President-elect Bob Riordan has announced that the spring membership meeting of the OAC will be held on Saturday, May 18, 2002 in the Auditorium at the Ohio Historical Center, I-71 and 17th Street, Columbus. Before 10 am there will be the usual coffee and donuts, as well as the chance to informally mix with other members. Presenters are needed; those interested should contact Bob Riordan at (937) 775-2667 or e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. It's enough for now to indicate your willingness to contribute, and an abstract may be supplied later.
Program Outline
n.b. The OAC is anticipating holding its Fall meeting in conjunction with the Midwest Conference in Columbus in October, so this will be the only opportunity to make presentations on your research to the OAC during 2002.
It is recognized and accepted that the State of Ohio has a statutory obligation to its citizens to facilitate, promote, and cultivate an appreciation and understanding of its past. Respectfully, however, Ohio's history deserves more than the simple fulfillment of a statutory obligation. The State of Ohio must instead regard the facilitation, promotion, and cultivation of its past as a matter of definite significance and focused interest as it already invests a great deal of resources in the operation of the State's historical sites, the implementation of technological and educational initiatives, the maintenance of State Archives, and the preservation of historical artifacts for current and future generations.
The State of Ohio has established a relationship with the Ohio Historical Society (OHS), which has evolved from its beginnings as a merely privately organized group to one with numerous responsibilities that are codified in Ohio law.
The State of Ohio and the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) today possess what is often times referred to as "a unique public/private partnership." It is more accurate, however, to explain the partnership in terms of a contractual agreement between the State and the Society. The origins of this unique partnership, as well as legal interpretations of it, are discussed in greater detail in the background section of this report.
The formation of this Select Committee resulted, in part, from the FY 2002-2003 biennial budget deliberations. Legislators faced formidable obstacles when the 124th General Assembly convened. Lawmakers were faced with a slowing economy, a primary and secondary school funding deadline, a Medicaid crisis, and midway through the budgetary process, an $800 million revenue shortfall. As a result, OHS was confronted with serious budget reductions that could potentially have a very negative impact on the long-term viability of Ohio's historic sites. Indeed, the possibility of site closures was of great concern to legislators.
In addition to addressing concerns about ensuring the viability and stability of historic sites, legislators sought to obtain a greater understanding of how precisely state funds, which account for approximately 75% of OHS' operating budget, were utilized by the Society in its operations and fulfillment of its contractual obligations as put forth in section 149.30 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Finally, the creation of this Select Committee was to further enhance the fulfillment of the State's and OHS' historical responsibilities and to find ways to strengthen this public/private partnership.
Legislators decided that the best method through which to achieve these purposes was the creation of a Select Committee that would thoroughly examine the public/private partnership between the State of Ohio and the Society, including the roles and responsibilities of each partner, as well as recommend revisions with the hopes of solidifying a more realistic and cooperative approach towards ensuring the study, understanding, and preservation of Ohio's past. The result of this examination would be the submission of recommendations compiled and agreed upon by the committee. In making these recommendations, the Select Committee does not intend to place unwarranted restrictions on the Society's operational flexibility or to interfere with its decisions by micromanaging its procedures.
Throughout this examination, the Select Committee devoted several hearings to reviewing the Ohio Historical Society Review Committee (OHSRC). The OHSRC was created in the FY 2000-2001 biennial operating budget bill (Amended Substitute House Bill 283). This committee was charged with the formulation of financial alternatives concerning future funding needs, a review of the appropriateness of the statutory duties of the Society, and a review of the financial governance relationship between the State and OHS. Vision 2000 is an extension of a strategic planning initiative begun in 1998 by the boards of trustees of both the Ohio Historical Society and its fundraising ally, the Ohio Historical Foundation.
In fact, many OHSRC recommendations and Vision 2000 elements are discussed in the ensuing pages of this report. The Select Committee recognizes the studies, evaluations, plans, and implementation measures arising from the efforts of State officials and OHS personnel and trustees in the past five years, especially as apparent in the final report of the OHS Review Committee (December 2000) and VISION 2000, the strategic planning document (Stage One) endorsed by the OHS Board of Trustees in September 2000. The work of the Select Committee compliments these other major deliberations, each of which was undertaken to strengthen the relationship between the State of Ohio and the Ohio Historical Society through improved communications and more stable funding so as to enhance the ability of OHS to present high quality educational services, programs, and facilities for the benefit of Ohioans and others.
Still, the purpose of the Select Committee was not limited exclusively to reviewing these documents. While many recommendations are reviewed in this report, there are some that go unmentioned. Accordingly, the committee cautions against translating the absence of discussion of a particular recommendation as a rejection or criticism of it.
The Select Committee met fourteen times between November 2001 and March 2002 and heard testimony from over 50 witnesses.
Each of the fifteen meetings addressed specific topics. The Ohio Historical Society would begin each hearing with a presentation on the assigned topics of the day, followed by other organizations, and finally by Public testimony, which was permitted at all of the hearings.
The Select Committee began its work by conducting a general overview of the public/private partnership between the State of Ohio and OHS. The Committee then moved into an examination of the statewide network of state memorials and the support needed to sustain them. The next area of focus was a fiscal review that included an examination of OHS' operating budget, the capital appropriations process, as well as fundraising and promotion at the Society. Committee members then examined preservation functions as well as reviewed the recommendations of the OHSRC. The Select Committee next explored education issues before concluding with an examination of the OHS Vision 2000 Strategic Plan.
The Committee hopes that the recommendations presented in this report will be implemented through legislation, rules, contractual agreement, or other means. At the very least, the Committee's work will represent a solid reaffirmation of the State's commitment to preserving history for present and future generations.
The next section of the report provides detailed information on the Society's partnership with the State. The subsequent section contains the recommendations, which are sorted by topic into categories. The recommendations are followed by a brief concluding section.
Essential to the development of this report is the understanding of the relationship currently shared between the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) and the State of Ohio, as this relationship is more distinctive than any other relationship the state has with an independent entity. The Select Committee has heard testimony regarding this relationship from the Legislative Service Commission as well as the OHS. The purpose of this segment is to highlight a summarized history of the OHS and discuss the legal relationship shared between these two entities as instituted in a section of the Ohio Revised Code and viewed through a court interpretation of that section.
The OHS is a private, not-for-profit corporation currently functioning as the primary historical preservation organization in the state and, in doing so, serves as the state's agent in historical matters. In this capacity, the OHS acts in and on behalf of the State of Ohio on several levels including the management of state archives, the management of the state's historic preservation office, and the operation of historic sites and museums. The State of Ohio provides a considerable percentage of the operating budget of the OHS in return for these services. A less informed view of the duties the Society conducts on behalf of the state may lead many observers to believe that the Society is a state agency and operates in the same manner as does the Ohio Department of Development or the Ohio Department of Health. The Society, however, conducts its activities as a participant in a complex partnership with the State of Ohio. It, in fact, does not operate as a public agency; it is fundamentally tied to the state and is instead considered the state's contractual agent as it performs public duties involving historic preservation on behalf of the state.
The Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society was established on March 13, 1885 with the intention of "promoting a knowledge of archeology and history, especially of Ohio..." The Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society originally conducted business without any specific state aid, although linked to the state government since its inception. Organizational meetings were held in the office of the Secretary of State and the Society was formerly organized in Ohio's State Library.
