Linda raises some interesting points. There are a number of ways an
executive branch agency can be punished. NARA is not immune to any of
them. I myself don't think that SAA balanced criticism of NARA against
efforts to fight for its budget. But I could be wrong. Just as we
don't know what led NARA to sign the agreements, so too do we lack
insights into what influenced the crafting of SAA's statement. (I'm
actually an SAA member again, after being out for some time.)
As to independence, many people have grappled with that subject. A
personal note, for what it is worth. My twin sister, Eva, worked for
18 years in NARA's records declassification division (from 1983 until
her death from cancer in 2002). From what I remember, I can tell you
that she seemed to feel the potential challenges to NARA's independence
came up with my field of specialty -- Presidential records -- rather
than hers -- national security classified records As close as we
were, although we were Federal employees in very similar job
situations, she never talked about what was in the security classified
documents she handled, just as I never talked about unreleased
information in the Nixon records. That even was the case while we both
worked as NARA employees (I started there in 1976 and left in 1990).
During the period after Don Wilson stepped down as U.S. Archivist 13
years ago, I was in contact on an informal basis for a while with
William Josephson, who was a law partner of R. Sargent Shriver
(President John Kennedy's brother-in-law). Mr. Josephson published a
commentary about NARA in the Chronicle of Higher Education on June 18,
1995. The piece was entitled "The Legislative Branch Should Run the
National Archives." Mr. Josephson then wrote:
"As a result of such continuing difficulties, I've concluded that the
problems of the Archives are, in important part, structural. Right now,
the agency is seen as just one of many lesser executive-branch
agencies, without a well-defined and powerful constituency interested
in seeing it given adequate power to carry out its responsibilities. As
long as that is the case, the Archives cannot develop the political
support needed to stand up to recalcitrant officials of the executive
branch who do not want to turn over their records for public scrutiny.
Further, as long as the Archivist remains a Presidential appointee
serving at the will of the President, the position is not likely to be
filled by an independent and well-qualified professional willing to
stand up to the President."
If any of you have access to ProQuest, or to the CHE's electronic
archives, you might want to look up the Josephson article. I myself
have pointed out here and elsewhere that scholars often act as if NARA
is part of a mythical fourth branch of government. Few seem to
understand how it operates or to think strategically or tactically
about how to support its mission. I note with interest that H-Net's
historians' message boards are nearly devoid of comment about the
reclassification controversy. Equally deafening is the silence on the
History News Network, which really doesn't draw historians, but often
is used by various blowhards for different political rants. Although I
am one myself, I mostly shake my head at historians. They seem to
perfer to function as armchair analysts rather than to engage in
difficult and often scary public policy battles in order to help NARA.
Maarja
.
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]>