Resending with corrected link, sorry I didn't catch the double paste.
 
The Washington Post this morning published a letter to the editor from Bill Leonard, NARA's chief of the Information Security Oversight Office,  See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401395.html (registration required).  This responds to the Post's article on 8/18/06 about Matthew Aid's past.  I posted to the article here on 8/18/06, noting that I am no fan of mud slinging in discussion of public policy issues.  (While I have at times been very critical of people, including some of whom I have worked with at NARA, I try to focus on the underlying issues or approaches where we disagree.  And I've spent a lot of time trying to understand behavior and to get a handle on root causes.  And to look for ways in which the government can provide avenues for resolving serious concerns, including issues raised by whistleblowers inside and outside agencies.  My goal generally is to prevent subordinate archivists from being blindsided or hung out to dry in cases where power players are involved.  You may recall that I've even mentioned how I once wrote to the Attorney General about the Nixon tapes litigation on behalf of some of my former NARA colleagues.)
 
In his letter, "The Archives' Sleuth's Irrelevant 'Secret,'" Mr. Leonard notes that he is the government official who oversaw the NARA audit of records withdrawn for classification.  He notes that "I was disappointed to see The Post malign the background of Matthew M. Aid, a concerned citizen who was simply performing his civic duty ["The Archives Sleuth Had a Secret," news story, Aug 18]."
 
Mr. Leonard states that the information in the story was irrelevant to the complaint which triggered the NARA audit.  In fact, he concludes, "Publishing it served no useful public purpose and could, in fact, discourage citizens who take seriously their civic responsibility to lodge complaints regarding the activities of their government."
 
Most government officials consider carefully the benefits of spending their professional capital in public forums.  You sometimes sense that they hoard this capital carefully.  At other times, when I read some such letters to the editor, they often sound as if they were written by the public affairs official instead of the person signing the letter.  Not so here.  As someone who has argued against mud slinging, having seen such tactics used in the litigation over the Nixon tapes, and who noted this week that I still bear scars from what I encountered during the Kutler litigation in the early 1990s, I found it refreshing to read Mr. Leonard's letter.  
 
Maarja
 
The Washington Post this morning published a letter to the editor from Bill Leonard, NARA's chief of the Information Security Oversight Office,  See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401395.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401395.html (registration required).  This responds to the Post's article on 8/18/06 about Matthew Aid's past.  I posted to the article here on 8/18/06, noting that I am no fan of mud slinging in discussion of public policy issues.  (While I have at times been very critical of people, including some of whom I have worked with at NARA, I try to focus on the underlying issues or approaches where we disagree.  And I've spent a lot of time trying to understand behavior and to get a handle on root causes.  And to look for ways in which the government can provide avenues for resolving serious concerns, including issues raised by whistleblowers inside and outside agencies.  My goal generally is to prevent subordinate archivists from being blindsided or hung out to dry in cases where power players are involved.  You may recall that I've even mentioned how I once wrote to the Attorney General about the Nixon tapes litigation on behalf of some of my former NARA colleagues.)
 
In his letter, "The Archives' Sleuth's Irrelevant 'Secret,'" Mr. Leonard notes that he is the government official who oversaw the NARA audit of records withdrawn for classification.  He notes that "I was disappointed to see The Post malign the background of Matthew M. Aid, a concerned citizen who was simply performing his civic duty ["The Archives Sleuth Had a Secret," news story, Aug 18]."
 
Mr. Leonard states that the information in the story was irrelevant to the complaint which triggered the NARA audit.  In fact, he concludes, "Publishing it served no useful public purpose and could, in fact, discourage citizens who take seriously their civic responsibility to lodge complaints regarding the activities of their government."
 
Most government officials consider carefully the benefits of spending their professional capital in public forums.  You sometimes sense that they hoard this capital carefully.  At other times, when I read some such letters to the editor, they often sound as if they were written by the public affairs official instead of the person signing the letter.  Not so here.  As someone who has argued against mud slinging, having seen such tactics used in the litigation over the Nixon tapes, and who noted this week that I still bear scars from what I encountered during the Kutler litigation in the early 1990s, I found it refreshing to read Mr. Leonard's letter.  
 
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]>