As mentioned before, the Society initially operated as an entirely private organization and received no state funding regardless of these connections to the state. A more involved relationship with the state began in 1888, with the appropriation of state moneys for the purpose of funding certain activities of the Society, and additionally in 1891, with the passage of Senate Joint Resolution No. 43, which authorized the Governor to appoint six members of the board of trustees of the Ohio Archeological and Historical Society. Senate Joint Resolution No. 43, adopted on April 15, 1891, set up the appointment process for positions on the board of trustees and noted that said appointments shall not require the state to make annual budgetary appropriations for the Society. That same year, the state also authorized the Society to care for, take custody of, and control Ohio's first state memorial, Fort Ancient in Warren County.
During the late nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century to the present, the state, acting primarily through appropriations made by the General Assembly, has been involved in both the general financing of the Society and the financing of specific projects of the Society through line items in the state's operating budget. In 1965, the 106th General Assembly enacted Am. HB 570, which codified this relationship through legislative enactment. That measure, through the codification of Section 149.30 of the Ohio Revised Code, formulated a framework under which the state and the Ohio Historical Society carry out business together. That framework primarily involves a public contract between the State of Ohio and the Society.
A contract is statutorily formed when there is an offer, an acceptance, and consideration for the contract (such consideration usually consists of the exchange of money for services rendered). Upon its enactment, section 149.30 of the Ohio Revised Code established a contract written in law between the State of Ohio and the OHS. That section provides that the OHS, employed by the state (as a not-for-profit corporation) to promote knowledge of history and archeology, especially of Ohio, and operated in the public interest since 1885, may perform public functions as prescribed by law. The above-mentioned section also provides that the General Assembly may appropriate money to the Ohio Historical Society each biennium to carry out the public functions of the Society. The statute further provides that an appropriation by the General Assembly to the Society constitutes an offer to contract with the Society to carry out those public functions. An acceptance by the Society of the appropriated funds constitutes acceptance by the Society of the offer and is considered an agreement by the Society to perform those functions, under law.
Furthermore, this Revised Code section specifies that the Governor may request on behalf of the Society, and the Controlling Board may release additional funds to the society for survey, salvage, repair, or rehabilitation of an emergency nature for which funds have not been previously appropriated, and acceptance by the Society of those funds constitutes an agreement on the part of the Society of expend those funds only for the purpose for which released by the Controlling Board. This section goes on to state that "the society shall faithfully expend and apply all moneys received from the state to the uses and purposes directed by law and for necessary administrative expenses," and that "the Society shall accurately record all expenditures of such funds in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles." The section also allows that the auditor of state, "shall audit all funds and fiscal records of the Society."
Section 149.30 enumerates certain public functions to be carried out by the Ohio Historical Society as contracted by the State of Ohio. Those public functions include, in part:
These enumerated public functions are all performed on behalf of the State of Ohio with funds appropriated by the General Assembly. The performance of these public functions constitutes the contractual consideration offered by the Society to the State in return for state moneys. It is this relationship that binds the Society and the State of Ohio together. However, this relationship does not raise the Society to the level of a state agency in the eyes of the law. The courts have interpreted this relationship to be that of a private corporation acting as a contractual agent on behalf of the state.
As discussed above, section 149.30 of the Revised Code establishes the framework under which the state and the Ohio Historical Society work cooperatively. That framework takes the form of a contractual relationship. The close relationship between the Society and the state sometimes results in an impression that the Society is a state agency. There is evidence that supports this impression. For example, the Auditor of State audits the financial records of the Society.
The Supreme Court of Ohio examined the relationship between the State of Ohio and the Society in the case of Ohio Historical Society v. State Employment Relations Board. In that case, the Supreme Court examined the issue of whether the Society is in fact a "public employer," in essence a state agency, under the definition of that term in the state employees collective bargaining statute. The case resulted from a petition filed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) with the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) for a representation election. AFSCME sought to represent certain employees of the Society for the purpose of collective bargaining and claimed that it could do so because the Society was a "public employer" under the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Law. The Society moved to dismiss AFSCME's petition on the grounds that it indeed was not a public employer and that SERB, therefore, did not have jurisdiction over it. A SERB hearing officer determined that the Society was a "public employer." After a series of appeals, the case was presented to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court determined that the Society is not a "public employer" for purposes of the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Law. Further, the Court found that even outside of that law, the Society cannot be viewed as anything other than a purely private entity.
The Court found that, although the Society possesses certain attributes of a governmental entity, the Society is not public. The Court found that the Society was neither created by the state nor is subject to state control. In reaching this conclusion, the Court held that the Society is a private, not-for-profit corporation formed by a group of individuals in their capacities as private citizens. It further determined that while the Society has a close relationship with the state, that does not make it an arm of the state. As evidence of the private nature of the Society, the Court found all of the following:
The Court noted that the Society is authorized by its constitution to enter into contracts with the state. The state in turn is authorized by the statute to contract with the Society. Nowhere, however, is the Society required by the statute to perform state functions.
There are additional provisions of the Revised Code that further define the relationship between the state and the Ohio Historical Society. Section 149.01 of the Revised Code creates the Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory Board, which consists of 17 members appointed by the governor, including the state officials and citizens with expertise in certain areas related to historic preservation. The Board is required by statute to assist the Ohio Historical Society in its site preservation program, including the location, designation, restoration, preservation, and maintenance of state historic and archaeological sites and artifacts. Further, the Board must encourage the designation of suitable sites on the National Register of Historic Places and under other federal programs.
Section 149.02 requires the Ohio Historical Society to establish a museum in the vicinity of Wilberforce known as the National Museum of Afro-American History and Culture. The title to the Museum is required by law to be conveyed from the Society to another private, nonprofit corporation for the purposes of operating and maintaining the museum.
Under section 149.304 of the Revised Code, any person owning or in possession of an Ohio homestead or tract of land that has been owned or in the possession of the person's family for 100 years or more may submit application to the Ohio Historical Society to list the homestead or tract of land in a register to be maintained by the Society. The Society must submit applications to the Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory Board, which must rule on the authenticity of the homestead or ownership or possession of the tract of land according to criteria that it must establish and make public. Upon authentication of the homestead or tract of land by the Board, the Society must list the homestead or tract of land on its register and provide the applicant with a plaque of suitable design determined by the Society to be affixed to the homestead or tract of land. The plaque must identify the homestead or tract of land as an historic homestead and indicate that it is 100 years old or more as of the date of recognition.
Section 149.31 of the Revised Code establishes the role of the Society in preserving state archives. Under that section, the Society must evaluate, preserve, arrange, service, repair, or make other disposition, such as transfer to public libraries, county historical societies, state universities, or other public or quasi-public institutions or corporations, of those public records of the state and its political subdivisions that come into its possession.
The Committee is pleased that one of the Society's FY 2002-2003 priorities involves dealing with critical, long-term issues facing the site system. As evidenced in both the OHS Review Committee and the Vision 2000 strategic plan, the Society is taking an active lead in the development of accessioning/deaccessioning criteria and procedures to be employed when determining whether to add or remove an existing state memorial from the "site system."
Although legislative approval is required prior to removing sites from the system, the Committee believes the State should be a more active partner in developing the accessioning/deaccessioning procedures used by the Society.
A draft accessioning/deaccessioning policy has been created as part of the first phase of the Society's Vision 2000 Strategic Plan. The Select Committee recommends the following:
Therefore, the Select Committee recommends that ORC section 149.30(J), which limits OHS to offering educational material to schools "at cost or near cost," be altered to allow OHS to charge at rates closer to "market rates" with the expectation that such charges could yield "seed funding" for the design and production of subsequent programs, materials, and services.
The Select Committee further recommends an increased collaboration with the Department of Education and the Ohio SchoolNet Commission to review additional funding sources that may be utilized for the above purposes.
The recommendations within this category are consistent with the increased reporting requirements that were recommended by the Ohio Historical Society Review Committee.
