LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARCHIVES Archives


ARCHIVES Archives

ARCHIVES Archives


ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARCHIVES Home

ARCHIVES Home

ARCHIVES  August 2006, Week 1

ARCHIVES August 2006, Week 1

Subject:

LONG--Archives, management and contextual sophistication [was CA Exam]

From:

[log in to unmask]

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:06:37 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (340 lines)

I am not a CA -- and I haven't actually worked as an archivist for 16 
years, although my current Historian position touches on archival 
issues still, from time to time. So, on the question asked about 
becoming a CA, I defer to those who have taken the exam (I'm enjoying 
reading your postings, in fact.)   And to those who hire archivists.  
Certification, its pros and cons, isn't an area I'm well equipped to 
speak on.  My training experiences go back too far, to the 1970s.

But, for anyone who is interested in debating another and somewhat 
related issue, I'd like to broaden the question about the CA exam to 
the larger question of how to capture varied perspectives while 
discussing archival issues in other forums.    I think it is very 
challenging to provide "contextual sophistication" on some archival 
issues.    In fact, I noticed this at SAA, which I attended last week.  
  Let me say up front that I enjoyed most of the panel sessions I 
attended.  (And it was a lot of fun for me to talk about my career at 
NARA at the Women Archivists Roundtable, they were very kind to invite 
me and I loved meeting them!)  And all of my official and unofficial 
contacts with present NARA officials were very pleasant, indeed.  (It 
was nice to see many old friends and to make some new ones.)  I learned 
a lot.  But I found the format of many of the sessions somewhat 
limiting.  In some cases, I would like to have seen more give-and-take 
between listeners and panel members than was possible in the panel 
format.  We learned from the panel but in some cases, those on the 
panel could have learned from some people in audience.  It would have 
helped add context to some of the sessions.  I wanted to hear more, and 
not just from the people sitting on the panel.

Here are some lengthy observations, intended both for those who sat on 
panels and/or in the audience, and for those who are putting together 
proposals for future sessions.  Most of these comments are geared 
towards how to get more give and take and more audience participation.  
  Maybe the current panel format is best, I don't know.  I've been too 
far away from SAA for too long, maybe all of this has come up before.  
I'm just looking for ways to refine the setup of some of the sessions.  
So, with a deep breath, and apologies for the long musings, here goes.

ASKING QUESTIONS THROUGH THE CHAIR

I asked fewer questions at the panel sessions than I had intended, for 
a couple of reasons. The lack of a microphone which questioners could 
use meant we relied on the chair of each session to repeat our 
questions "for the record." (Most of the sessions were being recorded, 
of course.)   I haven't been to SAA in some 10 years, I dropped out for 
a long time, then re-joined last year.  And renewed my membership 
belatedly, late in July right before SAA, in fact.  So, I'm very hazy 
on format.   I remember at one session I attended in 1993, questioners 
rose from their seats and walked up to a stationary mike in the aisle.  
That way, we were able to ask our questions directly back then.  I 
didn't see this setup anywhere this year.  We went through the chair.   
Did anyone else find the reliance on a chair to repeat questions to be 
somewhat of a challenge?

Some times I worked with that challenge, other times I didn't even 
bother.

The "chair repeats the question" format seems to work best with simple, 
one- or two-sentence questions, or ones without a lot of carefully 
calibrated nuance.  I found that it really doesn't work very well when 
someone wants to comment at length or add another, perhaps complicated, 
perspective to the question at hand.  (I know the panel members would 
have heard the questions, but the questions would only appear on the 
recordings in the manner in which they were repeated by the chair.)  
Maybe I shouldn't have let that stop me.  But it did.  As you all know, 
asking a one sentence, one-layer question definitely is not me!

