Everyone: Today's Chronicle of Higher Education has an article that states that NARA has agreed to stop letting agencies secretly withdraw documents. Is this sufficient? I'm only stating the article's topic, because we were recently informed that you need permission from the Chronicle to post their articles to discussion groups. I have requested permission to post this article, but just in case those who have access you can read it now. Here is the statement: Permission is required to post Chronicle articles, or the contents of Chronicle e-mail reports, on Web sites, newsgroups, or electronic mailing lists (either restricted or general). Rebecca >>> <[log in to unmask]> 4/19/2006 6:52:14 AM >>> Richard Cox writes, "While there is much that is good in the SAA statement on the NARA reclassification case, I am concerned about a few elements of this statement." As is Richard, I am puzzled by why the SAA statement on the NARA reclassification issue is so limited in focus. He correctly points to the premature quality of some of the wording, at a time when NARA's own internal review of the reclassification matter still is ongoing. One can congratulate NARA for undertaking a review; however, no one knows yet what the short and long term outcome will be. This is a difficult challenge for the agency. I tend to agree with Dr. Weinstein that while I myself wouldn't have accepted some aspects of the agreements, such the requirement to conceal the existence of re-review from the public, the classified MOUs probably were signed with good intentions. Given the complexity of the issues, there is not way to tell how NARA will handle this ultimately. If NARA ends up punting on the matter, as it has on some other issues in the past, some of the wording in the SAA statement will appear hollow. I recognize that issues relating to NARA and especially to security classification can be difficult to unravel. Perhaps that explains the curious silence on this List. (Remember also that many List subscribers work at NARA. While they follow with interest what we write here, they probably do not find it safe to post here on this issue.) Of course, I suppose a few List members may conflate their personal political views with attempts to examine governmental issues, no matter how objectively and in a neutral fashion, and simply tune out any stories about controversies involving executive branch agencies. Others may not think about the fact that just as the theft of an artist's subject file or the removal of a map from the research room by a French woman represent ethical challenges, so does the way NARA reacts to pressure or input from external stakeholders. In an earlier posting about SAA last year, I asked you all to think about contentious issues within your own organizations. How easy would it be for SAA to find out about them and to provide public support for you?) Perhaps that is one reason why the SAA statement falls short. Still, one would think we could do more (Richard correctly points to the offer of forums, etc., as options that could have been mentioned.) Coincidentally, on the same day that SAA issued its statement, Maurita Baldock linked us to an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about FBI efforts to examine Jack Anderson's archival collection. The NYT and WaPo picked up the story today. Scott Shane notes in today's New York Times that "'Recovery of leaked C.I.A. and White House documents that Jack Anderson got back in the 70's has been on the F.B.I.'s wanted list for decades,' Mr. Blanton said." The leaking of security classified records by government employees is wrong - period. But we should consider the fact that if the government misuses its classification authority, or overclassifies information, the likelihood of leaks likely will increase. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we are more likely to read about the government's attempts to reclaim documents that a Jack Anderson might hold than about admonitions to use classification authority properly. Or for government officials to act ethically and with integrity in difficult situations, thereby avoiding altogether the temptation to ask others to cover up actions by improperly stamping something secret. There are people involved in every step of the way in creating and handling records. They can be the weakest or the strongest links in the process. Whatever is in them, ultimately, government records end up at the National Archives. That's the final stop for records of national memory. If NARA can't properly handle them, then we all are in real trouble. Consider what Bill Leonard said about some of this in a speech in 2004 (yes, that's the same Bill Leonard who is the director of NARA's ISOO unit, the man now in charge of the internal review of the reclassification issue): ". . . like all authority, classification authority is not without limits. There are some very clear prohibitions with respect to the use of classification. Specifically, in no case can information be classified in order to conceal violations of law or to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization or agency. Nonetheless, you are all probably aware of certain information dealing with the abuse of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison that has apparently been classified. The Department of Defense is currently in the process of addressing a number of concerns I have raised with them in this regard and I await their formal reply. . . . And what is gained by classifying such activity? Our values as a society are such that they will invariably serve as a self-correcting measure when confronted with such abuses - thus the inevitability that such information will eventually become widely known. At the same time, the initial act of classification can negatively impact the timeliness and completeness of notifications provided to certain Government officials, thus impairing their ability to deal with ensuing issues. In the final analysis, we only succeed in keeping the information from those who need to know it the most - the American people and their leaders - and even then, we only delay the inevitable." He also noted that ". . . as evidenced by a review of newspaper headlines over the past several months, agencies are finding it is increasingly difficult for them to hold their cleared employees accountable for adhering to the requirements for protecting classified information unless they likewise adhere to their provisions. . . . Added to the above is my experience that many senior officials will candidly acknowledge that the Government classifies too much information, although oftentimes the observation is made with respect to the activities of agencies other than their own. . . . I believe that it is no coincidence that some of these same agencies are currently experiencing a veritable epidemic of leaks - part and parcel of what occurs when individuals begin to loose confidence in the security classification system." SOURCE: William Leonard, "The Importance of Basics," June 15, 2004, at http://www.archives.gov/isoo/speeches-and-articles/ncms-2004.html To read Bill Leonard's bio, see http://www.archives.gov/isoo/about/director.html . I do not know him, have never met him, but know several people who now work for or have worked for him recently. In fact, my late sister, Eva, trained and was a mentor to several such employees. Until NARA finishes its review, we will not know how much our longterm confidence in the agency should be affected. As does Richard, I wish SAA's statement would have been more nuanced and had reflected greater contextual sophistication. I give SAA credit for putting something out relatively quickly, and hitting some of the important points, but hope yesterday's release does not represent its final word on these complex issues. Maarja (former NARA Nixon tapes archivist, 1976-1990) A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org. For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname *or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org. For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname *or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>