The Select Committee heard testimony on the need for joining the archival and records management programs in Ohio. The reasons for this included:
It was explained to the Select Committee that in Ohio, state records management is found within the General Services division of the Department of Administrative Services. It functions as outlined in Ohio Revised Code section 149.33.1. The State Archives of Ohio is a department of the Archives Library division of the Ohio Historical Society. The functions of the State Archives of Ohio are outlined in the ORC 149.31. It was presented in testimony that the state archives and records management have a good informal working relationship, but the formal separation of the two makes it difficult for each to function effectively.
Four options to merge these systems were presented to the Select Committee including the creation of a Commission of Public Records; the creations of an Ohio Department of Libraries and Archives; bringing the State Records Administrator into the Ohio Historical Society; and to create a Public Records Advisory Committee to advise OHS with public records issues and to coordinate the activities of the State Records Management and the State Archives. The majority of states use one or the other of the first two options mentioned above.
The Select Committee found the reasons for consolidation of records management programs in Ohio to be a compelling one but felt choosing the best method to be beyond the scope and expertise of this Select Committee.
Therefore, the Select Committee recommends the following:
The State possesses a unique public/private partnership with the Society that has clearly yielded many benefits. The Select Committee acknowledges the strengths and advantages of this partnership and believes that the recommendations it has proposed will serve to strengthen it and ensure its longevity. The undeniable key to maintaining a successful and enduring partnership involves periodically examining and revising the roles and the responsibilities of each partner.
The Select Committee has concluded that the best way to ensure the long-term viability of the state's historic sites as well as facilitate a clearer understanding of the use of State revenues in the Society's functions lies foremost in the State reestablishing itself in this partnership. Specifically, the State's role must reach beyond simply subsidizing the Society's operations.
The key to a successful partnership between the State and the Society lies in achieving an effective balance between accountability and flexibility. These recommendations were designed with the specific hope that they would lay the framework as to how best to achieve this symbiosis.
The Select Committee acknowledges that OHS communicates, reports, testifies, and responds on a far more frequent, comprehensive and systematic basis than do other recipients of State operating and/or capital funds appropriated for "historical" purposes. We urge our colleagues in the General Assembly to consider how the desirable objective of accountability might be appropriately extended to encompass the appropriations of historical projects not directly assigned or pursued by the Ohio Historical Society.
The Committee expresses its appreciation to OHS Board of Trustees President, Richard Sisson, Director Gary Ness, and the staff of the OHS for all of their hard work these past several months. The Committee compliments the Director and his staff for their excellent and informative presentations - they were asked to provide over eighteen different presentations on various topics as well as coordinate field trips to the Ohio Historical Center and Fort Ancient.
The Select Committee will reconvene in the Fall to review several of the issues and recommendations raised within this report and the Committee may issue an addendum to the report.
Chairman Metzger:
Following the Ohio Archaeological Council's January 16, 2002 testimony, Representative Miller requested that the Council determine the cost of implementing the recommendations made in our testimony. You also requested recommendations on potential funding sources for such activities and programs. The Council researched these matters and this letter constitutes our reply. Following the list of estimated costs for the activities and programs and the list of potential funding sources is an explanation of how the costs were derived and a brief discussion of other considerations associated with implementing the activities and programs.
In addition to providing you and the Committee with the requested information, the Council wants to emphasize that although there are costs associated with implementing these recommendations, there are costs if the recommendations are not implemented. For instance, it is difficult for state agencies to streamline their costs to comply with federal and state laws determining the impact of their projects on important archaeological sites when the state does not have an archaeological preservation plan that streamlines the decision making process concerning identifying important archaeological sites. The lack of a state archaeological preservation plan places Ohio at a competitive disadvantage to states implementing their plans, both in terms of preserving history and in growing the economy. Important archaeological sites and other historic places need to be treated and managed as social and economic assets rather than as burdens to growth and development, as they are often perceived.
Develop and implement a state archaeological preservation plan, $300,000
Develop cultural resource management plans for State Memorials, $25,000 per State Memorial
Develop and implement an avocational archaeology outreach program, a State Register of Archaeological Landmarks, a State Archaeological Preserve program, and an abandoned cemetery and unmarked human burial ground preservation program, $200,000 per year
Develop and implement a program to take into consideration the impacts of state and state- assisted projects on archaeological resources, $500,000+ per year
Permit the manufacture and sale of "Discover Ohio's History" motor vehicle license plates
Permit a taxpayer donation check-off on the state income tax form, similar to the one currently available for funding certain programs of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Establish user fees for for-profit researchers using information at the State Historic Preservation Office
A percentage of user fees from state park visitors
A percentage of the state gasoline tax
A percentage of taxes or fees on real estate transactions
A percentage of taxes associated with tourism, entertainment and athletic events
A percentage of taxes or fees associated with state-permitted mining, drilling, timber cutting and other extractive industry operations that impact archaeological resources
A percentage of the proceeds from the State Lottery and/or from state-regulated gambling, should the latter be developed
Arriving at a cost for developing a state archaeological preservation plan was accomplished by seeking information from states that have developed and are successfully using such a plan. Colorado's plan is timely and exemplary. The Colorado plan was funded in large part by a grant of $202,000 from the State Historical Fund. The State Historical Fund receives a percentage (28%) of the proceeds from state-regulated casino gambling. The Colorado plan was developed by the Colorado Council for Professional Archaeologists, the Ohio Archaeological Council's counterpart in Colorado, in cooperation with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, federal, state and local agencies, Native Americans, and other interested stakeholders. The plan streamlines the process for making decisions about which archaeological sites are important and, thus, need to be considered during federal and state environmental review processes.
In Ohio, the state archaeological preservation plan should be developed by the State Historic Preservation Office in cooperation with federal, state and local agencies, the Ohio Archaeological Council, the Archaeological Society of Ohio, the Native American community, and other interested stakeholders. The State Historic Preservation Office, federal, state and local government agencies, private industry, professional archaeologists conducting archaeological research for government agencies and private industry, and the Native American community would be the main users of the plan.
The approximate cost of developing the Colorado archaeological preservation plan was $250,000. The Colorado plan was developed over four years, between 1997 and 2000. The plan was published in 2000. It replaces a plan developed in 1984.
Plans must be periodically revised. Revisions to a state archaeological preservation plan depend on a number of factors, but supplemental information should be added every two or three years. The cost for supplements is estimated at $50,000 every two or three years. The life span of the state archaeological preservation plan is approximately ten years, at which time a major revision would be necessary. The cost for a major revision is estimated at $125,000.
The estimated cost for developing a cultural resource management plan for a State Memorial is $25,000. The cost is based on the Ohio Historical Society's projected cost for developing the Newark Earthworks State Memorial cultural resource management plan, approximately $27,000. Because of the varied size and nature of Ohio's State Memorial's, some cultural resource management plans may cost much less, while other may cost more. The purpose of a cultural resource management plan is to plan for the diverse uses of State Memorials by the public. The Ohio Historical Society would develop the cultural resource management plans in cooperation with interested stakeholders.
The estimated cost of these programs, $200,000, is based on our cost estimates for establishing a three-person office for developing and implementing these programs. These programs involve outreach to private organizations and citizens, state agencies, and local governments to protect archaeological sites and places of human burial. The State Historic Preservation Office frequently works with these stakeholders and should develop and implement these programs. The Ohio Revised Code requires the Ohio Historical Society to cooperate with avocational archaeologists and develop a State Registry of Archaeological Landmarks and an Archaeological Preserve program.
