1

Renae Rapp
IST 660
Final Paper- AARP, Schenectady County Chapter #490
May 1, 2017
The challenges of processing Chapter #490 collection
When an archivist processes a collection, there are multitudes of challenges one may

face; there may be documents that should be restricted, 3-D objects, or the collection may have a

difficult to define original order. In the case of processing the American Association of Retired

Person, Schenectady County Chapter, #490 (Chapter #490), the original order seemed chaotic to

a first time processer. Upon first look, the records were in folders and binders, however, one year

could be mixed with other years in multiple folders. For example, Executive Board meeting

minutes created in 1988 were found in two folders with other types of documents from another

year. The entire collection seemed to have documents interwoven throughout them.
Like most repositories, the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collection and

Archives uses MPLP techniques. Jodi Boyle explained that the archives keeps staples but

removes paper clips, and if a newspaper clipping is too large, it will be photocopied, but smaller

newspaper clipping can lined with buffer paper. Another function of MPLP that Jodi advised me

to use, was to not impose an order on the records. While I wanted to put all Executive Board

meeting minutes from 1988 together in one folder and separated from the treasurers reports, for

example, it would take more time than I had as well as dismiss the original order. At first glance,

the records seemed have the potential to have an Administration series with sub-series for the

two oversized objects. However, creating a series of Administration files would require me to

impose an order to the collection, which as discussed before, would take up too much time. Later

on I realized the original order of Chapter #490 reflected the organization and by keeping this

order the collection is better represented as an archival collection to the researcher.

 2

During the initial inventory it became clear that these records were created by many

members of Chapter #490 and were possibly collected years after the records were created. Some

folders labeled Meeting Minutes 1975-1977, included treasurers reports, and The Reporter

(the chapters newsletter). The dates of these documents went well beyond 1977. In some cases,

it seemed a binder was initially created to hold two consecutive years of meeting minutes, but

later on, other records from later periods were added. Upon discussion with Jodi, I decided to

keep the general chronological order the records were received as, and write a strong Scope and

Content note for future researchers and archivists.

After immersing myself in the collection, with re-foldering and re-writing titles of old

folders and binders, an intellectual order was created. The folders would hold similar items,

meeting minutes, The Reporter, treasurers reports, newspaper clippings, etc. and be arranged

chronological order. While it may take the researcher sometime to find a specific record, they

could narrow down their search to two or three folders that include records in the correct date

range. During our class lecture, it was clear the role of the processor was to hold themselves

accountable for their actions on how they processed, organized, and described a collection. I felt

the pressure to make my voice heard in the Scope and Content note, to explain why the

collection does not have an imposed order, and how similarly titled folders hold more than what

is included in the title.

During the entire processing project, I felt self-conscious about my work and decisions on

how I processed the collection. While I had Jodi to reassure me, I also looked to other processing

projects with similar challenges. The main challenge was original order, how do I process a

collection while maintaining the original order and make it accessible to researchers?

Literature
Jennifer Meehans article, Rethinking Original Order and Personal Records, challenges

archivists using original order in processing personal records. While the article focuses on
 3

processing personal records, her ideas and example relate to the challenges dealt with in the

Chapter #490 collection. The nature of Chapter #490 collection reflected the nature of the

collection examples provided by Meehan. Meehan challenges the concept of original order as the

main framework in processing a personal collection. She introduces the idea that personal

collections should be processed using original order as a conceptual framework,

concentrating on the theoretical aspects of the concept and the spirit behind the
principle, this article rethinks original order as a conceptual framework for
elucidating context, and suggests how it facilitates a top-down approach for
analyzing a body of personal records regardless of whether or not there is a
consistent, discernible order.1

Meehan claims that original order is easy to interpret too narrowly and render practically

irrelevant, especially in arranging and describing personal records. At first, I almost fell for this

trap that original order implements when processing Chapter #490. It was daunting, believing

that the order in which the folders came in would potentially stay that way, or I would have to

reorganize the entire collection. However, Meehan notes that original order limits the fact that

the archival concept of original order, does not address what to do with, or even how to think

about, records that lack a consistent, discernible order, which in the case more often than not

with personal records, or in my case, Chapter #490 records.2 While it appeared there was an

order to the records, chronological, the records were spread out into multiple folders, which lead

me to believe there was more than one organizer for this collection.
There are a few theories to how this collection was organized. One of those theories being that

the records were created by chapter secretaries or presidents and organized by those people in

folders intended to hold two years worth of records. However, upon donation (or perhaps long

1 Jennifer Meehan, Rethinking Original Order and Personal Records.

Archivaria 70 (2010): 27.

