern. Gordon Dodds,President of the Association of Canadian Archivists, expressed the opinion of his Association in aletter to Baird in September 1975. Dodd commented that:The position of University Archivist shouldin my opinion not report to the UniversityLibrarian. Responsibility for acquiring,preserving and making available theinstitution’s own records on the basis of arecords management system should be theresponsibility of a professionally trainedArchivist reporting to senior Universitymanagement.9In reply to Dodds’ letter, Baird again stressed that Simon Fraser University could not afford torehire a “bonafide” archivist, or any other professional person in the fiscal year 1975-1976. Inaddition, he stated that the negotiations with the union of office, technical and clerical workershad resulted in the disestablishment of seven Library positions.’° It is obvious that the policyendorsed by the Board of Governors in 1968 was not strong enough to protect the archivist’sposition.The position remained vacant until January 1978. From August 1975 to April 1976 Grayworked one day a week on archival matters, but she recommended that acquisitions cease andmost projects be suspended in favour of a holding of operations.In April 1976, Gray returned fill-time to her position in History and Political Science,transferring the operation of the University Archives to Reva Clavir, Library Assistant. Upon her82departure, Gray recommended to Ted Dobb, Deputy Librarian, that the revision of the originalarchives policy prepared by Liisa Fagerlund be again set in motion.1’On December 31, 1977, after thirteen years as University Librarian, Don Baird resigned fromhis position. During 1978, while on administrative leave, Baird obtained an Archives Certificatefrom the Public Archives of Canada and also gained valuable archival information while studyingat the University of London, England. Upon completion of his leave, Baird returned to SimonFraser University and assumed the position of University Archivist, in September 1978.12 OtherArchives staff at that time consisted of a part-time Secretary and Word Processing Operator, aswell as a part-time Assistant Archivist, Reva Clavir. With Baird’s appointment, the UniversityArchives became an autonomous department reporting directly to the President. However, theArchives remained physically located within the Library.13 As a condition of Baird’s appointment,President Jewett approved that a number of expenses to establish the Archives as an autonomousdepartment. These included the construction of a wall to create a self-contained Archives spacecomplete with mobile shelving units. During Baird’s administrative leave, the organization of thenew archives room was complete and University records were transferred from SpecialCollections.’4 The administrative restructuring of the University Archives represented anopportunity for the programme to achieve considerable progress. By reporting directly to thePresident, the University Archives was linked to the highest level of authority and power withinthe administration. Simon Fraser University Archives was the first University Archives in theprovince to separate from the jurisdiction and control of a University Library.In a letter to Acting-President, Daniel R. Birch, in the fall of 1978, the University Archivistoutlined priorities for 1978-79, and a rationale for the development of the University Archives.The first item discussed was the arrangement and description of University records. Baird noted83that the system in place was both incomplete and of poor professional standard. He aimed toprepare a new arrangement of record groups based upon the Society of American Archivistsstandards. It was expected that this would be complete before the end of the year. He alsoplanned to introduce automation for the control of records. His other main trust dealt with thetransfer of photographs and university records to the Archives. At a meeting attended byrepresentatives from the Audio-Visual department, The Peak, News Service and the Centre forthe Arts, it was agreed that the University Archives would be the central repository for allcollections of University photographs. In addition, he sent reminders to all administrative unitsreminding them to transfer records to the Archives. Finally, he confirmed a policy for municipalrecords,’5 During the early part of 1979, the original collections policy of the University Archiveswas fi.irther expanded to include not only the administrative records of the University andmunicipal records, but also business archives relating to major industries in British Columbia, andethnic archives.’6The decision to acquire records of local governments, businesses and ethnic groups, inaddition to the University records, expanded the Archives’ acquisition programme in the privatesphere. Acquiring records from both public and private sources is a recognized feature of a “totalarchives”, but Baird seems to have been motivated by a concern to buttress the Archives’ staturein the University by acquiring non-University records. It should be noted that, contrary to thesituation at the other two universities, private archives were not assigned to the SpecialCollections Division of the Library.Further staff changes occurred in February 1979. Both the assistant and the secretary left theArchives to accept positions in the Computer Centre. The assistant’s position was filled by JimRoss, a history graduate, who had worked as a student in the Archives for three years. Thereplacement of the part-time secretarial position did not receive the approval of the President and84therefore remained vacant. However, as an interim solution, a temporary typist was hired for atwo-month period, from an allocation of unexpended funds.’7Following the separation of the University Archives from the Library, efforts were made toannounce the Archives’ new autonomous status to the larger archival community. One sucheffort was an article entitled, “Simon Fraser University Archives”, published in the Association ofBritish Columbia Archivist’s Bulletin. The article provided a brief administrative history of theUniversity Archives, outlining its collections policy, staff changes and plans for futuredevelopment. A second effort to clarify independence involved a letter written by the UniversityArchivist to the editor of the Union List of Manuscripts. It stated that since the UniversityArchives was now an autonomous Department reporting to the President, it should be listedseparately from the Library’s Special Collections. Due to the fact that there was no overlap in theholdings of the two units, it was logical for the University Archives to have its own locationnumber and listing.’8 By announcing its autonomy to the larger professional community, theUniversity Archivist was attempting to forge a reputation and status for the Archives. Clearly,this was an effort to repair the damage caused to the Archives’ reputation three years earlier.With the reorganization of the University Archives in late 1978, the need for a revisedArchives policy once again became a priority. In February 1979, K.G. Pedersen, UniversityPresident, visited the new University Archives facility. In his monthly report, the UniversityArchivist noted that although the show-and-tell segment of the visit seemed of little interest to thePresident, he was very keen to discuss the ongoing operation of the Archives. 