I did ask one question at the session on security classified records 
(http://www.archivists.org/conference/dc2006/dc2006prog-Session.asp?event
=1757 ).  I cited two GAO reports about improper removal of documents 
by Executive Branch officials and asked whether more shouldn't be done 
at the front end to strengthen the framework for handling security 
classified records, to avoid having to deal with problems at the back 
end. (GAO noted that reviews of departing officials' papers, if done at 
all, may be done by subordinates who may feel unable to challenge the 
senior officials.  In 1991, GAO discussed what NARA does in these cases 
and recommended a stronger oversight role.  Had I had a microphone, I 
would have expanded on that.  I would have added that it can be 
difficult to confront Cabinet level or SES officials, but doing so 
within the government at the point at which they may try to walk away 
with documents is a better solution than forcing lower level employees 
to scramble to discover and to try to fix the situation later. There's 
just too much opportunity for scapegoating and finger pointing, 
although fortunately that did not seem to occur with the Jackson 
papers.  Everyone seems to have held up their ends well at the 
University of Washington.)

But that was one of the few times I asked a question during a panel.

COMPOSITION OF PANELS

The Secrecy Vs. Access session was good but would have been even more 
interesting, had a government official been present on the panel.   
Instead, all the speakers were from the private sector and were pretty 
much like-minded.   (See 
http://www.archivists.org/conference/dc2006/dc2006prog-Session.asp?event=
1732 .  That being the case, there was no one on the panel to respond 
when one of the panel members stated that advocates for public access 
rely on archivists to speak up and reach out to them.  If I understood 
correctly, he basically urged archivists to do more in this area.  Had 
I been on the panel, I would have pointed out that reaching out from 
within can be very diffifficult to do.  Some employers can make it very 
difficult for people to work their way through ethical issues.  Loyalty 
and message discipline naturally are prized by many executive branch 
political appointees.  And by private sector employers, for that 
matter.  Had I been on the panel, I would have asked how easy anyone 
ever finds it to break message discipline and to reach out to external 
parties from within his or her organization.  Would Blanton do that, 
for example, if something went awry with his collection at GWU or with 
his colleagues at his Archives?  Before asking people within government 
to do that, shouldn't advocates urge government agencies to strengthen 
internal mechanisms for resolving issues?  From the audience, without a 
microphone, I couldn't speak to that.  So, I just let it go -- and 
those points remained unaddressed.

Similarly, it would have been interesting to have an access advocate 
present on the panel which dealt with how NARA handled the Roberts and 
Alito records 
(http://www.archivists.org/conference/dc2006/dc2006prog-Session.asp?event
=1725).  Someone to represent what the research public expects from 
NARA.  And to offer questions or commentary on what the panelists 
discussed.   Instead, all four panel members (Jim Hastings, Steve 
Tilley, Nancy Smith, and Michael Duggan) were NARA employees.

Neither Nancy Smith nor Michael Duggan -- both employees of NARA's 
Office of Presidential Libraries -- mentioned the manner in which White 
House representatives worked with records at the Reagan Library -- and 
the subsequent disappearance of a file.  (See the links earlier this 
year at
http://listserv.muohio.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0605B&L=ARCHIVES&P=R12763
&I=-3 ).    I was curious as to whether the Presidential Libraries' 
reps would mention the missing file and noted with interest that they 
didn't bring this up, although it had been discussed both in the press 
and on this List.    As an aside, I wonder if Sharon Fawcett would have 
mentioned it, had she been the speaker who represented the Office of 
Presidential Libraries.  (Ms. Fawcett is the Assistant Archivist for 
Presidential Libraries.)  We'll never know.

I should add that I was fascinated by the way Ms. Smith referred during 
her presentation several times to the "Presidential world" as opposed 
to the "Federal world" at NARA.  I worked briefly with Nancy Smith in 
1989 -- we didn't have a great deal of contact then, as she was an 
assistant to John Fawcett and worked downtown in the central office, 
whereas I was at the Nixon Project, then at the NARA annex in 
Alexandria, VA.  But I don't remember anyone at NARA using the terms 
"Presidential world" and "Federal world" to distinguish between units 
(or cultures?) within the agency.  (Of course, the President is the 
executive in charge of administering Federal laws as a whole.)  I 
recognized then (and still do) that different statutes control access 
to different materials held by NARA.  But, in my mind at least, when I 
worked for the National Archives, I always just saw myself as a NARA 
employee.  I simply felt a sense of common mission with my archival 
colleagues in other NARA units, centered on the objective and 
professional handling of all the records the agency holds in trust for 
the American people, nothing more, nothing less.   Had a higher level 
official been on the panel, such as Dr. Weinstein, I might have asked 
about that.