2 Meehan, Rethinking Original Order and Personal Records. Archivaria 70

(2010): 31.
 4

before that), another member added materials to those folders, possibly for space or time

concerns, which made the initial folder titles inaccurate. Meehan argues that a collection changes

order throughout the lifecycle,

differences include the ways in which records are created, used, and maintained
initially and over time by the creator (personal recordkeeping); the ways in which
records are used, maintained, and transmitted by subsequent custodians (custodial
history); and the ways in which records are treated once in archival custody, event
before being formally processed (archival intervention) 3

I believe the Chapter #490 collection had gone through similar changes.
One could speculate that the meeting minutes of Chapter #490 were created by the

secretary, typically most meeting minutes are. However, the meeting minutes change format over

time along with The Reporter, which concludes that while records may have been created by

members of a certain position, the member who hold that position changes and therefore the

format changes. Not only does the format of the records change, but also the use and importance

of those records change. The custodial history of Chapter #490 is how the collection was

organized. The creators of Chapter #490 collection were members of the organization; however,

the records could have been collected by members after the chapter disbanded or during the

chapters lifetime. This means there could have been one sole collector or a group of collectors,

all with different ideas of organizing the records. While Meehan argues that the records order is

also changed by archival intervention, in the case of Chapter #490, the order seems to be mostly

influenced by the donor. While the collection may have changed order over a period, the

outcome of a processed Chapter #490 collection must reflect the organizations functions and

value as an archival collection.

Meehan quotes Chris Hurleys argument that the value of original order for personal

records is the insights it gives into the purposes and activities, which the records originally

3 Ibid., 32.
 5

served, and does not depend on its efficiency as filing or retrieval systems.4 This quote directly

relates to a few records in the Chapter #490 collection. One set of records in particular are thank

you and get well cards given to members of the chapter by the sunshine committee. The sunshine

committee dedicated themselves to the wellbeing of members by sending cards and keeping the

chapter informed of their progress through an ailment.

The sunshine committee was mentioned in meeting minutes and had their own records.

However, the sunshine committee records only had a list of names, these name could have been

committee members or card recipients. These cards were not directly placed with sunshine

committee records, in some cases the records were in the same folder and in other the records

were not. If the cards were removed, a researcher would only find the sunshine committee

records, which typically included a list of members with no notion of a card or ailment. Without

the cards, the context of the sunshine committee would potentially be lost. Records do not say

what they are, instead records hold clues. Without the cards and the sunshine committee records

together in the collection, there would be no definitive way to understand the function of the

committee.
Meehan suggests that archivists should think of original order instead as a top-down

approach, rather than being concerned with identifying and preserving the existing relationships

between and among records, archivists should analyze and imaging the possibly relationships

between records and activities.5 She introduces the idea that original order should be thought of

as a conceptual framework. Conceptual framework is not necessarily on preserving the order of

the records in which the creator maintained them; the idea adheres to the spirit behind the

4 Chris Hurley, Personal Papers and the Treatment of Archival Principles, in

Debates and Discourses: Selected Australian Writings on Archival Theory,
1951-1990, eds. Peter Biskup et al. (Canberra, 1995): 149.

5 Meehan, Rethinking (2010): 36.

 6

principle by facilitating a process aimed at explaining the context(s) within which the records

were created, in the broadest sense. Essentially, Meehans conceptual framework encourages

archivists to acknowledge that the process is really one of creating the relationships that give

meaning to a body of records.

Conceptual framework challenges archivists to think not of what the records creator is

doing, but how and why. Looking back at processing the Chapter #490 collection, I occasionally

ran into pamphlets, correspondence, and other records that did not seem to be created by Chapter

#490. These records pertained to Medicare and prescription drugs and were usually created by

AARP national organization or New York legislation. These records alone gave me insight to

what was most important to the members of Chapter #490 without reading the meeting minutes.

As part of the MPLP technique, I did not fully read the records; instead, I took note of formats.

