Good morning and welcome to the 2005 Council of Geographic Names Authorities conference. It is always a pleasure to look out and see the core family again. It is even better to see old friends who have missed a few meetings. I wish to welcome the first timers. I would also like to extend a welcome to our International visitors/advisors: John Parker, representing the Victorian Geographic Names Advisory Panel from the “land down under;” Kathleen O’Brien and Heather Ross from the Geographical Names Board of Canada also, noted author of Canadian Place Names, Alan Rayburn. It is with honor that we of COGNA can provide the opportunity for members of the toponymy community the opportunity to come together and share research, common interest and discuss common problems.

Looking back, we have come a long way since those seven States came together at the First Intermountain States Geographic Names Conference in 1977. That conference was inspired by the need to discuss common interest problems in administering and dealing with geographic names issues. This continues to be our focus. It seems that each year, we often come back to discuss some of those same problems again and again.

Important elements each year include meetings of the hosting State and U.S. Board. These meetings provide the opportunities to view the naming processes in action. The State/Federal Roundtable was added at the fourth conference and continues to be one of the most important, if not the most important discussion of our conferences. Instead of being just a working group of State and Federal Geographic Names Authority, we have worked to fill the void concerning geographic names often missing from other conferences. We welcome the added interest from the academic community.

But with all that we have accomplished, we still have a long road ahead. Although our attendance has steadily increased from approximately eighteen at the first Conference to around ninety this year, the number of states in attendance has not increased in the same rate. From the beginning of seven States, we only average around fifteen States at each meeting. This year, we are down to twelve. The numbers are far short of the fifty States and two territories that could be in attendance. Most of the States that are absent indicate that they have no funding for travel, especially for travel out of their State. Also, many of the people representing their State Authority will chose to attend a conference in their chosen field and not a geographic names conference. We need to find a way to help and get these states in attendance. To do so, I have appointed a committee to explore the possibilities and make recommendations.

As the years goes by, I notice that the staff at the Geographic Names Office has dwindled placing an extra burden on everyone. Each State Authority has different levels of who is responsible for the geographic names work. Most often this is an added responsibility from their normal duties and often takes a back seat. The number of meeting that States hold each year varies from monthly, quarterly, once a year, or as needed, which may seldom occur. This continues to place a backlog on the overall process: A problem when the proponents expect quick action, or at least within a reasonable time frame.

How to streamline the process needs to be addressed immediately. What I would like to suggest is that after each State/Federal Roundtable, the Council draft recommendations for the U.S. Board to consider. We also need a committee or at least goal oriented discussions from the U.S. Board with the State Names Authorities on how to streamline the processes. An example, the Geographic Names Office is mandated to contact Tribal authorities, but they have also asked the State authorities to help out and make these contacts. What I have found, at least in Oklahoma is that the Federal jurisdiction map used to determine what Tribal authorities to contact is quite different than our historical Indian land maps. Today Oklahoma has only one federally recognized Indian Reservation which is Osage County. Osage County by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a typical reservation. At the time of statehood, the Osage Reservation became a county, but remained a reservation mainly because of the Osage Nation’s vast mineral holdings. We also have Indian land holdings throughout the State owned and left over from the sixty-seven different tribes who once occupied the State. Many of these tribes have moved back to their old homelands, locating their headquarters in various States. This raises the question, who should be contacted and who should be making these contacts?

We all need to keep in mind that this is not a State against Federal situation where we end up with one official name approved by the State and another for Federal use. I have observed the argument of a State’s right to name features in their State. This often occurs through legislation where the principles, policies and procedures are overlooked and/or ignored. But what we can do, or will be allowed to do in this area is more difficult to address. Our Canadian neighbors have an interesting difference. It is the Territorial Name Authorities who make the decisions which are then accepted for federal use. Would this work here in the States? I doubt it. We have a system that has stood the test of time, but it could use some streamlining. We need to work together so that decisions can be administered within a one-year or less timeframe. That should be a goal for the Council and the U.S. Board.

Thank you and enjoy the meeting.

T. Wayne Furr, Executive Secretary