19 During this visit,the President called for a new policy to strengthen the Archives’ position. Usually policyinitiatives have been left to the Archivist, yet here was a President eager to solidify the Archives’mandate. Nevertheless progress on a new policy became stalled by budgetary and otherconsiderations.85In the interim, while he worked to develop a policy and seek its approval, Baird continued toappeal to departments to transfer records. He also held discussions regarding the acquisition ofprivate archives. The Dean of Graduate Studies encouraged Baird to focus on ethnic archives asmulticulturalism was then strongly supported by federal policy.By April 1980, only minimal progress was achieved on the new policy. The UniversityArchivist and University President met to discuss the policy statement. Unfortunately, thismeeting yielded no conclusive decisions. The President was concerned that a greater role for theArchives would be costly, that a records management programme was an extravagance and that astrong thrust on the private records side was appropriate to universities with larger graduatestudies programmes.2° These concerns, short sighted as they were, left the Archivist little roomto manoeuver. As at the other two universities, financial concerns blocked development andplaced the Archives in an administrative backwater,The policy issue remained unresolved for the remainder of 1980. Other areas of concernrelated to the approval of the policy included budget, staff and space allocations. Throughout thenext few years the efforts of the University Archivist concentrated in these three areas. He wasable to increase his staff to three full-time positions: University Archivist, Archives Assistant andSecretary/Operator.2’Further budget allocations were requested in 1981/82. The proposal notedthat during the fiscal year 1980-81, the $1,100 allocated for temporary staff was inadequate tohire the student assistance necessary to arrange and describe the increasing volume of accessionsof University records, Consequently, he requested $2,200 for the fiscal year 1981 _82.22 Spacewas also an issue, so Baird prepared a proposal for the Space Allocation and Planning Committee,suggesting that space on the library’s Third Floor be utilized in addition to 5,000 square feet onthe Ground Floor, formerly occupied by the Instructional Media Centre. He also suggested thatthe Archives might find a permanent home in the Social Sciences building at the north end of the86extended mall.23 The Committee did not respond to the University Archivist’s proposal, but anagreement was reached with the Physical Plant enabling the Archives to share space with theLibrary in the Academic Quadrangle for the storage of records.24In October of 1980, President Pedersen asked the University Archivist for his view of wherethe Archives should be situated in the administrative structure. Baird argued forceftilly that theUniversity Archivist should continue to report to the President. The Archives was responsible fordocumenting the history of the university. He described the university as a multi-dimensionalentity comprised of both professional and administrative departments. The responsibility formanaging this entity rested with the President. Within the President’s responsibilities rested allaspects of the University. For the Archivist to report to an academic or administrative officerwould emphasize one aspect of the university over another. Any change in reporting would beillogical and philosophically unsound.25Nothing further came of this matter and further discussionwas dropped.In 1983, President Pedersen left Simon Fraser University and was replaced by W.E. Saywell.Prior to his departure, the President met with the University Archivist to discuss a revised policystatement, staffing and the state of University records, with no concrete results. Bairdcommunicated his concerns to the new President in mid-1984, noting that the effort to developpolicy seemed to be “dead in the water.”26 President Saywell responded with the assurance thatthe policy was indeed still under consideration and that his assistant was reviewing relatedmaterial and further discussion would proceed in the fall.The fate of the archives policy was again raised in January 1985. Baird suggested that furtherinformation could be conveyed to the Board of Governors regarding the policy in order toexpedite its approval. The President responded later in the year informing the University87Archivist that he intended to proceed with the proposed policy and that his assistant was inconsultation with interested parties in order to move it along. The President’s response alsoraised the issue of the Archives’ reporting structure. He informed Baird that once the new Vice-President in charge of Research and Information Systems took office on September of 1985, theUniversity Archives would then report directly to that officer. As the President put it,Since it seems to me that your space problemis going to be partly alleviated by a good recordsmanagement system that is partly based uponelectronics developments, it would seem to methat he is the appropriate VP to report to.27The University Archivist responded favourably to the newly established reporting structure, andconveyed to the President that he believed quite in contradiction of his own earlier position theproposed reporting chain was an “eminently logical choice.”28Finally, in 1986, after years in limbo, the University Archives policy was reviewed by Vice-President Calvert, who placed it before President Saywell. With the President’s recommendation,the policy was referred to the Board of Governors. Final approval was received in July of 1986.A number of immediate developments followed. First, an Archives and Records ManagementCommittee was required, as outlined in section 3 c of the policy. To this end, the UniversityArchivist proposed a list of possible Committee members. Second, the University Archivistinitiated the upgrading of the archives assistant position to an administrative/professional position.This action was justified on the grounds that the approval of the policy required a greater degreeof professional responsibility. The archives assistant would be performing records managementduties and therefore, a new job description for a Records Manager was a necessary progression.Vice-President Calvert raised no objections to the re-evaluation of the position.88The period prior to the approval of the Archives’ new policy in 1986 represents the first phaseof development, namely “establishment and rescue”. The years 1965-1986 were essentially aperiod of founding and establishment, when the focus for the Archives was the acquisition ofholdings. Although the University Archives had its first policy mandate approved by the Senateand Board of Governors in 1968, it continued to focus on acquisition for the next eighteen years.During this time attempts were initiated to take a greater role in managing the records of theUniversity, but only limited success was achieved. During this first stage the Archives achievedthe basic components of an archival programme: it was formally sanctioned by the Universityadministration and empowered with the authority to exist, acquire, preserve and make availablefor study records as outlined in its approved policy. Finally the basic resources of finding, spaceand staff necessary to operate were secured. The approval of the new policy marked thebeginning of the second stage of development concentrating on the implementation of anintegrated archives and records management programme.Following the establishment of the Archives and Records Management Committee, theUniversity Archivist initiated the necessary steps to formalize a structure linking each unit withinthe University to the Archives. To this end, in 1987, a memo was sent to the President, Vice-Presidents, Deans, Department Chairs, Registrar and Librarian, requesting that they provide thename or position of a person in their unit who would liaise with the University Archives onmatters related to official records.29 These newly appointed liaison officers were necessary toprovide a continuing link between record creating bodies and the University Archives RecordsManager, in order to receive information and assistance on the disposition of official records. Therequest for the appointment of records officers represented and attempt by the UniversityArchives to implement a more formalized structure for records management. Through theseofficers the Archives could institute required records management functions such as file89classification systems and retention and disposition schedules. Under the direction of the RecordsManager, these officers would be responsible for the implementation and application ofUniversity-wide standards.In 1987, the University Archives’ budget received an increase of 5.8%. Encouraged by animprovement in the financial situation, the University Archivist again requested the upgrading ofthe part-time clerical worker to full-time. Following previous requests to increase this positionthe Vice-President asserted that it would be given serious consideration if the overall budgetincrease was 5% or above.30 Despite the promising budgetary situation, the Archives clericalsupport remained at a part-time level.During the remainder of 1987, the Archives focused its efforts on the retention and dispositionof records. The mandate of the Archives and Records Management Committee was to ensurethat records of permanent value were retained by the University, and that those of no continuingvalue were destroyed. At this time, the University Archives was storing over “two million”records in its Records Centre and it was imperative that retention and disposition schedules be putinto effect, in order to alleviate the growing space problems. To this end, the Archives andRecords Management Committee approved