1. The meeting was called to order shortly after 9:30 am. Owen Lindauer requested a clarification of the previous meeting’s discussion of "data entry" as opposed to "data insertion." "Data entry" involves the creation of a digital file and can be done by anyone. Only ASM or the SHPO will be inserting the data into the database, after others have created it. After this one clarification, the minutes of the April, 1999, meeting were approved unanimously.

2. Grants status report: Carol Griffith announced that the interagency service agreements between ADOT and Arizona State Parks for SHPO were signed and in effect, as are agreements among ASP and ASM and ASU. Rozen and Lindauer requested copies of the agreements.

3. Database committee report: Peter McCartney, Brett Hill, Ian Robertson, Gary Stumpf, Noland Wiggings, Steve Erdmann, and Rick Karl, constituting the database committee, met on June 28 at ARI. Peter sketched out a flow chart of the process of getting data into AZSITE.

Data creation will happen in the ACCESS stand alone database and in a series of seven .shp files (two each, line, point and polygon files, for sites and surveys and one polygon file for historic districts). The instructions and software for these are available for downloading from the AZSITE website.

Data should be reviewed by the appropriate land manager for accuracy and then sent via AZSITE’s anonymous FTP site.

At ASU, the data will be processed through an update/scripting program that will assure technical accuracy and then merged to a SQL server database.

The database will be replicated on servers at ASM and MNA, which allows the ability to filter data that is not available for general viewing (tribal lands data).

Various MapObjects applications and standard reports are in the process of being developed.

McCartney noted that BLM has invested large amounts of money in various Federal Geographic Data Committee grants to develop prototype XML document formats for data exchange across state lines. In response to a comment from Barton on the need to prioritize user applications such as data searches and reports, McCartney noted that there is a two-prong approach. This includes improving existing applications and then adopting Java applications for development of more applications.

4. Establishment of management committee: After some discussion, Barton moved that the AZSITE consortium chair serve concurrently as the head of the management committee to deal with legislation, funding, and agreements, contracts and interagency service agreements. It was further decided (Griffith/Barton) that the committee be comprised of the four AZSITE consortium agency heads, or their designees.

5. Establishment of tribal committee: A memo from David Wilcox was circulated concerning this committee. In response to a question from Lindauer, Smith responded that while the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona should be central to coordinating tribal collaboration with AZSITE, it should be a consortium member who chairs the committee. After general discussion, Barton moved that Griffith and Wilcox should work with the ITCA to arrange a meeting and that Wilcox might want to host it.

6. User agreement (fka licensing agreement): Barton moved that the user agreement be accepted as modified (add signatures to the institutional names page), pending any possible modifications from the new State Parks attorney. The motion was approved unanimously.

7. Tribal participation letter: Barton asked that any comments be sent to him within two weeks.

8. Implications of §41-1008: Griffith recapped the possible implications of this rule, which removes the ability of state agencies to charge fees for mandated services, unless fees are legislatively authorized. As ASM will be charging user fees for AZSITE, Grindell agreed to seek legal clarification of this rule from UA attorneys. Jarrett suggested that since federal agencies will be major users of the file, there needs to be a federal users committee, as a sub-committee of the management committee, and that federal agencies need to figure out how to support the database.

9. Possible new legislation: The need for this was referred to the management committee.

10. Timetable for taking AZSITE public: Barton moved that the web interface be made functional (to include the ability to search projects files, too) and that the backlog of data be in by Oct. 1. On Oct. 1, license ageements and tribal participation letters will be sent out. McCartney suggested that feedback from users be sought via the AZSITE forum, on the AZSITE web page.