Although the Ohio Revised Code does not require the Ohio Historical Society to develop and implement an abandoned cemetery and unmarked human burial ground preservation program, a program to help protect the tens of thousands of abandoned cemeteries and unmarked human burial grounds in Ohio is urgently needed from both a social and economic standpoint. Ohio is one of the few states that does not have state legislation specifically designed to protect such places. The lack of such a process results in stalled economic development projects while disputes concerning the ownership and treatment of such places are addressed in lengthy legal proceedings. The protection of abandoned and unmarked cemeteries is strongly supported by the public. Successful protection programs demonstrate that protection is most effectively accomplished by inviting the participation of local government planning agencies, law enforcement agencies, affected landowners, preservation organizations, and citizens into the process of creating and implementing the program.
The estimated cost of this program, $500,000+ per year, is based on a number of factors including our estimated costs for the State Historic Preservation Office to consider the impact of Federal projects on important archaeological resources in the Federal program known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Projected costs for state agencies to comply with the state review provision are also included in the cost estimate. This is a minimum first-year cost estimate. The State Historic Preservation Office and certain state agencies, for example the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency, would implement this program. The costs include staffing at these agencies and contracts with cultural resource management consultants for developing model cultural resource management plans for state parks, natural areas and preserves, and other state lands. The cost of archaeological investigations on state-assisted projects on private lands would be borne by project applicants.
We trust this information will be useful to the Committee and the Council welcomes the opportunity to be of further assistance.
Chairman Metzger and distinguished members of the Committee, I am Alan Tonetti, past- President and currently Trustee and Chair of the Ohio Archaeological Council's Legislative Issues Committee and Native American Concerns Committee. As I previously testified, the Council is one of the partners in Ohio's historical programs, referenced by name in several sections of the Revised Code as an organization the Ohio Historical Society is to consult with concerning certain archaeological programs.
We welcome this opportunity to testify about the recommendations contained in the Committee's preliminary report. We thank the Committee, and particularly the Chairman and his staff, for their attention and cooperation in listening to all the stakeholders in this effort to sustain and enhance Ohio's historical programs and partnerships. We are optimistic about the outcome of this effort.
Regarding recommendations contained in the Committee's report that are of particular interest to the Council, we support the recommendation to have the Governor-appointed Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory Board participate in the development of a site accessioning and deaccessioning policy because the state has a large investment in State Memorials, many of which contain nationally and internationally significant archaeological resources, and such participation is within the Advisory Board's authority as outlined in Revised Code section 149.301. We also encourage the Committee to recommend that the Advisory Board work more closely with the State Historic Preservation Office in developing state legislation that advances the recommendations contained in your report, and in developing both a state historic preservation plan and a state archaeological preservation plan, the latter of which is a recommendation contained in your report.
We cautiously support your recommendation that the State Historic Preservation Office be transferred from the Society to the Ohio Department of Development so long as this move provides the SHPO with better financial and technological resources, and better integrates historic preservation concerns into state government at all levels. With the transfer, the statutory language contained in Revised Code section 149.301 concerning the duties of the Advisory Board, section 149.53 concerning state agency cooperation in historic preservation activities, and section 149.54 concerning rules governing archaeological investigations on state lands, will need to be reexamined. We have drafted recommendations concerning the content of these sections of the Revised Code, and will provide them as appropriate.
We strongly support the Committee's recommendation for teaching Ohio history in the curricular standards and models for grades K-12 currently being developed by the Ohio Department of Education. We further recommend that instruction in the conservation of historic resources be integrated into the social studies standards and models, as the conservation of natural resources is done in the natural sciences standards and models.
We strongly support the Committee's recommendation for a five-year financial and performance audit of the Society's historical programs. We believe this will help the Ohio Historical Society, the State of Ohio, and interested stakeholders identify program areas in which the Society needs improvement and assistance. We urge the Committee to make fiscal and performance audits public, and recommend that public comment be required in preparing these audits. We also recommend that a similar process be required of the State Historic Preservation Office.
The Council also strongly supports the recommendation for the creation of an Ohio Historical Society Operational Endowment Fund, and a legislative study of special funding mechanisms to support Ohio's historical programs and partnerships. We urge you to include the operations of the State Historic Preservation Office in the latter.
We strongly support the recommendation that the Society develop a management plan for each State Memorial on a biennial basis. We request that the Committee require the Society to undertake a public participation process in developing such plans. The lack of public input into the Society's state-funded operations has been a major concern expressed during public testimony before this Committee.
We strongly endorse the recommendation that a state archaeological preservation plan be developed and implemented. We strongly recommend that this responsibility be assigned to the State Historic Preservation Office and that it be included in the preservation recommendations in your final report to Speaker Householder, not in the miscellaneous or other category as it presently appears in the preliminary report. The development and implementation of such a plan will enable local, state and federal government agencies and stakeholders to make better decisions concerning the identification, evaluation and treatment of important archaeological sites during government assisted development projects.
We strongly support the Committee's recommendation that the Society develop one or more mechanisms to advance communication between interested stakeholders, particularly the Native American and the archaeological communities, and that a written report concerning this effort be submitted to the Committee and the other state officials mentioned in the preliminary report by September 30, 2002. Furthermore, we strongly urge the Committee to include a recommendation in its final report to Speaker Householder that the Society's report include a written report concerning the Society's efforts to address access and other issues at Moundbuilders State Memorial. We also request that this recommendation be included in the reporting recommendations contained in your report to Speaker Householder, not in the miscellaneous or other category.
We strongly support the recommendation that the State of Ohio develop and implement an abandoned cemetery and unmarked human burial ground preservation program. We urge the Committee to assign this responsibility to the State Historic Preservation Office, and that the State Historic Preservation Officer assemble a group of interested stakeholders including, but not limited to, statewide organizations representing the archaeological, genealogical, historical, and Native American communities, representatives of local and state government officials and law enforcement, and the Advisory Board, to develop this program. We further recommend that you request that the State Historic Preservation Officer submit a written report concerning this program to the Committee by December 31, 2002. We request that you include these recommendations in the preservation recommendations in your report to Speaker Householder, not in the miscellaneous or other category.
Finally, we support the Committee's recommendation that Revised Code section 149.55, the State Registry of Historic Landmarks, be repealed. However, as we testified to on January 16, we also believe that Revised Code section 149.51, the State Registry of Archaeological Landmarks, should be repealed. If done so, section 149-1-02 of the Ohio Administrative Code must be revised accordingly. In the 26 years this program has been operational, not one archaeological site has been listed and the Council considers the program fatally flawed.
Some of the recommendations contained in the Committee's report will require an increased financial commitment by State Government, and some reordering of priorities by the Society and the State Historic Preservation Office. The Council believes that these changes are needed, and Ohio's historical programs and partnerships will benefit from their implementation.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the Council thanks you for your attention and giving the Council the opportunity to present testimony concerning the preliminary report. You have done an excellent job, and we look forward to working with you again in the fall. In the meantime, in whatever way we can, we will work with the Society and the State Historic Preservation Office in sustaining and enhancing Ohio's historical programs and partnerships.
It is recognized and accepted that the State of Ohio has a statutory obligation to its citizens to facilitate, promote, and cultivate an appreciation and understanding of its past. Respectfully, however, Ohio's history deserves more than the simple fulfillment of a statutory obligation. The State of Ohio must instead regard the facilitation, promotion, and cultivation of its past as a matter of definite significance and focused interest as it already invests a great deal of resources in the operation of the State's historical sites, the implementation of technological and educational initiatives, the maintenance of State Archives, and the preservation of historical artifacts for current and future generations.
The State of Ohio has established a relationship with the Ohio Historical Society (OHS), which has evolved from its beginnings as a merely privately organized group to one with numerous responsibilities that are codified in Ohio law.
