Inside the beltway:
An interview with Page Putnam Miller
Every day, in the capital cities of countries all over the world, decisions are made which may impact archaeologists, the sites that we study, and the information resources that we have come to rely on. One of the more important resources for all archaeologists is historical records and documentation. Certainly historical archaeologists rely on the preservation of archived materials for reference matter in all their dealings; but prehistoric archaeologists as well use the information. Budgetary and preservation decisions are made in the federal capitals, which directly impact these important archives.
As executive director for the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, Page Putnam Miller has been providing historians and archivists with updates from the floors of the United States House and Senate for the past 20 years. In 1995, the NCC began transmitting Dr. Miller's Washington Updates in electronic form, and today close to 30,000 people with professional interests in American history are kept abreast of the issues affecting them. Recently, I asked her to tell me about her work inside the beltway.
How would you describe what you do?
The National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (NCC) is a coalition of 53 historical and archival organizations. The American Historical Association provides an office for the NCC in their headquarters building, which is located one block behind the Library of Congress and within easy walking distance of the House and Senate office buildings. The NCC is supported by contributions from these 53 organizations and has a budget of about $100,000. It is a small operation and I am the only staff member. Thus I depend greatly on a wide network of contacts and colleagues. I have had this position for almost 20 years and have been blessed with many wonderful colleagues within federal agencies, in legislative offices, and in other non-profit advocacy organizations. I have particularly appreciated my collaboration over the years with the American Library Association. The NCC's focus is on federal legislation and policy that affects historical research, teaching, and programming. Thus I concentrate on the policies and funding of the National Archives, declassification policy, the National Endowment for the Humanities, copyright policy, and historic preservation, particularly the teaching of history at the National Parks.
Can you give us a little history about the project?
We can thank the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians for establishing the NCC over 20 years ago. At that time the concern was with the job crisis for historians and expanding our awareness of positions for historians outside of the classroom. In 1982 the NCC adopted new bylaws and became an advocacy organization. Professional history associations realized that they could not each hire a person to monitor legislation, and thus they decided to form a coalition and pool resources.
How do you do it?
I really enjoy this job. Something new and stimulating is always happening. Today I attended a hearing that lasted for 4 hours and I got back to the office in time to answer some phone calls and be of assistance to some of the leaders of the NCC member organizations, and I provided some background material for a report on one of the issues I follow. My Board meets only two times a year, although we do an enormous amount of consulting by e-mail. I am very grateful to be publishing the weekly updates on the internet for some estimate that the NCC Updates reach over 30,000 people. The goal is to provide timely and accurate information on developments in federal policy that affect historians and archivists.
What specific issues do you watch for?
As a one person office, the NCC's primary resource is staff time and I have to be careful not to be spread too thin. The NCC's list of issues covers about a dozen topics and while I would like to add more, I know that that would be unrealistic.
NCC issues include: funding for NEH, funding and policies of the National Archives, funding for the National Historical Publication and Records Commission (NHPRC), declassification of historical federal records, copyright issues such as extension of copyright and applying "fair use" in the digital age, the American Folklife Center (reauthorization and funding), the Library of Congress, the National Park Service in terms of the interpretation and research and preservation of its historic sites, electronic records issues (often policies of the National Archives, the Freedom of Information Act and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars).
Obviously your report hasn't always been sent by email. When you got started, how was the information disseminated?
When NCC began its advocacy work, we communicated with the 50 member organizations with regular mailings about every 6 weeks, or more often when information was needed. Then about 4 times a year, I did a "report" to about 800 supporters and friends of NCC. The first electronic report was January 1995. This has been great for it reaches so many more people with much less staff time and expense. Also the historical community is much better informed now and can be more effective in their contacts with members of congress.
Your accumulated reports must represent a deep record of events of the Congress, separate from the Federal Register and I would imagine useful to persons interested in the history of legislation of history. Are your reports archived on paper?
Only archived in paper in the NCC office, but the electronic version (since 1995) may be accessed at the NCC home page.
This is a tremendously inexpensive and useful resource. It seems like a perfect use of the electronic distribution system provided by the Internet.
Effective advocacy depends on an informed constituency and so NCC's mission is advanced by increased distribution of the Updates.
You've been on the Washington scene for some twenty years now. In your opinion, what trends have developed? Is there a greater interest in history now, as opposed to earlier? And if there is a change, to what do you attribute it?
Some of the key pieces of legislation on which NCC has worked in the past, such as the 1992 State Department legislation regarding the publication of "accurate and comprehensive" documentary editions of American foreign policy thirty years after the events, probably could not be passed today. Good legislation requires a strong commitment to cooperation between the majority and minority parties. Today the partisanship has reached such a point that often there is little communication between the majority and minority staffs. In this Congress it seems best to hope for as little legislation as possible for much of what is being proposed has serious flaws.
Other interviews with persons of interest to archaeology are archived here.