the preparation of schedules for the offices of theDeans of Arts, Education, and Science, 1965-1978, as well as the Personnel Department. Inmemos to the Deans and Directors of these Departments, the University Archivist emphasizedthat they not be alarmed by the implications of the Archives and Records Management policy. Itwas clarified that all correspondence, policies for faculty and other similar high level directiveswould automatically be retained, along with committee agendas, minutes and papers. Itemsmarked for destruction would include administrative records such as receipts, financial reportsand all housekeeping documents that identified a completed action. Furthermore, it was reiteratedthat according to the policy, all records were restricted until ten years after creation. Only after90this restricted period would they be arranged, described and opened for research use.3’ Clearly,the Archives was finally on its way to developing a fully operational archival programme withinthe university.The Archives and Records Management Committee elected to meet once each semester,throughout the academic year. In 1988, the Committee met three times. The membershipincluded two representatives from the History Department; the Registrar; the AssistantComptroller; a member of the English Department; the Head of the Library’s CollectionsManagement Office; the University Archivist; the Vice-President, Research and InformationSystems; the Associate Vice President Academic; and the Records Manager. 32 Unlike thecomposition of the University of Victoria’s Archives Committee, the Committee proposed atSimon Fraser University included representation from all the vital areas of the administration. Byincluding representatives from the faculty, Registrar’s Office, Finance Department and President’sOffice, the Committee was empowered with the expertise necessary to ensure sound decisions andsuccess.At the Committee meeting in January 1988, discussion focused upon the problems related toUniversity records held in electronic fonn. By way of addressing the problem, a meeting wasscheduled with the Manager of Operations and Technical Support of Computing Services. At thismeeting several issues were discussed, including the impermanence of information held ondiskettes; the effects of non-directive policy of the University regarding the acquisitions ofhardware and software; the rapid change of hardware and software and its influence on the loss ofUniversity records. The Committee acknowledged the difficulties facing the Archives as a resultof these problems and recommended that the National Archives, the Provincial Archives and theprovincial government’s Records Management Branch be contacted to solicit information.91Furthermore, it was moved that a records advisory notice be sent to all Departments and Officesalerting then of the vulnerability of records held on computer diskettes.33In addition to the problem of electronic records, the Committee also addressed the issue ofsatellite archives. Discussion was prompted by developments within the Canadian Centre forStudies in Publishing and the Communications Department. The Canadian Centre for Studies inPublishing had received finding in the amount of $50,000 and was also preparing grantapplications for additional funds, in order to acquire archival and library materials. Similarly, theCommunications Department had developed a proposal to establish a Television News Archives.Both of these archival initiatives generated a great deal of concern from the Committee members.It was contended that these new ventures would not be sustained. Furthermore, they would beoperating outside the University Archives sphere and mandate.34 In response to the issue, theCommittee recommended that a meeting be scheduled with Vice-President Calvert, to discuss theproblem.35 The results of this meeting were reported at the Committee’s October meeting. It wasnoted that Vice-President Calvert, “did not view the situation with concern”.36 Despite this viewthe Committee decided to monitor the progress of the two initiatives.Another issue raised by the Archives and Records Management Committee was facultypapers. At the Committee’s meeting in October 1988, it was recommended that the UniversityArchives develop a policy for the acquisition of faculty papers. After a lengthy discussion, thefollowing motion was passed:The University Archives will actively seek andaccept faculty papers with the clear understandingthat strict appraisal techniques shall be exercised.Only materials reflecting strong research potentialwill be accepted into the collection. Those materialsnot accepted into the collections shall be returnedto the donor or disposed of in the most appropriatefashion.37Concerns regarding space promoted deliberations at each Archives and Records ManagementCommittee meeting held during 1988. Attempts were made to find an alternate location for theUniversity Archives. The Library wished the Archives removed from its building; likewise, theArchives desired a permanent location outside the Library.38 Baird recommended theconstruction of a 25th Anniversary Heritage Building, to house the University Archives and theArt Gallery.39 The idea was conceived from the similar functional relationships which the Archivesand Art Gallery shared, namely, environmental controls, security and conservation. The locationsuggested for this new multipurpose facility was east of the Theatre on the Mall.’° The two unitsdiscussed this matter and agreed on certain common needs but the proposal for a building to cost$6 million never got off the ground.During the period 1986 to 1989, the University Archives focused its attention towarddeveloping a comprehensive management programme for the records of the university. TheUniversity Archives initiated the preparation of retention and disposition schedules for fourUniversity departments. It continued to utilize its Records Centre in the old TransportationBuilding for the storage of semiactive and dormant records. Finally, it actively sought to transferto the Archives records with enduring administrative, fiscal, legal and historical values. However,despite the considerable progress achieved during these years, the University Archives wascontinually hampered by the need for additional staff and more storage space. Throughout thisperiod the issue of adequate clerical support was never resolved. Despite an improvement in theUniversity’s financial situation and a budget increase in 1987, the position remained at the parttime level. Similarly, repeated attempts were made to address the ever increasing shortage ofspace. With the support of the Archives and Records Management Committee alternativelocations and options were investigated. However, this deficiency also remained unresolved.Valuable time and energy which could have been more productively expended on the93consolidation of the basic resources of the Archives. Consequently, the University Archivesremained poised at the beginning of the second stage by capitalizing on its new found authority totake a leading role in managing University records.94Chapter Four- EndnotesSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity Archives, File on University Archivist,Correspondence, Reports, Policies. Memo D. Baird, to University President dated October 11,1967, p.1. All Simon Fraser University records consulted were active files of the UniversityArchivist. Hereafter cited as UAR.2 Ibid.UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, Reports, Policies. Memo D. Baird,to Douglas Cole dated March 7, 1968, p. 1.4UAR, File on University Archives and Oral History, Vancouver Sun,article “SFU FeelsHistorical at Tender Age of Five,” dated Wednesday, August 5, 1970, p.1.5UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, Reports, Policies. Documententitled, “Institutional Report, Simon Fraser University Library, Archives and SpecialCollections,” dated 1974, p. 1.6UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, Reports, Policies. Documententitled “University Archives Policy - Draft,” dated 26 July, 1974, p.1.7UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1970-1974. Letter, Liisa Fagerlundto, Don Baird dated September 27, 1974, p. 1.8LTJsd, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1975. Letter, Don Baird, to GeorgeBrandak, President Association of British Columbia Archivists dated September, 1975, p. 1.9UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1975. Letter, Gordon Dodds,President Association of Canadian Archivists, to Don Baird, University Librarian dated September22, 1975, p.1.10UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1975. Letter, Don Baird, toGordon Dodds, President Association of Canadian Archives undated, p.1.“UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1976. Memo H. Gray, to TedDobb, Deputy Librarian dated April 1, 1976, p. 1.9512 UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1978. Document entitled“University Archives,” undated, p.1.‘3lbid.‘4UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1978. Letter, Don Baird, to DanielR. Birch, Acting Vice-President dated December 4, 1978, p.1.‘5UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1978. Memo, Don Baird, to DanielR. Birch dated November 27, 1978, p.1.‘6UAR, File on Monthly Reports, 1978-1980. Document entitled “Simon FraserUniversity Archives,January-July 1979,” p.1.17UAR, File on Monthly Reports, 1978-1980. Report dated February 1979, p.1.18UAJ., File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1979, Letter, Don Baird, toEditor, Union List of Manuscripts dated February 16, 1979, p.1.19Uftd, File on Monthly Reports, 1978-1980. Report dated February 1979, p.1.20UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1979. Letter, Don Baird, to K.D.Pedersen dated April 3, 1980, p. 1.21 UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1980. Budget Proposal 1981-1982and cover memo Don Baird, to K.D. Pedersen dated November 9, 1980, p.1.22 Ibid.23U, File on University Archivist, Correspondence, 1980. Memo, Don Baird, to K.D.Pedersen dated December 5, 1980, p.1.24UPd, File on Monthly Reports, 1981-1982. Report dated October 1981, p,1.9625UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence,1980. Memo, Don Baird, to K.D.Pedersen dated October 27, 1980, p.1.26UM{, File on University Archivist, Correspondence With President, 1984. Memo,President Saywell, to Don Baird undated, p.1.27UM{, File on University Archivist, Correspondence With President, 1984. Memo,President Saywell, to Don Baird undated, p.1.28UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo, Vice-President, 1985-1986. Memo Don Baird, to President Saywell dated March 8, 1985, p.1.29UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo, On-Campus, 1987.Memo Don Baird, to Deans, Department Chairs, Registrar, and Librarian dated January 28, 1987,p.1.30UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo, Vice-President, 1987.Memo Don Baird, to Vice-President Calvert dated March 23, 1987, p.1.31 UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo,On-Campus, 1987.Memo Don Baird, to Dean of Arts, Education, Science and Personnel Department undated, p.1.32 on the Archives and Records Management Committee consisted of thefollowing appointments: Dr. Robin Fisher, Department of History, Chair; Dr. Douglas Cole,Department of History; Mr. Ronald Heath, Registrar; Mr. Philip Mah, Assistant Comptroller,Finance; Ms. Honoree Newcombe, Department Assistant, English; Dr. Ross Saunders, AssociateVice-President Academic; Mrs. Sharon Thomas, Head Collections Management Office, Library;Mr. Donald Baird, University Archivist, Secretary, Ex-Officio; Dr. Thomas Clavert, VicePresident Research and Information Systems, Ex-Officio; Mr. James Ross, Records Manager andArchives Assistant, Ex-Officio.33UAR, File on Archives and Records Management Committee, 1988. Minutes of theNinth Meeting dated March 31, 1988, p.2.Ibid., 3,9735UAR, File on Archives and Records Management Committee, 1988. Minutes of theEighth Meeting dated March 31, 1988, p.2.36UftJ, File on Archives and Records Management Committee, 1988. Minutes of theNinth Meeting dated October 6, 1988, p.2.37Ibid.38Uj\J, File on Archives and Records Management Committee, 1988. Document entitled“A Permanent Location for the University Archives, May 3, 1988,” p.1.39Ibid.° UAR, File on University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo, OnCampus, 1988.Proposal 25th Anniversary Heritage Building dated 1988, p.1.98CHAPTER FIVEThe British Columbia Experience:Divergent Levels of Pro2ress.Traditionally, publicly sponsored archives in Canada have come to regard the acquisition,preservation and accessibility of public records to be their prime responsibility. At the same time,they have also actively sought and acquired private historical records, as well as expanding theirholdings to include non-textual records such as photographs, films, video, sound recordings andcartographic materials. This systematic effort to preserve public and private records in all forms,making them available for research in a single repository represents a “total archives” approach.The growth and development of the National Archives of Canada provides a model for theestablishment of a “total archives”. Furthermore, as an institution with a fully integrated andoperational archives programme, it exemplifies the components required to achieve this functionallevel. Throughout its one hundred and twenty year history the National Archives progressed froma three room institution, directed by one staff person, armed with a very vague and generalmandate into a network of multiple institutions, mandated by an Act of Parliament to acquire bothcultural resources and the records of government. This progression was a gradual evolutionthrough three apparent developmental phases, namely: establishment and rescue; improvedauthority and infrastructure; and finally, autonomy and management. Inherent in each of thesephases are specific goals and objectives which define priorities and translate into components ofan archives programme.Within the first phase, establishment and rescue the objectives are to define collectingpriorities and to acquire through transfer or donation material which will form the basis of theinstitutions holdings. Defining an acquisition strategy is achieved through the approval of aninstitutional mandate and collections policy. This mandate and policy is a significant and99necessary component of any archival programme. An institution must articulate its responsibilityfor preserving the permanently valuable records of its sponsoring agency. This responsibility willprovide the archives with a role in the administration of the agency and furthermore, a rationalefor ongoing support. In addition, any expansion of this role beyond the parent body to the sphereof historical records must also be clearly defined. A comprehensive acquisitions mandate willdelineate the scope of historical record collecting, either geographically, institutionally or on atheme basis. Other components of an archival programme addressed in the first stage ofdevelopment include the delineation of a clear reporting structure and administrative position, aswell as the basic resources, facilities and staff necessary to operate. Resources continue to be anongoing component throughout each of the three developmental phases. As the archivalprogramme expands so too must the resources necessary to support the programme.The second phase of development, “improved authority and infrastructure” shifts attentionfrom the acquisition of holdings to the establishment of systems and procedures necessary tomanage the records of the sponsoring agency. Records management is a systematic approach tothe creation, use, storage, retrieval, disposal; and preservation of the records of an administrativebody.’ The application of records management can be justified administratively by its costbenefits and efficiency. Staff costs are reduced by controlling the creation of records; storagecosts are reduced by using the most efficient media or methods of storing information; time issaved by simplifying information retrieval; and finally, highcost office space is used effectivelythrough a smooth flow of records from creation to disposal.2 In order for an archives to properlypreserve the official records of its sponsoring agency, records management practices must beimplemented. The process of preserving and disposing of records is regulated by recordsretention and disposal schedules. A schedule will list the categories of records created; theiractive period of use in administrative offices; whether they should be stored more economically in100an inactive records centre; and when they should be destroyed or transferred to the archives. Thecomponents of a sound records management programme include records inventory, fileclassification, retention and disposition schedules, storage for inactive records and micrographics.Records management is not emphatically an all-or-nothing proposition. Initial efforts do not haveto be full-scale, state of the art programmes. Choices can be made depending upon aninstitution’s budget and available resources. The question for institutions should not be whetheror not to establish a records management programme, but rather