As an aside, of the speakers I heard at SAA, I would single out two.  I 
especially would commend Harry Cooper, the CIA representative. And in 
the Roberts-Alito panel, it was Jim Hastings, NARA's Director of Access 
Programs, who really shone. Hastings and Cooper both leavened their 
presentations with self deprecating humor, occasional candid glimpses 
of how they dealt with people inside and outside their organiztions, 
and a light touch which enhanced rather than distracted from discussion 
of serious issues.  Both sounded at ease with what they had done and 
were describing to us.  And neither sounded defensive, or as if he was 
giving a paper which read like a press release.  You wouldn't 
necessarily expect that from a CIA representative, but Mr. Cooper held 
my attention and made me laugh out loud  and nod several times.

Of course, I should acknowledge that I once worked for Jim Hastings at 
NARA, and found him during the 1980s to be one of NARA's best managers. 
  His subordinates liked the fact that he never took himself too 
seriously.  And researchers seemed to like him also.  I'm sure the 
people who work for and with him today would agree with my assessment, 
those types of skills and aptitudes don't change over the decades!

CHALLENGES OF USING THIRD PARTY CHAIRS

I recognize that those who teach archives and information mangement try 
to use the case study approach and other means to examine "real life" 
issues.  SAA would seem to be a place where we all can share our 
experiences and learn from what others have experienced.  But, the 
extent to which panel members interacted with the audience seemed quite 
limited, except where there was an actual "roundtable" set-up.

Some of the questions I intended to ask at panel sessions would have 
been complex and might have relied on my first including a couple of 
sentences of context or background, before asking my question.  As you 
all know, I've been working in Washington for a long time. I know 
something of how NARA was affected by the Clinton-era National 
Peformance Review and by the flattening of its supervisory structure; 
by external mandates; by political issues,  etc.  But I refrained from 
asking questions in some cases because, after watching how chairs 
summarized questions in various sessions, I concluded that the chair, 
no matter how skilled, might leave out some things in repeating my 
questions for the record.   The format just didn't seem right for 
asking long questions and for having much give and take..

This was especially the case at the "Managing Change in Archives" 
session, where the chair was a third party contractor (from Lockheed 
Martin, I think).  I had the sense she was a change management expert 
who brought a generic background to the panel.  I concluded, rightly or 
wrongly, that it would be hard to squeeze my perceptions of NARA into a 
question she could distill for the panel.  (The three speakers all had 
archival experience.  There was one NARA official on the panel, 
Fynnette Eaton of NARA.  Fynnette did very well  -- she really knows 
her stuff!  I learned a lot from hearing her presentation).

Yet -- I would have asked a number of questions at that session, if I 
could have used a mike to address the speakers directly.  I'm thinking 
of issues such as how do you reconcile an agency-driven initiative, 
such as ERA, that requires collaboration, with externally imposed  
initiatives, such as "pay for performance?"   No initiative occurs in a 
vacuum, there is a lot else going on, of course.  The Department of 
Homeland Security and DOD presently are working their way through how 
to implement pay for performance and broad banding initiatives.  This 
seems to be the wave of the future in terms of managing employees' 
performance.  If these approaches eventually are applied throughout the 
rest of the executive branch, including at NARA, they will link each 
employee's yearly pay raises to his or her individual performance.  Has 
NARA thought through how to reconcile this approach with the 
colloborative demands of ERA?  (Of course, if it moves to pay for 
performance, NARA wouldn't use a forced ranking approach such as the 
one that Jack Welch used at GE.  But, especially with a limited budget, 
where it couldn't rate everyone "outstanding," how would it apply 
performance based pay in an environment that will depend increasingly 
on collaboration in performing work?)

