Thanks for posting, Arel! Arel makes some good points about why some archivists may not be speaking out. I'd like to reinforce one thing she said. I think it's important to point out that archivists are not a monolithic group, their views and even their desire (or lack of desire) to speak out are going to vary. That's okay. These things are going to be influenced by any number of things, including where you work, how much freedom of speech your employer tolerates, what your job requirements are, and, perhaps, in a few cases, personal rather than professional factors, such as whom you vote for, etc. I see that on other Lists, as well. I'm not looking for a monolithic response here on the List. I'm generally interested in how people view NARA and issues such as the public right to know, access, declassification/reclassification, etc. The one thing I hope we all agree on is that people with power in an archival organization should do their utmost to prevent their employees being placed in positions where they have to knowingly lie to the public. One thing we haven't even touched on is the question, how long should high level government records be restricted? When. is the right time to open records of government deliberations, especially when the topics are controversial? I'm thinking both of unclassified records (records that never required security classification) and the declassification of classified records. (The law that I worked with at the Nixon Project required release to the public "at the earliest reasonable date" of "the full truth" about "abuse of governmental power." Boy did we take that one seriously.) Not all archivists work with records that have a public interest component. Quite the contrary. Some archivists work with donated collections in the private sector where a family or other vested interests may tightly control who sees what in an effort to protect an individual's reputation. The family may consider loyalty to the individual when negotiating donor restrictions. The family may have a strong interest in exposing the positive aspects of someone's life and suppressing negative information. They have the right to do that in some cases. The situation is very different with government records, which often involve activities that affect every citizenin a number of ways. Hence the need for statutory control. The American public is the beneficiary client of the work of a U.S. governmental archives. Of course, members of the public represent a broad spectrum of views and values. In considering which records to release to them, a government archives does not take into account issues of personal loyalty. Access decisions are nonpolitical and are applied across the board. A government archives serves the nation, not any one individual who held office in the past. Of course, I can see why politicians might wish for a different approach. But the laws are supposed to protect against skewed access decisions. I guess what I'm trying to say is that what may work in a private sector setting might be catastrophic in a public sector setting. And vice versa. 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]>