what size the programme shouldbe.3Within the third phase of development “autonomy and management” the archives has attaineda full level of operation. It is able to fulfill its mandate with adequate resources and respond to anexpansion of its holdings and service levels, without compromising any one facet of the operation.Although challenges will always occur, the institution which has attained this stage ofdevelopment will be stable and secure and, therefore well able to anticipate and address problemsas they arise.Integral to the development of any archival institution are resources; namely, facilities, staffand an adequate budget. The establishment of an archives is a matter for serious considerationand commitment because once an institution has been founded, the sponsoring agency will have toallocate resources on a continuing basis to preserve, accrue and service the holdings of itsrecords.4 As an archival programme develops and expands, so too must its core funding,storage, space, staff resources and equipment. Consequently, the procurement of resources is anongoing challenge for institutions from their establishment to autonomy and management.The three university archives examined in the preceding chapters demonstrate thedevelopmental struggle to achieve a fully operational archival programme. Furthermore, theirexperiences exemplifj the evolutionary process toward implementing the numerous components101necessary to attain full autonomy and management. The case studies reveal that the threeinstitutions have progressed to different stages of development and achieved various degrees ofsuccess at implementing the components of an archival programme. The historical developmentof the National Archives of Canada provides a model to evaluate and compare the progress of thethree university archives. Furthermore, a comparison of their institutional experiences willillustrate the state of university archives programmes in British Columbia and reveal the factorswhich both influenced and hindered their development.Numerous surveys of university archives have been conducted to asses their development. Asnoted in Chapter One, these surveys reveal that in terms of Canada’s archival heritage, universityarchives have only been established in the last thirty years. A 1966 survey of college anduniversity archives compiled by the Society of American Archivists contacted forty-fiveinstitutions in Canada. Eighteen of these responded that they maintained no formal archives. Theremaining twenty-seven claimed some form of archival programme, but only seven of theseemployed a full-time archivist responsible for university records. By 1971, the seven universitieswith full-time archivists had increased to fifteen.6 By 1985, a survey on university and collegearchives conducted by the Association of Canadian Archivists revealed that 73% of all universitieshad some form of archival programme. The establishment of university archives in BritishColumbia is reflective of the broader national scene. Although all three universities examined hadexperienced archival initiatives within the library special collections units by 1965, it was not until1970 that British Columbia’s first full-time university archivist was hired. The University ofBritish Columbia was the first to employ a university archivist. Simon Fraser University alsoemployed a university archivist in 1970, but only in a part-time capacity. The University ofVictoria followed in 1975, when an archivist was hired with half-time dedicated to universityrecords,102A survey of university archives conducted in 1975 by Ian Wilson revealed that of the twenty-seven participating institutions, only seven were administratively autonomous, reporting to a vice-president. The remaining twenty were administratively subordinate to the university Library.7Collections of historical university records have grown chiefly within their institutions’ libraries,because librarians have recognized and appreciated the cultural importance of this archivalmaterial. The motivation for preserving early university records was to ensure the preservation ofhistory and the promotion of scholarly research and study. Such efforts within university librarieswere similar to the early acquisition strategies of the National Archives to amass a storehouse ofdocumentary heritage to support, study, serve posterity and promote a national consciousness.British Columbia’s three university archives reflect the findings revealed in Wilson’s 1975 survey.Each originated within a university library, therefore mirroring the majority of their nationalcounterparts. The impetus for their establishment and their administrative position within librariesis compatible with other Canadian university archives at that time.The case studies reveal the diversity of archival initiatives within the province’s three publicuniversities. At the University of British Columbia, the initiative was motivated by the President’sArchives Committee, which facilitated voluntary preservation of historical material at thedepartment level and its subsequent transfer to the Library’s Special Collections Division. Theincreasing volume of University records necessitated the creation of a University Archivistposition in 1970. A similarly unique experience is evident at the University of Victoria. In 1961,the Victoria College Council appointed a College Librarian/Archivist in anticipation of the libraryopening in 1964. Nine years later, the Commission on Academic Development recommended animprovement of archival facilities, This resulted in a Senate motion for the establishment of anarchives for University material. Despite this high-level initiative, the driving force in the archivesestablishment was the Alumni Association, who provided enthusiasm, support and financialI’).,resources to acquire and arrange the initial holdings of the University Archives. This diversity inestablishment is evidenced further by the Simon Fraser University Archives experience. At ameeting of University department heads held in 1965, the University Librarian was givenunofficial approval to collect University records. Consequently, a university archives programmeexisted within Special Collections from the founding of the universities studied, At eachinstitution examined, a different motivation and action prompted the acquisition of universityrecords. Despite their uniqueness a common concern is evident, namely, the preservation of theuniversity’s history. Within each institution this responsibility was assigned to the library. Thisreporting structure was a natural outgrowth of the library’s role as a centre fostering andsupporting research and scholarship.Following their establishment the most pressing concern was the articulation and approval of acollections policy, empowering the archives with authority to acquire university records. TheUniversity Archivist at the University of British Columbia drafted its first policy in 1970 for auniversity archives programme. Although this “Plan” was never approved it served as anunofficial policy until 1976 when it was revised. Again, the revised policy did not receive theapproval of the Senate or Board of Governors; it was superseded in 1989 by an updated“Proposed Policy Statement”. It was not until 1994 that the University of British Columbia had afully sanctioned archives and records management policy. A similar struggle was experienced bythe University of Victoria’s archives, whose first policy was drafted in 1974 and revised in 1978,but was rejected by the Board of Governors. Finally, a short one page policy was written in 1980and received official approval in November of that year. Prior to its approval, the UniversityArchives acquired and managed its holdings according to a policy which was not endorsed by theUniversity. Simon Fraser University archives did not experience a similar struggle, The firstarchives policy was drafted and approved by the Senate three years following the establishment of104the University. The University Archives was officially sanctioned and governed by Policy S-il 7for the next eighteen years. However, in the mid-1970’s efforts were made to update and revisethis early policy. New draft policies were prepared in both 1974 and 1978. Finally, in July 1986 arevised, comprehensive policy received the approval of the Board of Governors. The approval ofan institutional mandate and collections policy is a key component to any archival programme.Without the sanctioning of its parent body it is virtually impossible to institute a fill archivalprogramme and to properly manage the records of the sponsoring agency. However, it shouldalso be noted that