Also, some change is planned, some change is unexpected.   Just think 
of what has happened at federal agencies since 9/11, for example.  Or 
what happens in private sector organizations during downsizing.   I was 
curious to hear from all the panel members as to whether there was a 
tipping point at which employees might find it hard to absorb 
simultaneous internally and externally driven changes.  (Consider the 
formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which brought 
together a number of previously discrete entitites.  At the time of 
9/11, some of these agencies already were going through the 
introduction of new technology initiatives. And challenges relating to 
an impending wave of retirements, with the need for succession planning 
and knowledge transfer.  And the problems that can occur "when 
generations collide."  Now they face pay for performance and broad 
banding.  Does the need to adjust to several types of change at the 
same time undermine any of the initiatives?  Is there a point where 
employees psychologically say, "no more, let me stop and get my breath, 
will ya?  I need to feel rooted in something, anything.  Don't take it 
all away from me."  When that happens, how do you handle that?  Do you 
just wait for the older employees to retire?  And rely on younger 
employees who never knew "the old ways?"  With so much change swirling 
around them, what is the hest way to successfully send retirees out the 
door, valued for what they did and feeling justifiably proud of what 
they accomplished during decades of good public service, rather than 
feeling unwanted?  I actually have some ideas on that, but this message 
is getting way too long and that would be off topic.)

I generally would have liked to have heard more about the prism through 
which employees view efforts to sell them initiatives.  Suzanne Long, a 
professor who spoke at the "Managing Change in Archives" panel, 
mentioned that 75% of technology initiatives fail.   But she never 
closed the loop.  She didn't address the corrosive effect that can have 
on employees.  The overselling of initiatives is a problem everywhere, 
but especially in Washington, where government officials are unlikely 
to tell appropriators and oversight officials what went wrong.  They 
even may believe that it is dangerous politically to even admit that an 
initiative was flawed, either in planning or in implementation.  So, 
they they may feel tempted to emphasize what is working well and to 
rely on spin control to handle what happ[ened in the past.

What does this do to agency credibility, internally?  To what extent 
can agency officials candidly examine the failure of past initiatives 
or change mangement efforts?  What happens if they keep using the same 
selling and marketing tactics ("This will be the greatest thing since 
sliced bread!!!") time and again, without taking into account the 
potential for employee tune-out?  At what point does a credibility 
problem occur, if, as Ms. Long asserts, so many initiatives fall flat?  
She said 75 to 80% fail.  Keep in mind, I'm asking this generally, in 
terms of management science, not about NARA in particular.   I haven't 
worked at NARA since 1990 and haven't heard much about it since 2001, 
when my sis died.

People are different, of course.  I know as far as I'm concerned, I'd 
rather listen to a boss who says, "You know, we promised you the moon 
last time, and it didn't work.  We've tried to learn from that.  In 
fact, we're not perfect, we know that, you certainly know that, but we 
are comitted to continuous improvement.  We get that we can't do this 
by imposing our ideas from the top.  We need you to help us do better.  
Help us out, work with us in setting this up right this time."  I tend 
to think that the techniques that work in family counseling, such as 
validating differing perspectives, also work in the workplace.

When I saw that Ms. Long was scheduled to talk about "human factors," I 
had hoped for discussion of these sorts of issues.  That didn't occur.  
I briefly considered trying to broaden the discussion from the floor.   
But, rightly or wrongly I didn't feel I could feed any of my questions 
through the Lockheed Martin contractor who was acting as chair.  So, I 
didn't offer any comments at all or ask any questions at the "Managing 
Change" panel session.  I just didn't see any way to broaden the focus 
of the panel or to provide more context for the issues under 
discussion.  I might have been able to do that in a different setting 
(in fact, I did speak up at the excellent seminar on managing archives 
that Michael Kurtz did on Saturday morning), but not in the one that 
was used for the panel.

Did anyone else feel, not at the Managing Change panel, but at any of 
the panel sessions, that a chair might not capture all the nuances of 
your questions?  Or that it was difficult to offer extended comments 
 from the floor?  After all, you bring differing perspectives and 
expertise to SAA, reflecting the differing institutions for which you 
work.  I for one would like to have heard more of that from you on the 
floor than I was able to hear during most of the panel sessions.

All of which is a very long way of saying, context and nuance DO 
matter, but even at an event such as SAA, it can be challenging to work 
through all their complexities.  I'm not surprised to hear that it can 
be a problem on the CA exam.

