|
|
|
|
STATE/FEDERAL ROUNDTABLE Council of Geographic Names Authorities (COGNA) Annual Meeting
Portland, Oregon In attendance were representatives of:
U.S. Board on Geographic
Names (BGN) The session opened at 8:40 a.m. with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) Executive Secretary and staff of the Domestic Names Committee presenting a list of annotated topics for information and discussion. The topics are listed below in the order in which they were discussed, along with a synopsis of the discussion. I. Topics and points of clarification regarding the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), and other points of toponymic interest. 1. What is the process for entering data into the GNIS web edit forms for changes that are simply spelling or typographic errors, or into the web entry forms for newly discovered names? Which names must go through the full BGN process? Also, who has access to these web forms? The BGN policy has always been to accept any name that appears on a published source acceptable to the Geographic Names Office (GNO) and that does not conflict with an existing name in the database. If there are questions regarding what is an acceptable source, one should contact the GNO for guidance. If the source has not yet been used for names compilation, a new bibliographic citation (code) will be assigned. If a name is discovered for a natural feature that conflicts with a name already listed in GNIS, or if two conflicting names are discovered, these should be forwarded to the BGN for resolution. Typically, the order of priority for accepting “new” names is Federal products, then State, then local, and so on. However, it must be noted that for administrative names (such as schools, parks, libraries, police and fire stations, and so forth), the State or local administering agency will likely have more current, complete, and accurate data. The “local” name should be added to GNIS as the official name, while the former name should be retained as a variant. Any local, State, Federal, or Tribal partner that has a need to submit names data may request a login and password for the web forms. The GNO staff is available to offer web-based training to any individual or group that requests it, and if there is sufficient need, classroom training may be available. All data submitted via the web forms will be reviewed by the GNO for completeness and compliance with GNIS standards. If a controversy is uncovered, the name(s) may be forwarded to the BGN for resolution. The Executive Secretary of the BGN reported that the new web maintenance forms (entry and edit) are very easy to use, and users should call Dwight Hughes for login procedures, changing passwords, and other administrative questions. Robin Worcester and Eve Edwards are available to answer questions regarding use of the forms and data content questions. Partnerships have become the primary means for acquiring names information, and the Board encourages that this be done through the State Names Authorities (SNA’s). McArthur encouraged every SNA to develop an “office of oversight,” so that they know what is going into the GNIS. Payne encouraged States to sign a formal memorandum of agreement with the Names Office for ongoing maintenance, and to pursue possible funding options. The Names Office has developed already formal agreements with Delaware, West Virginia, and North Carolina, with funds awarded just recently to Florida and Oregon. An agreement is also in the works with Nevada. State Names Authorities should also make every effort to develop working relationships with their State’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) office(s), and should encourage these organizations to establish GNIS-type databases that can be integrated with the existing national file. Geographic names information from partners should be included in the names layer for The National Map. Payne reiterated that Federal land management agencies are responsible for updating GNIS, and the GNO staff will work with individual partners to make the exchange of data a smooth and efficient process. Hughes added that the GNO will work with data providers to determine the best way to enter data. It might be feasible to develop a standard template to use for all States and other interested groups, but this has not happened yet. Rayburn asked what the staff does about data that overlaps between State and County files. Hughes indicated because GNIS is feature-oriented, the GNIS Feature Identification Number (FID) serves as a unique identifier to ensure that each feature is treated as a single, solitary element/entity. Required information for data input is the Feature Name, the State(s), the County(ies), and the Feature Class (Type). Additional information such as Geographic Coordinates (latitude and longitude, either in Degrees, Minutes, and Seconds, or in Decimal Degrees), Feature Size, Notes about History and Description, and Variant Names are helpful but not required. It was noted that in August 2005, all data in GNIS was converted to NAD83. It was suggested that it should be made clearer on the web forms that NAD 83 should be used when entering any geographic coordinates. 