the approval of a policy will not guarantee the success of a programme, unlessit is accompanied by an ongoing financial and administrative commitment through adequatebudget, staff; facilities and equipment.In addition to conveying the authority to acquire holdings, a policy serves to articulate whichgroups or series of records are to be acquired by the archives. British Columbia’s universityarchives followed components of a “total archives” approach. In his 1975 survey, Ian Wilsoncommented on the significant number of university archives soliciting and acquiring the privatepapers and records of individuals and organizations not directly connected with the university.Twenty of the twenty-seven surveyed were responsible for general manuscript programmes.8Wilson proposed that the fact that sixteen of these archives were located within libraries mayhave been related to this acquisition approach. Subsequent surveys conducted by the Associationof Canadian Archivists in 1975 and 1985 provide further insight into the acquisition of extauniversity records. Of all institutions surveyed in 1975, 88% were acquiring extra-universityrecords and by 1985 this number had increased to 90%. Shelley Sweeney comments on this trendin a paper addressed to the Society of American Archivists in 1986. She notes that the notion thatcollecting manuscript material reflects library policies toward research no longer provides a soleexplanation for the acquisition policies of university archives. This explanation is supported by105the continued pattern and actual increase in the acquisition of extra-university records, eventhough the number of university archives located within libraries has dropped.9 The surveysconducted in 1975, 1980 and 1985 reveal that university archives have been administrativelyseparating from libraries; their numbers decreasing 13% between 1975 and 1980, and 12%between 1980 and 1985.’° Sweeney suggests that university archives are simply enlarging thescope of their acquisition strategies. “They are justifying the collection of extra-university recordsby writing in their mandates their intentions to support the teaching programmes of theiruniversities.” She suggests that manuscript holdings provide vital and exciting research materialand therefore draw in external users. However, university archivists have recognized theirobligations to serve the needs of their parent bodies and have initiated records managementprogrammes. Dual collections mandates provide as broad a justification for university archives aspossible.’2 The acquisition policies of British Columbia’s university archives exemplify a dualmandate or “total archives” approach. However, since two of the institutions are located withinlibraries it is difficult to determine if their strategies were motivated by their administrative link orby a pattern clearly evident on a national level, namely, that a broad mandate provides greaterstability and security for the overall programme. However, Simon Fraser University Archives dideventually separate from the library, yet retained its dual mandate. Clearly, Sweeney’s position isvalidated by the experience of British Columbia’s university archives.It has been recognized that many factors have played a role in the development of manuscriptacquisition within university archives. Often material is acquired in a desperate bid to rescueimportant documents from destruction. Other material is acquired due to a lack of interest atfederal or provincial archives. Another consideration has been maintaining a regional focus incollecting, in order to forge close ties with surrounding communities. Furthermore, there may be a106need to accommodate benefactors and graduates in an effort to enhance the university’s publicrelations profile. Related to this justification is a response to the needs of the university faculty.Finally, manuscript material may be acquired to accommodate the wishes of a particular donorwho has a preference for smaller institutions closely linked with academic research andscholarship. 13 It has been noted that whatever the rationale or justification for the acquisition ofmanuscript material, it can only be successful if the programme is co-ordinated and a balance isachieved between both university records and historical manuscripts.’4The motivation for the acquisition of historical manuscripts at British Columbia’s threeuniversity archives varied within each institution. As part of a Special Collections Division, boththe University of Victoria and University of British Columbia archives were administrativelylinked to an existing manuscript programme. This was expanded further by the inclusion offaculty papers in the acquisition policies of both institutions. The University of British Columbia’sUniversity Archives actively acquired not only the personal papers of faculty, but also publicationsof students, alumni and other societies. The University of Victoria’s Archives, acquired thepersonal papers of faculty and staff In contrast, Simon Fraser University Archives’ historicalmanuscripts section focused on municipal and ethnic records. Simon Fraser’s programmereflected a regional focus, as well as a response to the research needs of faculty and departments.Obviously each of the university archives programmes was motivated to acquire historicalmanuscripts by one or a combination of recognized factors. However, their ability to serve bothcomponents of their dual mandates and strike a balance between, had varying degrees of success,as the following discussion will reveal.A result of the 1975 survey of Canadian university archives was the contention that manyinstitutions were involved in broader research manuscript programmes at the expense of theirresponsibilities to university records.’5 Integral to managing and preserving the records of the10/sponsoring agency is a comprehensive records management programme. In 1975, universityarchives involved in records management were largely those outside the library milieu and weregenerally French Canadian. Ian Wilson speculated that those archives outside the library settingwere unhampered by library collections policies which tended to favour acquiring private papersover corporate records. Consequently, these archives could more easily embark on programmesto fulfill their corporate mandate. Facts may have suggested this theory in 1975, howeversubsequent surveys reveal that this was no longer the case. Both archives within and outsidelibraries have participated in records management programmes. Furthermore, recordsmanagement initiatives are no longer confined to French-speaking Canada, but are widespreadacross the country. Records management has not been an issue at large university archives only,nor those with long established histories. It is evident from more recent data that academicarchivists have acknowledged their obligation as corporate archives and the need to serve theirconstituent bodies. Hence, the move into the realm of records management.16 The extent ofrecords management initiatives and the components which have been successfully implemented inBritish Columbia are evident in the institutional case studies.Attempts to implement records management programmes were initiated as part of BritishColumbia’s university archives programmes. Each archivist clearly recognized and understood itsresponsibility for the records of the parent body. However, the components of a programmesuccessfully implemented and their extent varied considerably. The establishment of an ArchivesCommittee to facilitate records management systems and procedures is a common and necessarycomponent for success. Only Simon Fraser University Archives was able to establish a permanentCommittee which met on a consistent and regular basis. Although a Committee was appointed atthe University of Victoria it operated for only three years before it lapsed and was not108reappointed. The University of British Columbia was not successful in establishing an ArchivesCommittee until 1994.One of the initial components of a records management programme is a records survey orrecords inventory. The purpose of a survey is to document records created by an organization,their purpose, function and extent. A records inventory provides the basis for records schedulingand retention. Only the University of British Columbia successfully completed an inventory ofuniversity records. Although repeated attempts to undertake an inventory were made by theUniversity of Victoria’s Archives Committee, the necessary funding was never secured. Aninventory was never initiated at Simon Fraser University and was in fact never raised as an issueby the Archives