[MassHistPres] FW: Are the costs of scanning historic documents eligible for CPA funding? - Typographical error in post

[James J O'Rourke Jr]

The earlier posting on the above topic contained a typographical error. The
year of the DOR opinion was 2008, not 1980.  I apologize for any confusion
this may have caused.

 

Jim O'Rourke

Chair, Town of Somerset Community Preservation Committee and Historical
Commission

 

From: James J O'Rourke Jr [mailto:jamesjorourkejr321 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 9:57 AM
To: 'MassHistPres MA' <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: Are the costs of scanning historic documents eligible for CPA
funding?

 

The town clerk in my community has applied for CPA funding to pay for the
costs of scanning to microfilm and digital storage of "historic" documents.
While members of the preservation community will agree that preserving
valuable historic documents by microfilming or digitizing the information
contained in the physical document is an appropriate preservation tool, the
Department of Revenue (DOR) issued an opinion in 1980 directed to the City
Clerk of Waltham which calls into question such a project's eligibility for
CPA funding.  The opinion stated that "services such as archiving or
scanning to the extent that they involve the preserving the information
content of documents, rather the preservation of the physical document
themselves," do not qualify for CPA funding.  (I'm advised by the DOR that
the opinion is still in effect.)

       

While many will consider this is an unreasonably narrow interpretation and
that the protection of the information in the documents is an essential
feature of historical preservation, the CPA is a law which concerns other
needs besides historical preservation and, like all statutes has to be
carefully interpreted.  Also, the CPA gives the DOR broad powers with
respect to the implementation of the Act.  (See Section 17, in particular.)


 

I have been advised by the Community Preservation Coalition that scanning
has been allowed by the DOR when the costs of the scanning are "incidental"
to the rehabilitation of the physical historic document.

 

I'm interested in learning of the experiences of subscribers to the listserv
with respect to this issue.  In southeastern Massachusetts, I know of
several towns where CPA funds have been used for scanning.  In at least two
of the communities, the local CPCs were not aware of the 1980 DOR opinion.
While ignorance of the opinion is understandable, if a CPC becomes aware of
the opinion, and the costs of the scanning are more than "incidental," it
should refer the matter to town counsel.  To ignore the DOR opinion is
irresponsible. The legal fees would be paid out of the CPA administrative
expense fund. Perhaps counsel could advise the applicant to structure the
scanning project so that it meets the "incidental" or some other exception
which would pass muster with the DOR.  

 

A note of caution: in 2015 the Superior Court found that an appropriated 1.4
million dollar CPA project in the Town of Norwell was deemed ineligible for
CPA funding, the vote of the Annual Town Meeting was declared null and void,
and the Town was ordered to pay back to the CPA fund any of the monies used
from the appropriation.  I am advised that the project was dropped by the
Town of Norwell. 

 

Jim O'Rourke

Chair of the Somerset CPC and Historical Commission

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20180103/842e859f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 70 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20180103/842e859f/attachment.gif>