2. The Federal or State agency that manages an administrative feature is responsible for providing updates on legislated/congressionally-approved name changes for those features. Payne requested that if any Federal or State administering agency becomes aware of an entity being named or renamed by legislation, that agency should make every effort to inform the Geographic Names Office. It was asked how Congress establishes geographic names, and who is responsible for initiating a potential change. Kanalley indicated that this has long been an issue for the U.S. Forest Service and that it is very difficult to get a name changed through Congress as there are no established procedures. Payne added that the National Park Service (NPS) has expressed similar concerns and is exploring ways to formulate rules that would permit land management agencies to be involved in such changes. Problems arise when Congressionally-approved names include an abbreviated form of the name. It was suggested that the State Names Authorities should provide feedback to their congressional delegates regarding any names issues. The names staff clarified that just because a geographic name is mentioned in State or Federal legislation, this does not mean the name is Congressionally sanctioned. For such a name to be official, the law must specifically refer to the establishment of the name. State legislated names are not subject to USBGN guidelines, but should still be forwarded to and promulgated within GNIS. 3. It is appreciated if the State Names Authorities could include as much information as possible in their minutes regarding the reasons for their recommendations on name proposals. This greatly assists the BGN in its deliberations. A panelist encouraged all SNA’s to assemble as much information as possible before forwarding a proposal to the BGN staff. Whenever possible, this should include photographs and maps of the feature(s), along with any other pertinent documents. It was noted that it would be helpful to the BGN staff if the minutes of the SNA meetings could provide insight into how the discussions proceeded, including specifics regarding whatever “overriding factors” the SNA might have used. One State Names Authority member noted it would also be very helpful for the SNA’s to know how a Federal agency voted on a specific proposal. It was requested that there should be more complete guidelines explaining the justification for “overriding need” when the BGN uses this reasoning in a decision. 4. The BGN terms “Docket” and “Review List” have been reversed. In recent years, several members of the toponymic community have expressed confusion regarding the use of the terms “Docket” and “Review List.” Effective August 1, 2005, the term “Docket” refers to those names that have been placed on the monthly agenda because they are ready for a BGN vote, while the “Quarterly Review List” or “Review List” is a list of names recently submitted to the BGN and ready for research and further investigation. All references to earlier quarterly dockets will also reflect the change. There was a short discussion, and all agreed. 5. The BGN staff is making efforts to post updates/corrections to the Review List to the BGN website. Whenever possible, the BGN staff will note those corrections in the monthly minutes, but will also notify all parties by e-mail that the website contains new information. There was a short discussion, and all agreed. II. State/Federal Roundtable Topics 1. What types of features should be in GNIS, and what is being done to ensure that the database is “current, complete, and correct.” How is it conceivable that every named entity will be listed in GNIS? Concerns have been raised regarding the requirement that Federal employees must report to the GNIS staff every name not already in the database before it can be used in any sort of communication, even if the name does not fall under the decision purview of the BGN. The PPP places all names, even those for manmade or cultural features, under the promulgation purview of the Board, and therefore requires that they be in the GNIS before they can be used. There is concern that most Federal employees will not, or cannot, abide by this requirement. Some believe it is “presumptuous of the Geographic Names Office to think that it can ever be a meaningful catalog of names, such as for commercial enterprises, which change frequently.” Should a distinction be made between “landmark” buildings and all other named buildings? Payne reiterated the responsibilities of the BGN, and reminded everyone that it is the job of the BGN staff and all government agencies to collect information on every named entity, including names not under BGN purview. The only category of names not under BGN purview is roads and highways. With regard to commercial and “landmark” names, Hughes suggested that developing partnerships within each State would help to determine what names should go in GNIS. One member suggested it was appropriate to gather names “deemed to be in the public interest.” It was indicated and agreed by all that it is the SNA’s responsibility to inform the GNO staff about updates to geographic names. A panelist asked whether the BGN might ever render a decision on a commercial name. Payne indicated that the Board will not vote on a name that is determined to be commercial. Private dwellings should never be included in GNIS. 2. What is the significance of State Names Authority recommendations with regard to BGN decisions? BGN staff indicated that following several recent BGN decisions, there was an outcry because the BGN did not agree with the State's recommendations. The BGN members wish to stress that they rely heavily on the Principles, Policies, and Procedures (PPP) during the decision making process. If, in the opinion of the members, the recommendation of a State Names Authority is not in agreement with those policies and principles, or if the State uses reasons that are not within the PPP or uses what could be considered specious or irrelevant data, a State recommendation may be overruled by the BGN. For that reason, it would best serve everyone’s interests if the same logic, policies, and principles were followed when deciding names cases. It was suggested by several SNA representatives that the BGN should have some accountability to the SNA when it votes against the recommendations of the State. It was acknowledged and accepted that the BGN should have the right to vote differently than the States, but perhaps guidelines or a protocol should be in place that holds the BGN accountable for doing so. This would likely lead to more informed decisions by the SNA’s. The BGN staff indicated that the BGN will revisit a decision if more information is received that warrants further review of the case. At its monthly meeting, the BGN members will review the situation and will decide whether or not to revisit a proposal. 