AZSITE Consortium Meeting

Thursday, April 15, 1999

ARI, Tempe

Minutes

Participants:

1. Discussion of format for future meetings:

There was extensive discussion of structuring the conduct of AZSITE business in a more formal manner in an effort to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Arizona’s open meetings law does not apply to AZSITE as it is not a "public body" as defined by the law, per Rozen. However, the group determined that adopting certain aspects of open meetings procedures, such as Roberts Rules of Order would be beneficial. Additionally, it shall be consortium policy to establish and publish a meeting agenda ahead of the meeting and then allow public input in the form of questions or comments only for a set period of time at the end of the meeting, per open meetings law.

After extensive discussion of meeting frequency, Barton moved that there shall be quarterly meetings of the AZSITE consortium and that the meetings emulate open meeting guidelines and follow Roberts Rules of Order. The motion was passed unanimously by all present, acting as a committee of the whole for the purposes of this meeting.

There was a second motion to develop subcommittees to deal with specific issues and that the subcommittees would meet as necessary, but at least once in the interim between quarterly meetings. This motion was approved unanimously.

In further discussion, it was decided that the committees shall not establish policy but shall only bring recommendations to the quarterly meetings for a decision by the consortium. Decision-making will be by consensus of the directors of the four consortium member agencies, or the directors’ designees. Wilcox suggested that each consortium member agency director formally designate one staff who may exercise the director’s vote. No one dissented. Barton noted that in cases where an outside agency appeals a decision made by the AZSITE consortium, consensus decision making may not be adequate.

Wilcox moved that a database management committee (the "technical" committee) be made a standing committee; that the systems administrator serves as the chair; and that the committee shall meet quarterly. Barton amended the motion to the effect that the committee shall meet at least quarterly and that it may invite others to its meetings, as necessary. Savage seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.

There was general consensus to accept McCartney’s suggestion of three standing committees: database (the ‘technical’ committee), management (to handle licensing, security, funding and budget), and tribal concerns.

Grindell and Barton moved and seconded the formation of a tribal issues committee, chaired by a consortium member. The motion was approved. Wilcox agreed to facilitate the development of the committee and the designation of a chair.

It was agreed to rotate the chair and recording positions on an annual basis. Barton agreed to serve as chair for the coming year, beginning with the fall meeting (October). Griffith will chair the July meeting. Grindell will serve as recorder for the coming year.

2. ISTEA funding/GITA update

Griffith recapped the status of the ADOT/ASP contract for Enhancement funds and the role that ASP sees the Government Information Technology Agency playing. In summary, ADOT and ASP are working out the details of the ISA between those two agencies that will allow ASP to distribute the Enhancement funds. However, ASP needs to respond to the concerns of GITA about computer purchases before it can actually release the money. The ASP computer staff have reiterated the need for signed ISA’s among SHPO, ASM, and ASU before resubmitting information to GITA. In the meantime, ASP has agreed to release Heritage Funds to ASU and ASM, as none of those requests involved computer equipment purchases. Lindauer noted that ADOT does not view Enhancement funds as subject to GITA review because it is ultimately federal money. However, ASP views the situation differently.

[June 8, 1999, update: Currently, there is a signed ISA between ADOT and SHPO, and the ISA’s between SHPO, ASM, and ASU are in the final stages of negotiation and signing. ASP has determined that since the bulk of the Enhancement funds from ADOT will be passed through to ASU, ASM, and MNA, they do not need GITA review. Only the portion of the funds to go to SHPO for equipment purchases need to be reviewed by GITA.]

3. Multi-jurisdictional data

Lindauer raised the issue of who controls data and data quality, and who is responsible for data entry, in situations where projects cross multiple jurisdictions. Griffith reviewed the provisions of the ISA under negotiation among SHPO, ASM, and ASU:

SHPO shall enter: all negative surveys generated from the federal review and compliance program on federal or private land, and all negative surveys from voluntary compliance on private land; all data from federal and state review and compliance that involves sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are not primarily archaeological; all properties nominated to the Arizona and National Registers; and all surveys and inventories generated through federal Historic Preservation Fund or Arizona Heritage Fund preservation grants.

ASM shall enter: all data related to archaeological projects on state lands, including negative surveys, federal project and survey information where archaeological sites have been identifed; and all data generated by ASM’s archaeological research.

ASU shall enter all data generated by its archaeological research.

McCartney clarified the use of the term "data entry." While all participating agencies are doing data entry for the legacy data, in the future all data will be entered into AZSITE standalone databases by contractors and then reviewed by the land manager for data accuracy will review the data for technical adequacy and append it to the database. Therefore, for legacy data, the consortium agencies enter what they have, checking for accuracy as best possible. For future incoming data, the land managers will be responsible for data accuracy.

Stumpf noted that he prefers that all BLM data continue to be channeled through ASM for uploading to AZSITE, rather than have negative surveys handled by SHPO and surveys with sites handled by ASM.

3. Site numbering

McCartney revisited the issue of the stage at which site numbers are assigned and the desirability of electronically issuing AZ numbers. At this point the issue of which agency assigns numbers and when they assign them complicates getting data into the database. McCartney suggests implementing a program through which anyone who needs numbers can log into AZSITE and obtain AZ numbers. The program would record minimal information (recorder, institution, location) and assign AZ numbers. The recorder/institution obtaining the number is responsible for completing the record later. Stumpf supported the idea, ASM supports it, and McCartney said that Linda Martin (ASNF) and Pilles (Coconino NF) support it, as well.

[A decision was not made on this. Perhaps the database committee should make a formal recommendation for the committee’s decision at the July meeting.]

4. ISA review

Garza raised the issue of what happens if a consortium member, specifically ASU, drops out of the project. Griffith noted that the equipment and database revert to another consortium agency but that does not determine which agency will assume ASU responsibilities. Barton suggested that ¶C be added to §VIII of the ISA, stating that duties as well as equipment be redistributed to other partners. Wilcox suggested the issue be tabled.

5. The next meeting was scheduled for July 15, 1999, at ARI. Under the quarterly schedule, subsequent meetings will be in October, January, and April.