The meeting minutes, for example, have the same format through majority of the chapters

lifetime. These outlier records did not fit the regular formats I had been seeing; however, they

filled a gap in my finding aid; what were the functions of Chapter #490? Meehan further drives

my point that records show more than just what an organization was, but what purpose an

organization had,
Having a sense, on the one hand, of the forms and functions of the records in a
given fond and, on the other hand, of the processes and intent behind the creators
main activities makes it possible for the archivist to imagine the particular points
of intersection between the record-keeping and personal business or creative
processes of the creator those points being when the actual records were likely
created, accumulated, maintained, and/or used by the creator.6

Meehan ends her argument for conceptual framework by claiming that the processing is

multidirectional. The conceptual framework can be top down, from what one knows about

context to what one does not know about how the creator or subsequent custodians might have

ordered or shaped the records. It can be horizontally, a term used by Meehan, from what one

6 Ibid., 40.
 7

knows of functional context, or how the creator shaped the records, to what one does not know

of other contextualities. Conceptual framework can also be processed from the outside in; from

what one knows of the history of records to what one does not know about the function of a

particular record format in a given collection.

Andrew J. Young personal papers case study
While the literature and case study focus on personal papers, both sources relate with the

challenges faced in Chapter #490 processing. Cheryl Oestreicher wrote an article about how she

processed the Andrew J. Young collection using MPLP techniques, she also practices Meehans

conceptual framework while processing the collection. While the Andrew J. Young collection is

significantly larger than the Chapter #490 collection by a couple hundred of boxes, the MPLP

method is more prominent in Oestreichers article. Comparing her article to how I used MPLP,

we both took papers out of binders, weeded bank statements, and protected photos in photo

sleeves instead of removing the item. In contrast, her collection had twelve series while mine has

none, due to nature and size.

Instead of using the MPLP method of arranging series in the finding aid and leaving

folders in their respected boxes, allowing a series to spread across multiple boxes, Oestreicher

physically arranged the entire collection. Since my collection is significantly smaller, I was able

to physically arrange the entire collection as well. While Oestreicher arranged every record, I

kept the records in their respected folders and rearranged the folders in chronological order. Our

use of MPLP may differ due to the nature of our collections, however, we both arranged the

collection with a question in mind; how would a researcher search for a record in this collection?
While Oestreicher was creating folders, if one folder became full another was created

behind it. There was no arrangement within the folders and the folders included an entire date

span, instead of being separated by chronological order. There a few folders in my collection in

which the original folder was over stuffed and I separated the contents to fit into two folders. The
 8

titles and date ranges were the same for each folder. We both had the idea that a research was

more likely to search for a subject in a year span rather than a specific record created in a certain

year.
In dealing with newspaper clippings, MPLP dismisses photocopying clippings and

instead inserting acid free paper, with the notion that a repository facility is temperature and

humidity controlled. While the M.E. Grenander facility is temperature and humidity controlled,

Jodi had me photocopy newspaper clippings that were glued onto acidic paper and oversized

newspaper clippings. The Chapter #490 collection did not have 50 linear feet of newspaper

clippings like the Young collection did, however there were a significant amount of clippings in

the Chapter #490 collection which needed to be dealt with.

The Young collection and Chapter #490 collection could not be any more different;

however, the processing of these collections had similar outcomes. The MPLP techniques were

used when needed and both collections seemed to have been organized by different hands. Along

with the MPLP technique, Oestreicher utilized the conceptual framework to answer unknown

questions about the organization, arrangement and description of the records. Throughout

Oestreichers process, she used many approaches mentioned by Meehan. She used a top down

approach when creating the series, and an outside in approach in identifying certain records.

Oestreicher and I had to change our approaches throughout our entire process of processing our

collections.
Conclusion
Throughout the semester, a major theme of the lectures was accountability. How

archivists are held accountable for their actions when processing a collection and when making

that collection accessible. In the case of processing the Chapter #490 collection, the Scope and

Content note of the finding aid had to explain why the collection was organized in chronological

order and also had folders of similar titles. While I cannot fully explain my approach in
 9

processing the collection, I was able to state what records were in folders beyond the folder title

and how the collection was arranged in chronological order.

Understanding Meehans conceptual framework allows me to understand the

complexities of processing a collection. There is no single way to approach processing a

collection, no matter the size or content. While original order is fundamental in archival studies,

there are other frameworks that can fill in the gaps left by original order. Aa Meehan and

Oestreicher both pointed out; in processing a collection, one will use different approaches.

Working on Chapter #490, I learned how those approaches come into play throughout the entire

process of processing.

Work Cited

1. Hurley, Chris. Personal Papers and the Treatment of Archival

Principles, in Debates and Discourses: Selected Australian Writings on

Archival Theory, 1951-1990, eds. Peter Biskup et al. (Canberra, 1995).

 10

2. Meehan, Jennifer. Rethinking Original Order and Personal Records. Archivaria 70 (Fall

2010): 27-44.
3. Oestreicher, Cheryl. Personal Papers and MPLP: Strategies and Techniques. Archivaria

76 (Fall 2013): 93-110.