Committee.Another important component of a records management programme are retention anddisposition schedules. Simon Fraser University archives was the only programme to successfullydraft and approve retention schedules. However, this success was limited, since they related tothe records of only four Departments. One component of records management which wasaddressed by all three university archives programmes was records centre storage. Eachinstitution was able to acquire off-site storage for inactive university records. Finally, in terms ofthe necessary link with university departments to manage records through all phases of the lifecycle, only Simon Fraser was able to install and continue a liaison network, In addition, SimonFraser was also the only university archives programme to have a full-time Records Manager onstaff It is obvious from this summary that Simon Fraser University Archives achieved thegreatest progress toward implementing records management. However, the other two universityarchives programmes recognized records management as an integral component of a totalprogramme and were actively lobbying for its implementation. The issue of adequate resourcesimpeded progress at both the University ofBritish Columbia and University of Victoria,109The problem of adequate financial, staff and space resources was a continuing source ofconcern for each of the university archives programmes examined. It was a lack of commitmentof the part of administrations to provide basic resources which frustrated and in fact impeded thedevelopment of British Columbia’s university archives. The problem present at all three is moreserious at the University of British Columbia and University of Victoria than at Simon FraserUniversity. None of the three university archives programmes are housed in a separate facility.All are located within the university library facility. Staff resources vary with the University ofBritish Columbia being administered by one person; Victoria by a half-time person; and SimonFraser by two and one-half persons. In addition, two of the institutions did not have a separatebudget: only Simon Fraser University Archives controlled its own finances.The three case studies reveal institutions at varying stages of development. Neither of thethree institutions has achieved the third stage of development: autonomy and management. SimonFraser University Archives remains at the very beginning of stage two improved authority andinfrastructure, as does the University of British Columbia following the approval of its policy in1994. The University of Victoria remains in the first stage of development, establishment ofbasic infrastructure and rescue of materials.The process of development toward achieving a fully integrated archival programme is anongoing struggle and evolution. The developmental history of the National Archives of Canadahas spanned a period of one hundred and twenty years. Measured accordingly, BritishColumbia’s university archives have achieved considerable success in the short time periodcovered in this study. Each institution is faced with challenges and based upon theirdetermination and commitment, they will undoubtedly achieve their goal of acquiring, preservingand making accessible their holdings, serving both their parent body and the general public.I IJChapter Five - Endnotes‘Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council. (Ottawa: Information Division of the Social SciencesHumanities Research Council, 1980), p. 86.2lbid.Dojka and Shelia Connen “Records Management as an Appraisal Tool in Collegeand University Archives,” in Archival Choices, edited by Nancy Peace, (Toronto: LexingtonBooks, 1984), p. 21.Ibid., 23.6Ian E.Wilson, “Canadian University Archives,” Archivaria 3 (Winter 1976-1977): 18.7lbid., 20.8lbid., 24.Shelley Sweeney, “Riding Off in All Directions: College and University Archives inCanada,” Paper presented at the Society of American Archivist’s Conference, Chicago, 8 August1986, (Photocopy), p. 4.‘°Ibid., 5.“Ibid, 6.12 Ibid.‘ Ian E.Wilson, “Canadian University Archives,” 26.‘4lbid.Ibid., 20.16 Shelley Sweeney, “Riding Off in All Directions: College and University Archives inCanada,” 6.111112BibIioraphyI. Archival SourcesA. The University of British ColumbiaThe University of British Columbia (hereafter UBC), University Archives, Files of the UniversityArchivist, Annual Reports of the Archives, 1970-1987.UBC, University Archives, Files of the University Archivist, Annual Reports, 1988-1990.UBC, University Archives, Files of the University Archivist, Reports, Plans, Policies, 1970-1987.UBC, University Archives, Files of the University Archivist, FG 100, Daniells, Edith Laurenda,1970-1987.UBC, University Archives, Files of the University Archivist, Bound Manual, Archives AdvisoryCommittee: Background Material, 1989-1990.B. University of VictoriaUniversity of Victoria, Special Collections Division, McPherson Library. McPherson LibraryAdministration Records, D.W. Halliwell Files,Special Collections, General. 1965-1980.University of Victoria, Special Collections Division, McPherson Library. McPherson LibraryAdministration Records, D.W. Halliwell Files, University Archives, General. 1983-1986.University of Victoria, McPherson Library, Office of the University Librarian, D.W. HalliwellFiles, Special Collections, Reports, 1964-1968.University of Victoria, McPherson Library, Office of the University Librarian, D.W. HalliwellFiles, University Archives Policy. 196 1-1979.University of Victoria, McPherson Library. Office of the University Librarian, D.W. HalliwellFiles, Special Collections, Archives. 1979-1981.University of Victoria, McPherson Library. Office of the University Librarian, D.W. HalliwellFiles, University Archives Committee. 1983-1985.University of Victoria, McPherson Library. University Archives, Office of the Archivist LibrarianFiles, University of Victoria Archives, Organization Charts. n.d.University of Victoria, McPherson Library. University Archives, Office of the Archivist LibrarianFiles, Archives Committee. 1980-1986.113University of Victoria, McPherson Library. University Archives, Office of the Archivist LibrarianFiles, Archives Policy. 1975-1982.University of Victoria, McPherson Library. University Archives, Office of the Archivist LibrarianFiles, Annual Reports. 1978-1990.C. Simon Fraser UniversitySimon Fraser University (hereafter SFU), University Archives Files, University Archives and OralHistory, n.d.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence, Reports, Policies, n.d.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence, 1970-1974.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Chronological Correspondence, 1974.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence, 1975.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence, 1976.SFU, University Archives Files,SFU, University Archives Files,SFU, University Archives Files,SFU, University Archives Files,SFU, University Archives Files,SFU, University Archives Files,SFU, University Archives Files,SFU, University Archives Files,University Archivist, Correspondence, 1977.University Archivist, Correspondence, 1978.University Archivist, Correspondence, 1979.University Archivist, Correspondence, 1980.University Archivist, Correspondence, 1981.University Archivist, Correspondence, 1982.University Archivist, Correspondence with President, 1983.Archivist Correspondence, on Campus, 1984.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence with President, 1984.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo, Vice-President,1985-1986.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist Correspondence, On-Campus, 1985-1986.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo, On-Campus,1987.114SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo, Vice-President,1987.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo,On-Campus, 1988.SFU, University Archives Files, University Archivist, Correspondence and Memo, On-Campus,1989.SFU, University Archives Files, Monthly Reports, 1970-1976.SFU, University Archives Files, Monthly Reports, 1978-1980.SFU, University Archives Files, Archives and Records Management Committee, 1988.SFU, University Archives Files, Archives and Records Management Committee, 1989.SFU, University Archives Files, Policy and Procedures Manual, n.d.II Secondary SourcesAnder, Fritiof 0. “Are Our Libraries Obligated to Collect and Preserve the Historical Records ofthe Community?” Illinois Library 34 (December 1952): 442-47.Archer, John H. “A Study of Archival Institutions in Canada.” Ph.D. dissertation, Queen’sUniversity, 1969.Association of Canadian Archivists, University Archives Survey Committee, 1986. “Highlights:Canadian University Archives Survey, 1985.” Unpublished report, 1986. (Photocopy)Atherton, Jay. “‘From Life Cycle to Continuum’ Some Thoughts on the Records Management-Archives Relationship.” Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-1986): 43-5 1.__________“Origins of the Public Archives Records Centre, 1897-1956.” Archivaria 8(Summer 1979): 35-60.Biskup, Peter. “The Case Against Library Control of Archives.” Australian Journal 10 (1961):40-41.Blendon, Edith James. “University Archives: A Reason for Existence.” American Archivist 38(April 1975): 175-80.Boles, Frank, and Marks Young, Julia. “Exploring The Black Box: The Appraisal of UniversityAdministrative Records.” American Archivist 48 (Spring 1985): 12 1-40.115Birchford, Maynard J. “The Illiarch” in College and University Archives: Selected Readings.Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1979._________“University Archives: Relationships With Faculty.” American Archivist 34 (April1971): 173-81.Brooks, Philip C. “Archivists and Their Colleagues: Common Denominators.” AmericanArchivist 14 (January 1951): 33-45.Brown, Henry I. “An Appeal for Archives in Institutions of Higher Learning.” AmericanArchivist 16 (July 1953): 215.Bryans, Victoria. “Canadian Provincial and Territorial Archival Legislation: A Case Study of theDisjunction Between Archival Theory and Law.” Master of Archival Studies Thesis.University of British Columbia, 1989.Burckel, Nicholas C. “Establishing a College Archives: Possibilities and Priorities.” College andResearch Libraries 36 (1975): 384-392._“Program Planning and Service Policies for a University Archives.” Georgia Archive6 (Spring 1978): 3 1-35.__“The Expanding Role of a College or University Archives.” in College andUniversity Archives: Selected Readings. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1979.47-57.Burckel, Nicholas C., and Cook, Frank J. “A Profile of College and University Archives in theUnited States.” American Archivist 45 (Fall 1982): 410-28.Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Report of the Advisory Committeeon Archives. Ottawa: Information Division Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil, 1985.Chatfield, Helen L. “College and University Archives: A Bibliographic Review.” AmericanArchivist 28 (January 1965): 101-8._“Records Management and the Administration of College and UniversityArchives.” American Archivist 31 (July 1968): 243-45.Church, Randolph W. “Relationships Between Archival Agencies and Libraries.” AmericanArchivist 6 (July 1943): 145-50.Colson, John C. “On the Education of Archivists and Librarians.” American Archivist 31 (April1968): 167-74.Consultative Group on Canadian Archives. Canadian Archives: Report to Social SciencesHumanities Research Council. Ottawa: Information Division of the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council, 1980.116Cook, 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 1979-1980): 141-149.Couture, Carol and Rousseau Jean Yves. The Life of a Document: A Global Approach toArchives and Records Management. Montreal: Vehicule Press, 1986.Dojka, John, and Conneen, Sheila. “Records Management as an Appraisal Tool in College andUniversity Archives.” in Archival Choices, edited by Nancy Peace. Toronto: LexingtonBooks, 1984. 19-40.Downs, Robert B. “Collecting Manuscripts: By Libraries,” Library Trends 5 (January 1957):337-43.Eastwood, Terry. “Reflections on the Development of Archives in Canada and Australia.” Paperpresented at the Biennial Conference of Australian Archivists. Hobart, Australia, 3 June1984. (Photocopy).___________•“The Structure, Dynamics and Responsibilities of the Canadian Archival System.”in Report of the Advisory Committee on Archives. Ottawa: Information Division of theSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council, 1985.“Attempts at National Planning for Archives in Canada.” Public Historian 8(1986): 74-91.Finch, Herbert. “The Problem of Confidentiality in a College Archives.” American Archivist 34(July 1968): 239-41.“Administrative Relationships in a Large Manuscript Repository.” AmericanArchivist 34 (January 1971): 21-25.Gauye, Oscar. “The Specificity of Archives and Their Convergence With Libraries, Museums andDocumentation Centres.” Archivum 30 (1984): 24.Hackman, Kent W. “Small College Archives: Problems and Solutions.” American Archivist 31(July 1968): 27 1-75.Harding, Bruce C. “Federal-University Relationships and the Paperwork Explosion.” AmericanArchivist 31 (July 1968): 265-69.Haring, Jacqueline. “The College Arrangement.” Illinois Libraries 57 (March 1975): 226-3 0.Holden, Harley P. “The Collecting of Faculty Papers.” Harvard Library Bulletin 19 (April 1971):187-93.117Humphries, Donna. “Canadian Universities: A Functional Analysis.” Master of Archival StudiesThesis. University of British Columbia, 1991.Jennings, John Melville. “Archival Activity in American Universities and Colleges.” AmericanArchivist 12 (April 1949): 155-63.Johnson, Kenneth. “University Archives Survey.” Archives Bulletin (January 1974): 17-18.Latour, Terry S. “Is Expansion of College and University Archives Programs the Answer?”Paper presented at the Society of American Archivist’s Conference, Chicago, 8 August1986. (Photocopy).Le Duc, Thomas. “Arcana Siwash: The Function and Needs of a College Archives.” AmericanArchivist 9 (April 1946): 132-35.Maher, William J, “Improving Archives - Library Relations: User-Centered Solutions to a SiblingRivalry.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 15 (1990): 355-363.Mason, Philip P. “College and University Archives: 1962.” American Archivist 26 (April 1963):162-63.McCrank, Lawrence, ed. Archives and Library Administration: Divergent Traditions andCommon Concerns. New York: Hawthorne Press, 1986.Mearns, David C. “Historical Manuscripts, Including Personal Papers.” Library Trends 5(January 1957): 3 13-21.Mumford, L. Quincy. “Archivists and Librarians: Time for a New Look.” American Archivist33 (July 1970): 269-74.Ormsby, William G. “The Public Archives of Canada, 1948-1968.” Archivaria 15 (Winter 1982-1983): 36-57.Potts, David B. “College Archives as Windows on American Society.” American Archivist 40(January 1977): 43-49.Quinn, Patrick J. “Academic Archivist and Their Current Practice: Some Modest Suggestions.”Georgia Archives 10 (Fall 1982): 14-24.Ratcliff F.W. “Archival Responsibilities of University Libraries.” Journal of Librarianship 12(1980): 71-83.Saffady, W. “University Archives and Records Management Programs: Some OperationalGuidelines.” College and Research Libraries (May 1974): 204-10.Schmidt, William F., and Wilson, Sarah J. “A Practical Approach to University RecordsManagement.” American Archivist 31 (July 1968): 247-63.I ISharman, R.C. “Library Control of Archives.” Australian Library Journal 9 (1960): 125-28.Smith, Wilfred I. “Archives: Mirror of Canada’s Past. Toronto: Published for the PublicArchives of Canada by University of Toronto Press, 1972.______________“Total Archives?: The Canadian Experience.” Archives et Bibliotegues deBelgigue 57 (1986): 323-46.Wilson, Dwight H. “Archives in Colleges and Universities. Some Comments on Data Collectedby the Society’s Committee on College and University Archives.” American Archivist 13(October 1950): 343-50.Society of American Archivists, Committee on College and University Archives. College andUniversity Archives in the United States and Canada. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan, 1972.Stout, Leon J., and Baird, Donald A. “Automation in North American College and UniversityArchives: A Survey.” American Archivist 47 (Fall 1984): 394-404.Sweeney, Shelley. “Riding Off in All Directions: College and University Archives in Canada.”Paper presented at the Society of American Archivist’s Conference, Chicago, 8 August1986. (Photocopy).Symons, T.H.B. “Archives and Canadian Studies.” Archivaria 15 (Winter 1982-1983): 58-69.Tweedale, Dellene M. “Procurement and Evaluation of Materials for a University Archives.”College and Research Libraries. 26 (November 1965): 5 17-24.The University of British Columbia, Office of Community Relations. President’s Report on theLibrary. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia, 1987.Warner, Robert M “The Status of College and University Archives.” American Archivist 31(July 1968): 235-37.Wilson, Ian E. “Shortt and Doughty: The Cultural Rise of the Public Archives of Canada, 1904-193 5.” The Canadian Archivist 3 (1973): 4-25.___“Canadian University Archives.” Archivaria 3 (Winter 1976-1977): 18-27.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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