Home
Managing Mennonite Memory: In Pursuit of a Congregational Records Schedule(Sixth in a series) by Gordon Oyer
One records retention schedule for over 250 separate organizations? Responses to a "customer service" survey have evolved into that very goal. The Central District Conference Historical Committee distributed the survey in mid-1999 to help identify needs of congregations we serve. Its results highlighted "guidance with record retention policies" as their greatest need, and we began to consider how we might meet it.
Dennis Stoesz, in his timely introduction of this MHB series, has aptly put forth systematic records retention and disposition as key to "Managing Mennonite Memory." The series has demonstrated that effective retention/disposition efforts are best guided by thoughtful parameters, usually expressed in the form of a records retention schedule. These schedules help creators and managers of records determine which documents to discard and which to retain in often-limited space. They work best when tailored to an organization's specific circumstances and backed by a central "authority" capable of assuring implementation.
Our committee enjoys neither benefit. We obviously could not design schedules specific to each congregation, and we fill only a limited advisory role. Adding to the task's complexity, we decided to pursue it jointly with the other regional bodies (Ohio, Indiana-Michigan, Illinois conferences) that may soon constitute the Great Lakes Mennonite Conference, rather than issue a conference-specific schedule on the eve of planned merger. With the help of Dennis, we are also testing the current draft among a few congregations. Now, our quest for better information and feedback turns to readers of MHB, as well. After reading this article and reviewing the schedule, please share your thoughts and concerns.
Personal Experiences
When I volunteered to draft a schedule for discussion by the Historical Committee, I anticipated drawing upon several eclectic experiences spanning the past fifteen years. During the mid-1980s, as a University of Illinois staff accountant, I coordinated our office's retention space, overhauled the campus accounting retention schedule (under university archivist and State Records Commission guidance), and attempted to monitor our compliance. I quickly learned that getting administrators to take records retention seriously is no small task, even when backed by state statute. They often receive retention initiatives as annoyances that interfere with their "real" work in the organization. Pressure to complete projects and meet goals can make it seem more effective to adopt "stash-and-purge" records management, followed with pleas of ignorance and/or mercy.
Starting in the late 1980s, research for history graduate studies and co-authorship of a congregational history taught me the value of centrally-retained, well-maintained records for historical inquiry. I also discovered how the quality of a single congregation's records can fluctuate dramatically depending on the inclinations of successive pastors.
Regarding church records, my parents' work as congregational historians exposed me to congregational record keeping at an early age. Later, stints on two conference historical committees (Illinois Mennonite Conference (MC), 1993-1996; Central District Conference (GC), 1998-present) added new perspectives on church records. Here, I helped organize a congregational records workshop and followed up with churches failing to centrally deposit records. Together, these experiences illuminated the diversity of record-keeping interest and practice across congregations.
Finally, though I have never worked as an archivist, I gained insight on the profession's theoretical framework from two 1999 archival courses at the University of Illinois.
Given these various experiences, one might conclude that when the opportunity arose to draft a retention schedule to accommodate so many different congregational and denominational interests, I should have known better than volunteer. Still, the emerging document can hopefully mature into a beneficial resource.
User Considerations
Several documents designed for congregational archivists and historians already exist. Although they have been available to congregations for some time, the survey responses suggested that an additional niche in records guidance needed filling. Consequently, I approached the schedule mainly with those who actually create and file active records in mind, i.e., ministers and secretaries, especially of smaller and understaffed congregations. Also, we anticipated the greatest incremental benefit by accommodating those congregations now disinclined toward retention practices, since those with a stronger interest would already have obtained guidance from existing resources.
At my job, I had encountered views of records retention as a hindrance rather than an aid. I currently perceived similar vibes from some target congregations who hinted that questions about retention practices at best addressed irrelevant busywork that benefits only "historians" or at worst reflected external interference.
Our challenge, then, was to communicate that basic retention practices benefit local congregations here and now-that it could reap programmatic, administrative, and legal (not just historical) benefits. We also needed to convey that the effort would not require enormous resources or impede pastors' pursuits of their congregational mission. In addition, while a schedule should not overwhelm with unrealistic expectations, neither should it imply a standard that would discourage congregations already employing excellent practices. Nor should it interfere with or contradict the efforts of regional archivists to encourage deposits in their repositories.
The ultimate success of the schedule, however, hinged on whether we could encourage otherwise disinterested congregations to simply save important records, regardless of where they retained them. Further, if the schedule had much hope of actual implementation by those least inclined, its length should not exceed a two-sided sheet of paper. In short, we sought content specific enough to be useful, yet broad enough to be widely adaptable.