The State of Ohio and the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) today possess what is often times referred to as "a unique public/private partnership." It is more accurate, however, to explain the partnership in terms of a contractual agreement between the State and the Society. The origins of this unique partnership, as well as legal interpretations of it, are discussed in greater detail in the background section of this report.
The formation of this Select Committee resulted, in part, from the FY 2002-2003 biennial budget deliberations. Legislators faced formidable obstacles when the 124th General Assembly convened. Lawmakers were faced with a slowing economy, a primary and secondary school funding deadline, a Medicaid crisis, and midway through the budgetary process, an $800 million revenue shortfall. As a result, OHS was confronted with serious budget reductions that could potentially have a very negative impact on the long-term viability of Ohio's historic sites. Indeed, the possibility of site closures was of great concern to legislators.In addition to addressing concerns about ensuring the viability and stability of historic sites, legislators sought to obtain a greater understanding of how precisely state funds, which account for approximately 75% of OHS' operating budget, were utilized by the Society in its operations and fulfillment of its contractual obligations as put forth in section 149.30 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Finally, the creation of this Select Committee was to further enhance the fulfillment of the State's and OHS' historical responsibilities and to find ways to strengthen this public/private partnership.
Legislators decided that the best method through which to achieve these purposes was the creation of a Select Committee that would thoroughly examine the public/private partnership between the State of Ohio and the Society, including the roles and responsibilities of each partner, as well as recommend revisions with the hopes of solidifying a more realistic and cooperative approach towards ensuring the study, understanding, and preservation of Ohio's past. The result of this examination would be the submission of recommendations compiled and agreed upon by the committee. In making these recommendations, the Select Committee does not intend to place unwarranted restrictions on the Society's operational flexibility or to interfere with its decisions by micromanaging its procedures.
Throughout this examination, the Select Committee devoted several hearings to reviewing the Ohio Historical Society Review Committee (OHSRC). The OHSRC was created in the FY 2000-2001 biennial operating budget bill (Am. Sub. House Bill 283). This committee was charged with the formulation of financial alternatives concerning future funding needs, a review of the appropriateness of the statutory duties of the Society, and a review of the financial governance relationship between the State and OHS. Vision 2000 is an extension of a strategic planning initiative begun in 1998 by the boards of trustees of both the Ohio Historical Society and its fundraising ally, the Ohio Historical Foundation.
In fact, many OHSRC recommendations and Vision 2000 elements are discussed in the ensuing pages of this report. The Select Committee recognizes the studies, evaluations, plans, and implementation measures arising from the efforts of State officials and OHS personnel and trustees in the past five years, especially as apparent in the final report of the OHS Review Committee (December 2000) and VISION 2000, the strategic planning document (Stage One) endorsed by the OHS Board of Trustees in September 2000. The work of the Select Committee compliments these other major deliberations, each of which was undertaken to strengthen the relationship between the State of Ohio and the Ohio Historical Society through improved communications and more stable funding so as to enhance the ability of OHS to present high quality educational services, programs, and facilities for the benefit of Ohioans and others.
Still, the purpose of the Select Committee was not limited exclusively to reviewing these documents. While many recommendations are reviewed in this report, there are some that go unmentioned. Accordingly, the committee cautions against translating the absence of discussion of a particular recommendation as a rejection or criticism of it.
The Select Committee met fifteen times between November 2001 and February 2002 and heard testimony from over 50 witnesses.
Each of the fifteen meetings addressed specific topics. The Ohio Historical Society would begin each hearing with a presentation on the assigned topics of the day, followed by other organizations, and finally by Public testimony, which was permitted at all of the hearings.
The Select Committee began its work by conducting a general overview of the public/private partnership between the State of Ohio and OHS. The Committee then moved into an examination of the statewide network of state memorials and the support needed to sustain them. The next area of focus was a fiscal review that included an examination of OHS' operating budget, the capital appropriations process, as well as fundraising and promotion at the Society. Committee members then examined preservation functions as well as reviewed the recommendations of the OHSRC. The Select Committee next explored education issues before concluding with an examination of the OHS Vision 2000 Strategic Plan.
After allowing time for sufficient feedback and modifications, the Select Committee intends to report out its recommendations and submit them to the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives. The Committee hopes that the recommendations presented in this report will be implemented through legislation, rules, contractual agreement, or other means. At the very least, the Committee's work will represent a solid reaffirmation of the State's commitment to preserving history for present and future generations.
The next section of the report provides detailed information on the Society's partnership with the State. The subsequent section contains the recommendations, which are sorted by topic into categories. The recommendations are followed by a brief concluding section.
Essential to the development of this report is the understanding of the relationship currently shared between the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) and the State of Ohio, as this relationship is more distinctive than any other relationship the state has with an independent entity. The Select Committee has heard testimony regarding this relationship from the Legislative Service Commission as well as the OHS. The purpose of this segment is to highlight a summarized history of the OHS and discuss the legal relationship shared between these two entities as instituted in a section of the Ohio Revise Code and viewed through a court interpretation of that section.
The OHS is a private, not-for-profit corporation currently functioning as the primary historical preservation organization in the state and, in doing so, serves as the state's agent in historical matters. In this capacity, the OHS acts in and on behalf of the State of Ohio on several levels including the management of state archives, the management of the state's historic preservation office, and the operation of historic sites and museums. The State of Ohio provides a considerable percentage of the operating budget of the OHS in return for these services. A less informed view of the duties the Society conducts on behalf of the state may lead many observers to believe that the Society is a state agency and operates in the same manner as does the Ohio Department of Development or the Ohio Department of Health. The Society, however, conducts its activities as a participant in a complex partnership with the State of Ohio. It, in fact, does not operate as a public agency; it is fundamentally tied to the state and is instead considered the state's contractual agent as it performs public duties involving historic preservation on behalf of the state.
The Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society was established on March 13, 1885 with the intention of "promoting a knowledge of archeology and history, especially of Ohio." The Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society originally conducted business without any specific state aid, although linked to the state government since its inception. Organizational meetings were held in the office of the Secretary of State and the Society was formerly organized in Ohio's State Library.
As mentioned before, the Society initially operated as an entirely private organization and received no state funding regardless of these connections to the state. A more involved relationship with the state began in 1888, with the appropriation of state moneys for the purpose of funding certain activities of the Society, and additionally in 1891, with the passage of Senate Joint Resolution No. 43, which authorized the Governor to appoint six members of the board of trustees of the Ohio Archeological and Historical Society. Senate Joint Resolution No. 43, adopted on April 15, 1891, set up the appointment process for positions on the board of trustees and noted that said appointments shall not require the state to make annual budgetary appropriations for the Society. That same year, the state also authorized the Society to care for, take custody of, and control Ohio's first state memorial, Fort Ancient in Warren County.
During the late nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century to the present, the state, acting primarily through appropriations made by the General Assembly, has been involved in both the general financing of the Society and the financing of specific projects of the Society through line items in the state's operating budget. In 1965, the 106th General Assembly enacted Am. HB 570, which codified this relationship through legislative enactment. That measure, through the codification of Section 149.30 of the Ohio Revised Code, formulated a framework under which the state and the Ohio Historical Society carry out business together. That framework primarily involves a public contract between the State of Ohio and the Society.
A contract is statutorily formed when there is an offer, an acceptance, and consideration for the contract (such consideration usually consists of the exchange of money for services rendered). Upon its enactment, Section 149.30 of the Ohio Revised Code established a contract written in law between the State of Ohio and the OHS. That section provides that the OHS, employed by the state (as a not-for-profit corporation) to promote knowledge of history and archeology, especially of Ohio, and operated in the public interest since 1885, may perform public functions as prescribed by law. The above-mentioned section also provides that the General Assembly may appropriate money to the Ohio Historical Society each biennium to carry out the public functions of the Society. The statute further provides that an appropriation by the General Assembly to the Society constitutes an offer to contract with the Society to carry out those public functions. An acceptance by the Society of the appropriated funds constitutes acceptance by the Society of the offer and is considered an agreement by the Society to perform those functions, under law.