Maarja Krusten
Former NARA Nixon tapes archivist






________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email 
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2010, Week 4
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 5
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 5
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 5
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004, Week 2
September 2004, Week 1
August 2004, Week 5
August 2004, Week 4
August 2004, Week 3
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 5
July 2004, Week 4
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 5
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
April 2004, Week 2
April 2004, Week 1
March 2004, Week 5
March 2004, Week 4
March 2004, Week 3
March 2004, Week 2
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 5
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 3
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 5
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
June 2003, Week 1
December 2001, Week 5
December 2001, Week 4
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 4
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 2
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 5
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 5
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 4
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
May 2001, Week 2
May 2001, Week 1
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 4
April 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 2
April 2001, Week 1
March 2001, Week 5
March 2001, Week 4
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
January 2001, Week 1
December 2000, Week 5
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 5
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 5
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 5
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 5
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 5
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 5
December 1998, Week 4
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 5
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3
September 1998, Week 2
September 1998, Week 1
August 1998, Week 5
August 1998, Week 4
August 1998, Week 3
August 1998, Week 2
August 1998, Week 1
July 1998, Week 5
July 1998, Week 4
July 1998, Week 3
July 1998, Week 2
July 1998, Week 1
June 1998, Week 5
June 1998, Week 4
June 1998, Week 3
June 1998, Week 2
June 1998, Week 1
May 1998, Week 5
May 1998, Week 4
May 1998, Week 3
May 1998, Week 2
May 1998, Week 1
April 1998, Week 5
April 1998, Week 4
April 1998, Week 3
April 1998, Week 2
April 1998, Week 1
March 1998, Week 5
March 1998, Week 4
March 1998, Week 3
March 1998, Week 2
March 1998, Week 1
February 1998, Week 5
February 1998, Week 4
February 1998, Week 3
February 1998, Week 2
February 1998, Week 1
January 1998, Week 5
January 1998, Week 4
January 1998, Week 3
January 1998, Week 2
January 1998, Week 1
December 1997, Week 5
December 1997, Week 4
December 1997, Week 3
December 1997, Week 2
December 1997, Week 1
November 1997, Week 5
November 1997, Week 4
November 1997, Week 3
November 1997, Week 2
November 1997, Week 1
October 1997, Week 5
October 1997, Week 4
October 1997, Week 3
October 1997, Week 2
October 1997, Week 1
September 1997, Week 5
September 1997, Week 4
September 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 2
September 1997, Week 1
August 1997, Week 5
August 1997, Week 4
August 1997, Week 3
August 1997, Week 2
August 1997, Week 1
July 1997, Week 5
July 1997, Week 4
July 1997, Week 3
July 1997, Week 2
July 1997, Week 1
June 1997, Week 5
June 1997, Week 4
June 1997, Week 3
June 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 1
May 1997, Week 5
May 1997, Week 4
May 1997, Week 3
May 1997, Week 2
May 1997, Week 1
April 1997, Week 5
April 1997, Week 4
April 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 2
April 1997, Week 1
March 1997, Week 5
March 1997, Week 4
March 1997, Week 3
March 1997, Week 2
March 1997, Week 1
February 1997, Week 5
February 1997, Week 4
February 1997, Week 3
February 1997, Week 2
February 1997, Week 1
January 1997, Week 5
January 1997, Week 4
January 1997, Week 3
January 1997, Week 2
January 1997, Week 1
December 1996, Week 5
