Maarja writes, “I've given some thought to some of Richard Cox's comments from last week.  He mentioned that organizations other than SAA have uncovered recent problems such as the reclassification matter, implying that SAA has been too passive.  Richard mentions the National Security Archives.  Of course, the National Security Archive has a different purpose than SAA and I don't view the two as being the same.  However, given what I know about NARA from my own past experiences, and what we're now learning about this latest flap, I do think SAA probably needs to take a page from the National Security Archive's playbook and start submitting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to get to the bottom of some issues.  It's hard to get at the facts just by talking to NARA officials and press officers -- the extent to which they can be candid is really going to vary.  FOIA has the force of law behind it.  Unfortunately, this is Washington and to get to the bottom of some matt!
 ers, th
at is what it sometimes takes.”
 
These are thoughtful comments.  I agree that the SAA and NSA are very different organizations, with very different missions.  I believe she is right that SAA can be more diligent in looking into the problems at NARA; too often, SAA seems to be more a creature of NARA than a watchdog or critic (or supporter when appropriate) of it.  What is most interesting to me is that the NSA seems to exist. Perhaps, because of failings of NARA; NARA seems to assume that it is mostly a cultural agency with a generally passive role, when it fact, as a government archives, it ought to function with a focus on matters of government accountability as well.  
 
Indeed, think about the reclassification mess in light of NARA’s own mission statement, available on its web site –
 
Our Vision Statement
The National Archives is a public trust on which our democracy depends. We enable people to inspect for themselves the record of what government has done. We enable officials and agencies to review their actions and help citizens hold them accountable. We ensure continuing access to essential evidence that documents:
the rights of American citizens
the actions of federal officials
the national experience 
To be effective, we at NARA must do the following:
determine what evidence is essential for such documentation
ensure that government creates such evidence
make it easy for users to access that evidence regardless of where it is, where they are, for as long as needed
find technologies, techniques, and partners worldwide that can help improve service and hold down cost 
help staff members continuously expand their capability to make the changes necessary to realize the vision 



Our Mission Statement
NARA ensures, for the citizen and the public servant, for the President and for the Congress and the Courts, ready access to essential evidence.



Our Values
To succeed in our mission, all of us within NARA need to value the following:
Risk-taking: experiment, take chances, try new ways, learn from mistakes, be open to change 
Communication: propose ideas, dialogue with others, develop trust, and act openly, honestly, and with integrity 
Commitment: be responsible, accountable, and always willing to learn 
Loyalty: support the mission, help fellow workers, proceed as a team, and recognize that our government and our people truly need our service 
 
[Something seems amiss]

--
Richard J. Cox 
Professor 
Department of Library and Information Sciences 
School of Information Sciences 
University of Pittsburgh 
Editor, Records & Information Management Report 
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 
Voice: 412-624-3245 
FAX: 412-648-7001 
e-mail: [log in to unmask] 
homepage: http://www2.sis.pitt.edu/%7Ercox/

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: [log in to unmask] 

See
http://dwb.newsobserver.com/24hour/opinions/story/3258691p-12038464c.html
for a Scripps Howard commentary by Dale McFeatters on the NARA declassification/reclassification issue.

I don't agree with everything Mr. McFeatters writes.  Reviewing government records to see what can be released can get into some very complex issues.  And some records clearly need to be restricted.  So I cringed when I saw Mr. McFeatters's facetious recommendation that all the reclassified records be indiscriminately dumped out for public view.  

The difficulty lies in reconciling the potentially competing views of various stakeholders and doing it with integrity so as to uphold the public trust.  It makes me sad to see Mr. McFeatters write, "But it took the staid, august National Archives, guardian of our most precious records, to elevate the suitably ludicrous expression "double super secret" into government policy."  But I tend to think that this is a situation NARA could have avoided while still ensuring that restrictable information was protected.  Why the Archives' lawyers didn't protect NARA and its officials and subordinate employees more strongly, I do not know.  Of course, the NARA lawyers didn't protect me and my colleagues in 1992, at all.  From where I sat, they seemed to only have the interests of the most powerful players in mind (Nixon, DOJ, etc.), not the employees who do the work at the Archives.  Now the agency is paying the price in terms of potshots such as those by Scripps Howard.

I've given some thought to some of Richard Cox's comments from last week.  He mentioned that organizations other than SAA have uncovered recent problems such as the reclassification matter, implying that SAA has been too passive.  Richard mentions the National Security Archives.  Of course, the National Security Archive has a different purpose than SAA and I don't view the two as being the same.  However, given what I know about NARA from my own past experiences, and what we're now learning about this latest flap, I do think SAA probably needs to take a page from the National Security Archive's playbook and start submitting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to get to the bottom of some issues.  It's hard to get at the facts just by talking to NARA officials and press officers -- the extent to which they can be candid is really going to vary.  FOIA has the force of law behind it.  Unfortunately, this is Washington and to get to the bottom of some matters, that is wha!
 t it so
metimes takes. 

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]> 

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]>