Furthermore, this Revised Code section specifies that the Governor may request on behalf of the Society, and the Controlling Board may release additional funds to the society for survey, salvage, repair, or rehabilitation of an emergency nature for which funds have not been previously appropriated, and acceptance by the Society of those funds constitutes an agreement on the part of the Society of expend those funds only for the purpose for which released by the Controlling Board. This section goes on to state that "the society shall faithfully expend and apply all moneys received from the state to the uses and purposes directed by law and for necessary administrative expenses," and that "the Society shall accurately record all expenditures of such funds in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles." The section also allows that the auditor of state, "shall audit all funds and fiscal records of the Society."
Section 149.30 enumerates certain public functions to be carried out by the Ohio Historical Society as contracted by the State of Ohio. Those public functions include, in part:
These enumerated public functions are all performed on behalf of the State of Ohio with funds appropriated by the General Assembly. The performance of these public functions constitutes the contractual consideration offered by the Society to the State in return for state moneys. It is this relationship that binds the Society and the State of Ohio together. However, this relationship does not raise the Society to the level of a state agency in the eyes of the law. The courts have interpreted this relationship to be that of a private corporation acting as a contractual agent on behalf of the state.
As discussed above, section 149.30 of the Revised Code establishes the framework under which the state and the Ohio Historical Society work cooperatively. That framework takes the form of a contractual relationship. The close relationship between the Society and the state sometimes results in an impression that the Society is a state agency. There is evidence that supports this impression. For example, the Auditor of State audits the financial records of the Society.
The Supreme Court of Ohio examined the relationship between the State of Ohio and the Society in the case of Ohio Historical Society v. State Employment Relations Board. In that case, the Supreme Court examined the issue of whether the Society is in fact a "public employer," in essence a state agency, under the definition of that term in the state employees collective bargaining statute. The case resulted from a petition filed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) with the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) for a representation election. AFSCME sought to represent certain employees of the Society for the purpose of collective bargaining and claimed that it could do so because the Society was a "public employer" under the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Law. The Society moved to dismiss AFSCME's petition on the grounds that it indeed was not a public employer and that SERB, therefore, did not have jurisdiction over it. A SERB hearing officer determined that the Society was a "public employer." After a series of appeals, the case was presented to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court determined that the Society is not a "public employer" for purposes of the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Law. Further, the Court found that even outside of that law, the Society cannot be viewed as anything other than a purely private entity.
The Court found that, although the Society possesses certain attributes of a governmental entity, the Society is not public. The Court found that the Society was neither created by the state nor is subject to state control. In reaching this conclusion, the Court held that the Society is a private, not-for-profit corporation formed by a group of individuals in their capacities as private citizens. It further determined that while the Society has a close relationship with the state, that does not make it an arm of the state. As evidence of the private nature of the Society, the Court found all of the following:
The Court noted that the Society is authorized by its constitution to enter into contracts with the state. The state in turn is authorized by the statute to contract with the Society. Nowhere, however, is the Society required by the statute to perform state functions.
There are additional provisions of the Revised Code that further define the relationship between the state and the Ohio Historical Society. Section 149.01 of the Revised Code creates the Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory Board, which consists of 17 members appointed by the governor, including the state officials and citizens with expertise in certain areas related to historic preservation. The Board is required by statute to assist the Ohio Historical Society in its site preservation program, including the location, designation, restoration, preservation, and maintenance of state historic and archaeological sites and artifacts. Further, the Board must encourage the designation of suitable sites on the National Register of Historic Places and under other federal programs.
Section 149.02 requires the Ohio Historical Society to establish a museum in the vicinity of Wilberforce known as the National Museum of Afro-American History and Culture. The title to the Museum is required by law to be conveyed from the Society to another private, nonprofit corporation for the purposes of operating and maintaining the museum.
Under section 149.304 of the Revised Code, any person owning or in possession of an Ohio homestead or tract of land that has been owned or in the possession of the person's family for 100 years or more may submit application to the Ohio Historical Society to list the homestead or tract of land in a register to be maintained by the Society. The Society must submit applications to the Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory Board, which must rule on the authenticity of the homestead or ownership or possession of the tract of land according to criteria that it must establish and make public. Upon authentication of the homestead or tract of land by the Board, the Society must list the homestead or tract of land on its register and provide the applicant with a plaque of suitable design determined by the Society to be affixed to the homestead or tract of land. The plaque must identify the homestead or tract of land as an historic homestead and indicate that it is 100 years old or more as of the date of recognition.
Section 149.31 of the Revised Code establishes the role of the Society in preserving state archives. Under that section, the Society must evaluate, preserve, arrange, service, repair, or make other disposition, such as transfer to public libraries, county historical societies, state universities, or other public or quasi-public institutions or corporations, of those public records of the state and its political subdivisions that come into its possession.
The Committee is pleased that one of the Society's FY 2002-2003 priorities involves dealing with critical, long-term issues facing the site system. As evidenced in both the OHS Review Committee and the Vision 2000 strategic plan, the Society is taking an active lead in the development of accessioning/deaccessioning criteria and procedures to be employed when determining whether to add or remove an existing state memorial from the "site system."
Although legislative approval is required prior to removing sites from the system, the Committee believes the State should be a more active partner in developing the accessioning/deaccessioning procedures used by the Society.
A draft accessioning/deaccessioning policy has been created as part of the first phase of the Society's Vision 2000 Strategic Plan. The Select Committee recommends the following:
The Select Committee affirms the recommendations of the Ohio Historical Review Committee (December 2000) that the Board of Regents should explore whether OHS could be designated as eligible for Ohio Board of Regents grants for professional development.
Therefore, the Select Committee recommends that ORC ?149.30(J), which limits OHS to offering educational material to schools "at cost or near cost," be altered to allow OHS to charge at rates closer to "market rates" with the expectation that such charges could yield "seed funding" for the design and production of subsequent programs, materials, and services.
The Select Committee further recommends an increased collaboration with the Department of Education and the Ohio SchoolNet Commission to review additional funding sources that may be utilized for the above purposes.
Therefore, the Select Committee recommends that the State Historic Preservation Office be transferred to the Ohio Department of Development.
The recommendations within this category are consistent with the increased reporting requirements that were recommended by the Ohio Historical Society Review Committee.
The Select Committee heard testimony on the need for joining the archival and records management programs in Ohio. The reasons for this included:
It was explained to the Select Committee that in Ohio, state records management is found within the General Services division of the Department of Administrative Services. It functions as outlined in Ohio Revised Code section 149.33.1. The State Archives of Ohio is a department of the Archives Library division of the Ohio Historical Society. The functions of the State Archives of Ohio are outlined in the ORC 149.31. It was presented in testimony that the state archives and records management have a good informal working relationship, but the formal separation of the two makes it difficult for each to function effectively.
Four options to merge these systems were presented to the Select Committee including the creation of a Commission of Public Records; the creations of an Ohio Department of Libraries and Archives; bringing the State Records Administrator into the Ohio Historical Society; and to create a Public Records Advisory Committee to advise OHS with public records issues and to coordinate the activities of the State Records Management and the State Archives. The majority of states use one or the other of the first two options mentioned above.
The Select Committee found the reasons for consolidation of records management programs in Ohio to be a compelling one but felt choosing the best method to be beyond the scope and expertise of this Select Committee.