3. Is the BGN too lenient in accepting and processing every name proposal it receives? How should the BGN handle proposals that the State Names Authority has declined to entertain? Some States and other interested parties are questioning the policy of the BGN to entertain every proposal it receives unless the name violates the Commemorative Naming (the intended honoree has been deceased less than five years) or unless the name includes one of the two derogatory terms not permitted by the BGN. In commenting on a recent proposal, one local authority noted in its response, “It is appalling to think that your agency is taking the suggested changes seriously.” The BGN has made it clear that it believes every proponent is entitled to “a fair hearing,” and that to dismiss any proposal because it seems frivolous or not worthy of consideration is not in accordance with the BGN’s mission. It was agreed that on occasion the BGN has received and processed a proposal that might be considered trivial. However, the BGN members reiterated their belief that they have the responsibility to entertain every proposal, and that they do not want the staff to “weed out” proposals. They also added that a proponent can send a proposal directly to the BGN because it is a body of the Federal government. The Executive Secretary indicated that the BGN members, although not its staff, may request to remove a name proposal from a review list, but that this has not happened yet and likely will not. 4. Is the BGN’s online Domestic Geographic Name Report (DGNR) proving effective in processing name proposals? The BGN began allowing proponents to submit proposals electronically in 2001. Some State Names Authorities have suggested the form creates more work for the BGN and SNA staff, when the purpose of an electronic form should be to reduce the workload. It was noted that if the Federal form does not provide the necessary information for the State to proceed, the State may require that the proponent also complete the State’s own form. Payne indicated that the forms are not “smart” forms and cannot determine whether the information provided by the proponent is or is not sufficient. Runyon stated that if more information is needed, she will make every effort to contact the proponent to request additional documentation. If the SNA needs additional information, it should also contact the proponent. 5. When a State Legislature mandates a name(s) must be changed and submits a replacement, do the local citizens and county governments have any say in the issue? How much effort should the BGN staff or SNA make to determine whether the State Legislature involved the local citizens, other State agencies, and Federal and Tribal authorities in the process? Runyon indicated that while this situation does not occur very often, the SNA’s and other interested parties should be involved when a name has been or is slated to become part of State legislation. Staff indicated that it would make every attempt to notify county governments, tribes, etc, about local names issues. 6. Some States have questions regarding the pronunciation, spelling, and diacritical marks associated with indigenous words and names. Can and should the BGN and State Names Authorities be more flexible in accepting the pronunciation, spelling, and diacritical marks of proposed geographic names? Many recently proposed names, including those offered as replacements for the "Squaw" names, use words from indigenous languages. There is a belief among the members of the Oregon Geographic Names Board (OGNB), for example, that “perhaps we are being too strict by not allowing names that (1) are hard to pronounce; (2) have diacritical marks; or (3) have other than an Anglicized spelling.” There are already numerous existing geographic names in the United States that are or were once difficult to pronounce, but some believe that the ability to pronounce a name is still very important. The OGNB understands the BGN is currently developing written guidelines to address these concerns. This conference provides timely opportunity to discuss and possibly resolve some of the linguistic issues. Payne indicated that the diacritical and special marks policy no longer exists. All writing marks are acceptable as long as they occur in the Roman alphabet. If the name is an indigenous name, its spelling should be in accordance with established orthography for the tribe. Payne noted that for three years the Board had a Pronunciation Subcommittee that was responsible for studying this issue, after which most members concluded that it was not the business of the Board to create a pronunciation guide, particularly as some might view it as a Federal mandate decreeing one official pronunciation nationwide. In 2003/2004, the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names established a working group on pronunciation. Payne reported that he is a member of this group and as such keeps the BGN appraised of any pronunciation issues.