Constructing the Schedule
I began to prepare the draft by consulting several existing guidelines. These included, among others, my file copy of a schedule for financial records (unattributed); The Task of the Congregational Historian (Historical Committee of the Mennonite Church: Goshen, 1994); Heritage Preservation by David Haury (Historical Committee of the General Conference Mennonite Church and Historical Commission of the Mennonite Brethren Churches: Topeka, 1996); "The Creation and Preservation of Church Records," by Melvin Gingerich and John F. Smith (typescript, n.p., n.d.); "Caring for Church Records," by Lawrence Klippenstein (typescript, Conference of Mennonites in Canada, n.d.). They provided a basic sense of what records were considered important and how long they were typically needed for administrative and legal purposes.
This process helped identify groupings of records: those documenting program details and decision making processes (reports and minutes), publications that portray and disseminate congregational information (bulletins, newsletters, etc.), financial documentation (ledgers, statements, etc.), facility records that document ownership and structural design, and organizational records that address legal status. Groupings like these might offer additional guidance for retention of similar documents not specifically listed. Recommended retention periods often reflect subjective estimates as to how long a particular record might be regularly accessed by administrators.
Appropriate disposition of some records remains unclear, however. For example, should donation records be destroyed when no longer needed for legal documentation? Should they be retained and/or passed on to a regional archives? How do privacy concerns balance with historical value?
In the first draft, I tried to incorporate at least two concepts that were later abandoned. First, I sought to rely on archival language and concepts, discussing the life cycle of a document through active, semi-active, inactive, and disposition stages. Second, I recommended the ultimate "archiving" of a document either in the congregation or a repository.
Feedback from the joint Great Lakes committee indicated this approach was too confusing and unclear about exactly what we expected. Spelling out specific measures seemed preferable to permitting each congregation to derive its own definition of what "archiving" entailed for them. Further, it seemed that we could put limited text space to better use than explaining the theoretical life cycle of documents. Most users simply want to know when it is safe to throw something away.
The second and current draft, then, employs simpler language and explicitly recommends a "two-prong" approach to retention-keep one copy locally and, when appropriate, send a second copy to a regional archives (see schedule). It also encourages ongoing consultation and collaboration with regional archivists, a key relationship we hope all congregations will eventually embrace. This approach of offering generic guidance coupled with regional archival consultation hopefully provides encouragement without contradicting specific deposit practices that regional archivists develop. Toward this end, the document also supplies names and addresses of regional archivists (see box), and lists additional publications offering more detailed guidance.
The document also incorporates short narratives to address problematic areas such as audio-visual materials (in need of special storage conditions), excessive memoranda (some of which can be weeded), and confidential material (saving and restricting is better than destroying).
Electronic Records
We also provide brief guidance for considering electronic records (see box). From an archival perspective, this area poses special challenges. Maintaining records electronically provides enormous benefits. Administratively, word processing and electronic spreadsheet capabilities substantially improve productivity and effectiveness. Email and web-based communication dramatically accelerate our interaction and decision-making. For archives, these media can greatly expand access to documents that previously were limited to a select few with time and money to visit repositories. Without question, electronic media are here to stay as irreplaceable tools and documentary sources.
The archival profession remains cautious about the role of electronic processes for long-term preservation, however. Rapid changes in software and hardware can quickly render some forms of electronic records virtually inaccessible if they are not converted to new formats. Original electronic records can be altered-intentionally or otherwise-more easily than paper or microfilm. They also require special environments to minimize deterioration, which occurs at a rate faster than acid-free paper or microfilm. The dangers of fire and silverfish that plague traditional records are replaced by those of magnetic fields and hardware crashes. Only experimentation and passage of time can reveal the ultimate potential for electronic record preservation methods.
Archives themselves have varying capabilities for investing in and supporting access to the various electronic records now being generated by our congregations. One effort toward a solution within the world of Mennonite records involves collaboration between mennonite.net and the Archives of the Mennonite Church to provide web-based archiving and electronic records management guidance for congregations. Because of their diverse practices and complexities, we especially invite readers' feedback on the electronic records implications of our schedule.
In conclusion, I have found the effort to develop a congregational schedule educational and rewarding, though still incomplete. Its development continues this fall as the Great Lakes committees renew discussion of the schedule. Please join us in the process by sharing your perspectives.
Gordon Oyer is an Assistant Director of Accounting for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and serves on the Central District Conference Historical Committee. Comments on the retention schedule may be sent to him at 110 Flora Drive, Champaign, IL 61821, or goyer@uiuc.edu.
Mennonite Historical Bulletin, October 2000