Therefore, the Select Committee recommends the following:
The State possesses a unique public/private partnership with the Society that has clearly yielded many benefits. The Select Committee acknowledges the strengths and advantages of this partnership and believes that the recommendations it has proposed will serve to strengthen it and ensure its longevity. The undeniable key to maintaining a successful and enduring partnership involves periodically examining and revising the roles and the responsibilities of each partner.
The Select Committee has concluded that the best way to ensure the long-term viability of the state's historic sites as well as facilitate a clearer understanding of the use of State revenues in the Society's functions lies foremost in the State reestablishing itself in this partnership. Specifically, the State's role must reach beyond simply subsidizing the Society's operations.
The key to a successful partnership between the State and the Society lies in achieving an effective balance between accountability and flexibility. These recommendations were designed with the specific hope that they would lay the framework as to how best to achieve this symbiosis.
The Select Committee acknowledges that OHS communicates, reports, testifies, and responds on a far more frequent, comprehensive and systematic basis than do other recipients of State operating and/or capital funds appropriated for "historical" purposes. We urge our colleagues in the General Assembly to consider how the desirable objective of accountability might be appropriately extended to encompass the appropriations of historical projects not directly assigned or pursued by the Ohio Historical Society.
The Committee expresses its appreciation to OHS Board of Trustees President, Richard Sisson, Director Gary Ness, and the staff of the OHS for all of their hard work these past several months. The Committee compliments the Director and his staff for their excellent and informative presentations - they were asked to provide over eighteen different presentations on various topics as well as coordinate field trips to the Ohio Historical Center and Fort Ancient.
The Select Committee will reconvene in the Fall to review several of the issues and recommendations raised within this report and the Committee may issue an addendum to the report.
Since 1976, the Ohio Archaeological Council (the Council) has been one of the partners in Ohio's historical programs, referenced by name in several sections in the Ohio Revised Code (Revised Code) as an organization the Ohio Historical Society (the Society) is to consult with concerning certain archaeological activities. We welcome this long overdue opportunity to testify about Ohio's historical programs and partnerships with respect to the archaeological programs of the Society.
The Council is a private, non-profit corporation registered with the State of Ohio since 1975 as a charitable, scientific and educational corporation. We are a membership organization comprised of over 100 professional archaeologists and five institutions engaged in archaeological research, interpretation, site preservation, and public education in Ohio. The five institutional members are the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, the Cincinnati Museum Center, the Dayton Society of Natural History, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, and the Ohio Historical Society. Our mission is to promote the advancement of archaeology in Ohio through research, publication and education.
Twelve thousand years of history are contained in the archaeological sites of this state. These sites represent the lives, homes, communities, and workplaces of people of diverse social, economic and ethnic backgrounds, including Native Americans, African Americans, and Euroamericans. Archaeology is crucial to understanding, preserving, enhancing, and sharing this heritage. It is a heritage with great social, educational and economic value to Ohioans and to the nation.
Our archaeological resources are unmatched by other states. However, this heritage is finite and fragile, and we believe the State of Ohio's commitment to it is not commensurate with its value. The destruction of important aspects of our heritage is increasing at an alarming rate, and without a plan as well as leadership from the Society to further identify, research, preserve, interpret, and share the important aspects of our heritage, it will continue to be lost. Among our recommendations to this Committee is to require the Society to develop a state historic preservation plan, including a separate state archaeological preservation plan, pursuant to Section 149.301 of the Revised Code, in consultation with state agencies and other interested stakeholders, including representatives of relevant Native Americans tribes and organizations. A number of states that Ohio competes with for tourism, in education, and in economic development, have prepared and are implementing such plans to their advantage. Ohio has not done so and lags behind.
Although our testimony focuses on the role of the Society with respect to the Revised Code in identifying, researching, preserving, interpreting, and sharing Ohio's rich archaeological heritage, we want to preface the rest of our remarks with the following observations. Although we see a number of successes, particularly with the acquisition many years ago of some important archaeological and historic sites, and the more recent development of state-of-the-art educational facilities and programs at a number of these sites, other important sites are underutilized due to a lack of preservation and development plans, and of course funding.
We also see a great and urgent need for the Society to develop meaningful partnerships with other organizations and institutions with an interest in Ohio archaeology in order to help the Society meet its obligations to the people of Ohio and their representatives in the General Assembly. Sustaining the successes and making improvements will no doubt require a strong commitment and substantial financial investment from the General Assembly. We believe that revisions to the Society's responsibilities with respect to archaeology in the Revised Code are necessary to reflect the practice of archaeology in the 21st Century, and new funding mechanisms found to sustain and build its archaeological programs and partnerships. We call for a renewed effort to sustain and develop the Society's archaeological programs and partnerships for the benefit of Ohioans and the nation.
The Society was founded in 1885 as the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society. In the latter part of the 19th Century and well into the 20th Century, the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society was a leader among the archaeological research institutions of the nation. During the mid-20th century that leadership role changed, and so did the Society's name. The Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, once one of the nation's leading archaeological research institutions, fell behind many similar institutions across the nation. Today, many other states devote far more resources to, and enjoy much greater benefits from, the identification, research, preservation, and interpretation of their state's archaeological heritage, and they do so more effectively by actively partnering with academic institutions, museums, the private sector, and interested stakeholders.
We now wish to turn your attention to the Revised Code. Section 149.30 states that the public functions to be performed by the Society shall include all of the following, and the section continues by enumerating the public functions. We interpret the word "shall" to mean must, and we take the General Assembly at its word when it stated in this section that "an appropriation by the General Assembly to the Society constitutes an offer to contract with the Society to carry out those public functions for which appropriations are made." We also take the General Assembly at its word when it stated "an acceptance by the Society of the appropriated funds constitutes an acceptance by the Society of the offer and is considered an agreement by the Society to perform those functions." We believe that in a number of instances the Society has failed to meet this agreement.
Since 1976, Revised Code section 149.30 permitted the Governor to request from the State Controlling Board, on behalf of the Society, funds for archaeological investigations of an emergency nature at sites about to be destroyed. We are concerned that the Society has not used this provision in a number of instances where it would have been appropriate. We request that the Committee determine how many times, and in what instances, the Society has asked the Governor to request such funds, how often the Controlling Board has released them, and for what projects. If the Society rarely uses this provision, if the Governor rarely requests such funds, and if the Controlling Board rarely releases such funds, then we urge the Committee to determine why this is the case so an informed decision can be made about the efficacy of this provision.
Revised Code section 149.30(A) requires the Society to operate, maintain and promote for public use State Memorials. It does so, however the Society's operation of Moundbuilders State Memorial for public use is in serious conflict with the State Memorial's use as a private country club and golf course. The use of the property as a private golf course needs to be reconsidered. We are pleased, however, to see that the Society is beginning to develop a cultural resources management plan for this property, and we encourage the General Assembly to require it to do so for all its properties. The Council has and continues to work with the Friends of the Mounds, a group of Native people, educators and interested persons, to get the Society to provide better access to this internationally significant site and to preserve it as a public park. Without long- range planning, however, important archaeological sites under the Society's care have and will continue to suffer the consequences of land uses that diminish the historical, social, educational, and economic value of such properties, as is most recently and disturbingly demonstrated by the on-going destruction of the Buffington Island Civil War Battlefield in Meigs County, adjacent to Buffington Island State Memorial.