McArthur indicated the
difficulty that can arise when a name is not pronounceable, and recommended that
indigenous names be in an orthography that is pronounceable. Runyon offered to
include in the case brief a rendition of how a name should be pronounced, but
Payne responded that this should not be done as it could be perceived as a
Federal mandate. All such names will need to be referred to orally. The PPP states that an appropriate generic term should be added to any name for which the type of feature is not readily apparent. A map user who is not familiar with the language from which the specific part of the name is derived must know to which type of feature the name refers. Is it the responsibility of the BGN staff and the State Names Authorities to suggest (insist upon?) a generic, and what should be done if the proponent argues he/she does not want a generic included? Payne indicated that a generic term is used to aid the user in identifying the feature. BGN staff can and will contact proponents to encourage selection of a generic if and when this issue arises. If the proponent insists a generic not be included, the BGN members will evaluate the proposal accordingly. 8. How do State Names Authorities and the BGN manage counter-proposals? It appears that as more interested parties are contacted and thus are involved in and made aware of the naming process, more counter-proposals are being received. That is, one name is placed on the BGN Review List, but in the course of soliciting input from local citizens, county governments, and State, Tribal, and Federal authorities, more “alternative” names are being uncovered and/or proposed. It is the BGN’s philosophy to accept these counter-proposals and place them on a subsequent Review List. All parties are once again contacted for input and asked whether the new information has any effect on a previous recommendation. How do the State Name Authorities handle these situations? Must the BGN wait for a subsequent SNA meeting, or could an e-mail or telephone poll be conducted to determine whether the SNA members wish to revisit the issue? How much weight does an SNA give a counter-proposal? Runyon questioned the audience about how SNA’s handle counter-proposals. Examples include situations where a local group, such as an Indian tribe, disagrees with the proposal and suggests another name. Cogswell indicated that if the OGNB receives an application, and another proposal for the same feature is also submitted, their obligation to the proponents is to move forward in processing the proposals………… It was noted that only a proponent can withdraw a proposal. Payne indicated that the correct procedure is to forward both proposals to the BGN, but the SNA should recommend approval of one only name. 9. If, in the course of reviewing a name proposal, the BGN staff or the SNA discovers an alternative name on an acceptable Federal or State source, that name should be added to GNIS as the official name, thus making the proposed name a “name change.” Are there any exceptions? Is this fair to the proponent? There was a short discussion, and all agreed this was reasonable and that although it may not seem fair to the proponent, it is in accordance with standard policy. 10. Following a BGN decision, what are the responsibilities of the State Names Authorities regarding notifying interested parties? After rendering a decision, the BGN notifies all parties that made direct contact with the BGN during the review process, but always at a minimum, letters are sent to the proponent, the county/town/city government(s), the State Names Authority, and the State Department of Transportation. It is presumed that the BGN members notify their respective agencies, and similarly, it is expected that the SNA will notify any affected State agencies. If the SNA has a specific point of contact at their Department of Transportation, please forward that information to the BGN staff. It was reiterated, and agreed by all, that the SNA’s are responsible for notifying State agencies about changes or new names. It was suggested and agreed that the USGS State Liaisons should be added to the list of persons of interest being notified. |
|
|
