Thanks so much for posting this, Bruce!
I found interesting the following paragraph:
""I think that sentence is very inartfully worded," said Mr. Kurtz. "I
certainly did not think that that was the mission of the National
Archives to, how should I put it, to fool people -- to deceive. At the
same time, the concern of these agencies was that there was
national-security information improperly released, so we had to strike
a balance ... between protecting national-security information and
having the maximum access possible."
It isn't surprising to me that external stakeholders might not realize
that NARA has to work constantly at keeping the confidence of
researchers in how it handles records. I don't think other agencies
with equities in the archival records always consider that. Some may,
others don't appear to.
Certainly, my late sister Eva (who worked in NARA's declassification
division) would not be surprised that representatives of other agencies
sometimes come across as heavy handed. Sometimes the problems lie in
what agency representatives say in public. If you read George
Lardner's May 2001 article about NARA and the DOE Kyl-Lott review, you
don't get much expressed concern from DOE's officials about NARA's need
to apply balancing tests. They come across as somewhat self important
and not very attuned to NARA's need to maintain trust with all the
stakeholders, including the research public. I remember Eva rolled
her eyes when she saw some of the quotes attributed to DOE officials in
George Lardner's 2001 article. (BTW, Eva's reaction to the posturing
in the article was not political. Far from it - Eva never voted
anything but straight Republican during her lifetime, LOL.) I often
think about Eva as I read about the current controversy. She was a
very dedicated NARA employee and a good public servant. Eva generally
got along well with everyone she worked with, from inside and outside
NARA. Many people commented on that to us after her death. We also
received a lovely letter from John Carlin. Ah, I really miss my sis!
It's clear to me that external stakeholders don't always consider
potential harm to NARA when they push their agendas. What seems
effective at one time as a pressure tactic actually can later
boomerang. (Now that its Library is about to merge with NARA, the
Nixon Birthplace and Library Foundation has taken down the link on its
website to John Taylor's 1998 imflammatory article on archivists and
the Nixon tapes. But it still remains accessible in the cached version
at http://shrinkster.com/dz6 . ) Unfortunately, a heavy handed
approach often raises suspicions whereas being forthright soothes
fears. No one disputes that certain categories of information need to
be protected. However, how that is done requires contextual
sophistication beyond what was shown by the agencies that asked NARA to
sign the MOUs. It's much harder to persuade those from whom you are
withholding information that everything is procedurally on the up and
up than it is to ensure restriction.
NARA always has had to work at striking a balance between protecting
various categories of information and providing the maximum access
possible. However, there is no need for deception (fooling people) in
getting that done. As I said earlier, the power lies in the hands of
those with custody of the records, not those clamoring for their
release.
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]>