14 July 1999
MEMORANDUM

To: AZSITE Consortium

From: David R. Wilcox, facilitator for Committee of AZSITE on Tribal Involvement

Subject: Where AZSITE is today in its cooperation with Arizona's Tribal groups

A principal motive in forming the AZSITE Consortium was to create a Statewide archaeological database that would make the Historic Program in Arizona more efficient. Accordingly, the Consortium has worked to design an effective GIS system that will incorporate site records,
survey data, and historic properties and districts. This system is to be accessed through the internet using passwords. Many federal, state, and local agencies have become partners in this effort, and the
Consortium has had numerous meetings in various parts of the State with many different Tribal groups. Because the problems are complex that need to be solved if the Tribes are to in one way or another participate in an efficient system of making archaeological and historic site data
available to appropriate parties on a statewide basis, and because they are different than those we have encountered with other constituencies, the Consortium decided to establish a standing committee on Tribal involvement with AZSITE. I was delegated to facilitate the formation of
this committee. This memorandum is the first step in that process. My objective here is to set forth what the current situation is, the problems and differences of view that have been identified, and some suggestions for how to move forward.
1. Many Tribes feel strongly that it should be they and only they who decide who has access to archaeological or historic site information from their lands. Because of the way the AZSITE database is designed, however, any user with a password can access all of the database, that
pertaining to Tribal lands and that not. Such examination of a subset of the database for which they have no business seeing would be unethical, and against Consortium rules, but it is electronically
possible. Because the Tribes are apparently not willing to trust that the system used by AZSITE to assign passwords to people is adequate protection of their interests, we have a problem. How is the Consortium to arrange matters so that the Tribes control who is seeing the database
that describes sites from their lands?
2. One solution to this problem is offered by John Welch, TIPO for the White Mountain Apaches. He suggests creating a separate, stand-alone database, structured in the same way as the AZSITE database, to which he would control access. In this approach, the White Mountain data would
not be merged in the AZSITE database, but the goal of a Statewide system would not be compromised either. Several issues need to be resolved for this approach to work. 1) Would SHPO have a password to these stand-alone system, and would they be accessible over the internet?
SHPO would need to have unimpeded access in order to do their job. 2) Would repositories holding collections from the Tribes using such systems have unimpeded access so that they could do their
curation-related tasks? 3) If AZSITE is reconfigured, how would the stand-alone systems stay identical? 4) How many Tribes can afford to create such a stand-alone system:? What are those that cannot to do instead?
3. Because the Consortium does not yet know formally from Tribal officials just what each Tribe wants to do, we are preparing a letter to hopefully solicit answers to that question. There is "legacy" data in AZSITE from Tribal lands. The Consortium hesitates to "clean" or remove that legacy data until it has clear guidance from the Tribes about how they want us to proceed. There is also concern about intellectual property issues. The legacy data was collected under federal permits in
a legitimate way and it is the right of the repositories under those permits to curate that information in the public interest. Arguably, adding it to AZSITE is part of that mandate, particularly since the
repositories do not feel it is possible for them to maintain dual electronic databases. The countervailing view is that a distinction should be made between the "manual" or paper records and the AZSITE electronic database, and that the legacy data from Tribal lands should be confined to the manual system and made accessible only in that form to appropriate researchers. The Administration of the parties to the Consortium have yet to make a formal ruling on these alternative positions.
4. Nevertheless, the Consortium has moved to mitigate the effects of having legacy data in AZSITE by creating a distinction between the "master" database and a "filtered" version of it that is available on the internet. This is, however, only a partial solution. First, it is possible for a clever programmer to "hack" through the filtered database and get into the master database. Second, it is possible that a
Consortium member could give either direct access to the master database or information from it (about sites on Tribal lands) to another person. The Administration of the parties to the Consortium have yet to make a formal ruling on the legitimacy of such actions. Uncertainty about the legitimacy of the Consortium's proposed licensing system, and the proscriptions it would have about "sharing" a password makes one approach to these problems moot.
5. Some Tribes have no internet access, nor even computers that could handle AZSITE queries. Thus even if some Tribes should chose to work directly with AZSITE, and make their site data available, as many Federal, State, and local agencies are, we may have to work cooperatively to find the funding to facilitate those partnerships.

So far as I am aware, these points summarize the current situation. It appears that before going much further with formation of the Tribal Committee, some basic decisions still need to be made by the Consortium. Only then can it give the Committee its marching orders. Supposing that these Administrative positions can be sharply defined, there then will be the task of moving forward. It does not take much reflection to see that this task could be a big one, requiring a considerable amount of correspondence, consultation, show-and-tell, and negotiation. As the Senior Curator of Anthropology at the Museum of Northern Arizona I simply cannot take that on myself, though I can and will happily help to the extent possible. One approach to this problem would to have the Consortium establish a position for an Indian intern whom we would train and who would take on the principal burden of this effort. Given our paucity of funds, we would no doubt have to find
grant money to establish such a position. A case could probably be made for placing such an intern in any one of the four Consortium institutions. The basic issue to address there is, who should have
day-to-day administrative oversight over their activities? Please give these points careful consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

David R. Wilcox
Senior Curator of Anthropology
Museum of Northern Arizona