In addition, the Council is extremely concerned about the inadequacies of archaeological investigations at some State Memorials undergoing capital improvements. At times, sufficient funds are apparently not provided to undertake the necessary archaeological investigations prior to construction. Adequate research designs are sometimes not developed to guide the archaeological investigations. Both result in the loss of important archaeological data useful in the interpretation of these sites, and missed opportunities for public participation. Such projects do not set good examples of stewardship, preservation, public education, or cooperation with interested stakeholders and partners. The current capital improvement work at Fort Meigs in Wood County, a National Historic Landmark, the nation's highest recognition for historic places, is an example. For a project of this magnitude, at such a significant Native American and national site, the Society has undertaken the replacement of the reconstructed fort without, in our opinion, sufficient funds, planning, staffing, public education, or consultation with interested stakeholders on the nationally significant archaeological resources at this site. The apparent result is the needless loss of significant archaeological data, and lost opportunities for public education and community involvement. This is the second time that Fort Meigs has suffered this kind of degradation at the hands of the Society. The other was in the late 1960s and 1970s when Fort Meigs was initially reconstructed.
Revised Code section 149.30(B) requires the Society to develop appropriate educational facilities for archaeological sites under its care. The Society has done an exemplary job of doing so at a few of its more notable archaeological sites, such as Fort Ancient, Flint Ridge and Fort Hill. But other sites, such as Moundbuilders and Serpent Mound, lack appropriate facilities. The Council urges the Society and the General Assembly to upgrade the educational facilities at these internationally significant sites.
Since 1976, Revised Code section 149.30(E) required the Society to establish a marking system to mark significant historic and archaeological sites. As it pertains to archaeological sites, this section of the Revised Code is ill conceived. The Society has identified hundreds of significant archaeological sites, and thousands more are yet to be identified. It is unnecessary, unwise and cost-prohibitive to mark all these sites. These sites need to be protected from illegal excavations and other forms of destruction, and marking their locations does little to accomplish this goal. Revised Code section 149.30(F) requires the Society to publish books, pamphlets, periodicals, and other publications about Ohio archaeology. The Society rarely publishes such materials. Among other publications, the Council urges the Society reestablish its archaeological research publication series along the lines of the journal Ohio History, which twice a year publishes articles on history, not archaeology. Doing so would greatly contribute to the Society's educational mission with respect to archaeology.
Revised Code section 149.30(G) requires the Society to engage in research in archaeology. The Society rarely undertakes or promotes such research. The Council would like to see the Society reestablish an archaeological research program in cooperation with partners in State Government, academic institutions, the private sector, and interested stakeholders. Archaeological research is vital to sustaining Ohio's historical programs and partnerships. Without ongoing archaeological research, interpretation of sites for the public becomes stale and visitation suffers.
Since 1976, Revised Code section 149.30(K) required the Society to provide advice and technical assistance to local historical societies for the preservation of archaeological sites. No formal program has been developed to do so. The Council urges the Society to develop a formal program in conjunction with Revised Code sections 149.30(M) and (N), which I will soon address.
Since 1976, Revised Code section 149.30(L) required the Society to develop criteria for designating significant archaeological sites in Ohio and advising local historical societies in such matters. The Society developed a State Registry of Archaeological Landmarks, but this program has not been implemented. To our knowledge, not a single archaeological site has been listed in the State Registry of Archaeological Landmarks since it was established 25 years ago. This program needs to be revised and revived as part of the Society's public functions.
Since 1976, Revised Code section 149.30(M) required the Society to cooperate with the Council, the Archaeological Society of Ohio, and the Ohio Arts Council to identify and maintain a record of archaeological sites in Ohio. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office, a division of the Society, maintains this record, called the Ohio Archaeological Inventory, which is comprised of over 33,000 archaeological sites. However, the Society has not established a cooperative program with the other organizations to assist with this effort, particularly in the identification of such sites. The Council urges the Society develop formal relationships between these organizations for this purpose. A number of other states have model programs that accomplish this goal.
Since 1976, Revised Code section 149.30(N) required the Society to work with landowners and persons with an interest in significant archaeological sites to voluntarily control land use practices not conducive to site preservation at those sites or on properties adjacent to those sites. The Society does not have a program to do so. The Council urges the Society to develop such a program in cooperation with other organizations such as The Archaeological Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land. A number of states have model programs that accomplish this goal.
As previously indicated, since 1976 Revised Code section 149.51 required the Society to maintain a State Registry of Archaeological Landmarks. The Society does little, if anything, to promote this program, and the Council considers the program defunct and fatally flawed. This section of the Revised Code should be revised to create a workable and meaningful archaeological site recognition program.
Likewise, since 1976 Revised Code section 149.52 required the Society to maintain an archaeological preserve program. To our knowledge, only one archaeological site outside of those owned or operated by the Society has been dedicated as an archaeological preserve. Again, the Society does little to promote this program, and the Council considers the program defunct. This section of the Revised Code should be revised or the authority transferred to another state agency or private non-profit organization if the Society does not intend to use it to protect significant archaeological sites.
Revised Code section 149.53 requires that all state agencies cooperate with the Society and the Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory Board (Advisory Board), a Governor appointed advisory board to the Society, in the preservation of archaeological sites and in recovery of scientific information from such sites. It also requires that contractors performing work on public improvements cooperate with the Society and the Advisory Board, and notify one or the other about discoveries of archaeological sites during construction projects. To our knowledge, state agencies, perhaps with the exception of the Ohio Department of Transportation, rarely comply with this statute, and to our knowledge the Society makes little effort to gain such cooperation from state agencies. We believe this section should be revised to gain and strengthen the cooperation of state agencies in the identification and preservation of significant archaeological sites on state land, and to protect Native American and abandoned cemeteries on public and privately owned lands. Many states have programs that do so.
Revised Code section 149.301 requires the Advisory Board to assist "in the Society's site preservation program, suggest legislation necessary to the Society's preservation program, including the location, designation, restoration, preservation, and maintenance of state historic and archaeological sites and artifacts.and shall provide general advice, guidance, and professional recommendations to the State Historic Preservation Officer in conducting the comprehensive statewide survey, preparing the state historic preservation plan, and carrying out the other duties and responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officer." With respect to these duties, the Advisory Board is vastly underutilized. Furthermore, the state historic preservation plan has never been completed. Many other states have completed and are implementing such plans to their advantage. In the strongest terms possible, we urge the General Assembly to require that the State Historic Preservation Officer develop, complete, implement, and regularly update a state historic preservation plan, and that this be accomplished with significant input from public and private sector stakeholders. Without the plan, we firmly believe Ohio will continue to lag behind many other states it competes with in preserving heritage, which in turn affects our quality of life and our ability to build a sustainable economy.
Revised Code section 149.54 requires that the Society, in consultation with the Council and the Archaeological Society of Ohio, develop rules governing archaeological investigations on state lands, archaeological preserves, and State Registry of Archaeological Landmarks sites. The Society has done so, but these rules need to be updated reflecting advances in archaeological practice. The penalty for violating this rule, currently a second-degree misdemeanor, should be revised upward to become comparable to similar federal violations.
In closing, we want to reemphasize three things. First, the urgent need to create both a state archaeological preservation plan and a state historic preservation plan. Second, broaden the Society's partnerships. Third, revise the Revised Code with respect to the Society's archaeological programs. Ohio has fallen behind many states in identifying, researching, preserving, and interpreting its archaeological heritage. That heritage is rich, but it is also disappearing at an increasingly rapid pace. We are in competition with other states for tourist dollars, in educating our citizens, in attracting economic development, and in protecting our heritage. The partners in Ohio's historical programs, including the Society, the General Assembly, other sectors of state and local government, academic institutions, the private sector, and interested stakeholders, must make and keep a commitment to preserve our heritage because of its social, educational and economic value for Ohioans and for the nation. There must be a better future for Ohio's past, and the Council is ready to work with these partners to accomplish this goal.