December 1996, Week 4
December 1996, Week 3
December 1996, Week 2
December 1996, Week 1
November 1996, Week 5
November 1996, Week 4
November 1996, Week 3
November 1996, Week 2
November 1996, Week 1
October 1996, Week 5
October 1996, Week 4
October 1996, Week 3
October 1996, Week 2
October 1996, Week 1
September 1996, Week 5
September 1996, Week 4
September 1996, Week 3
September 1996, Week 2
September 1996, Week 1
August 1996, Week 5
August 1996, Week 4
August 1996, Week 3
August 1996, Week 2
August 1996, Week 1
July 1996, Week 5
July 1996, Week 4
July 1996, Week 3
July 1996, Week 2
July 1996, Week 1
June 1996, Week 5
June 1996, Week 4
June 1996, Week 3
June 1996, Week 2
June 1996, Week 1
May 1996, Week 5
May 1996, Week 4
May 1996, Week 3
May 1996, Week 2
May 1996, Week 1
April 1996, Week 5
April 1996, Week 4
April 1996, Week 3
April 1996, Week 2
April 1996, Week 1
March 1996, Week 5
March 1996, Week 4
March 1996, Week 3
March 1996, Week 2
March 1996, Week 1
February 1996, Week 5
February 1996, Week 4
February 1996, Week 3
February 1996, Week 2
February 1996, Week 1
January 1996, Week 5
January 1996, Week 4
January 1996, Week 3
January 1996, Week 2
January 1996, Week 1
December 1995, Week 5
December 1995, Week 4
December 1995, Week 3
December 1995, Week 2
December 1995, Week 1
November 1995, Week 5
November 1995, Week 4
November 1995, Week 3
November 1995, Week 2
November 1995, Week 1
October 1995, Week 5
October 1995, Week 4
October 1995, Week 3
October 1995, Week 2
October 1995, Week 1
September 1995, Week 5
September 1995, Week 4
September 1995, Week 3
September 1995, Week 2
September 1995, Week 1
August 1995, Week 5
August 1995, Week 4
August 1995, Week 3
August 1995, Week 2
August 1995, Week 1
July 1995, Week 5
July 1995, Week 4
July 1995, Week 3
July 1995, Week 2
July 1995, Week 1
June 1995, Week 5
June 1995, Week 4
June 1995, Week 3
June 1995, Week 2
June 1995, Week 1
May 1995, Week 5
May 1995, Week 4
May 1995, Week 3
May 1995, Week 2
May 1995, Week 1
April 1995, Week 5
April 1995, Week 4
April 1995, Week 3
April 1995, Week 2
April 1995, Week 1
March 1995, Week 5
March 1995, Week 4
March 1995, Week 3
March 1995, Week 2
March 1995, Week 1
February 1995, Week 4
February 1995, Week 3
February 1995, Week 2
February 1995, Week 1
January 1995, Week 5
January 1995, Week 4
January 1995, Week 3
January 1995, Week 2
January 1995, Week 1
December 1994, Week 5
December 1994, Week 4
December 1994, Week 3
December 1994, Week 2
December 1994, Week 1
November 1994, Week 5
November 1994, Week 4
November 1994, Week 3
November 1994, Week 2
November 1994, Week 1
October 1994, Week 5
October 1994, Week 4
October 1994, Week 3
October 1994, Week 2
October 1994, Week 1
September 1994, Week 5
September 1994, Week 4
September 1994, Week 3
September 1994, Week 2
September 1994, Week 1
August 1994, Week 5
August 1994, Week 4
August 1994, Week 3
August 1994, Week 2
August 1994, Week 1
July 1994, Week 5
July 1994, Week 4
July 1994, Week 3
July 1994, Week 2
July 1994, Week 1
June 1994, Week 5
June 1994, Week 4
June 1994, Week 3
June 1994, Week 2
June 1994, Week 1
May 1994, Week 5
May 1994, Week 4
May 1994, Week 3
May 1994, Week 2
May 1994, Week 1
April 1994, Week 5
April 1994, Week 4
April 1994, Week 3
April 1994, Week 2
April 1994, Week 1
March 1994, Week 5
March 1994, Week 4
March 1994, Week 3
March 1994, Week 2
March 1994, Week 1
February 1994, Week 4
February 1994, Week 3
February 1994, Week 2
February 1994, Week 1
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993, Week 1
December 1993
November 1993, Week 5
November 1993, Week 4
November 1993, Week 3
November 1993, Week 2
November 1993, Week 1
October 1993, Week 5
October 1993, Week 4
October 1993, Week 3
October 1993, Week 2
October 1993, Week 1
September 1993, Week 5
September 1993, Week 4
September 1993, Week 3
September 1993, Week 2
September 1993, Week 1
August 1993, Week 5
August 1993, Week 4
August 1993, Week 3
August 1993, Week 2
August 1993, Week 1
July 1993, Week 5
July 1993, Week 4
July 1993, Week 3
July 1993, Week 2
July 1993, Week 1
June 1993, Week 5
June 1993, Week 4
June 1993, Week 3
June 1993, Week 2
June 1993, Week 1
May 1993, Week 5
May 1993, Week 4
May 1993, Week 3
May 1993, Week 2
May 1993, Week 1
April 1993

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager