I was going to post this with a farewell to the old List, until I just 
saw Brian's note about the server staying up until Monday.  Still, it 
is the last NCH Update I'll send to the old subscribers, so I still can 
say, it's been fun and best wishes to those who may be dropping out of 
the new List (few such, I hope).

Bob Schmidt has done a wonderful job coordinating the MU-Ohio served 
A&A list for us and deserves all our thanks.

Maarja

**********************************************************************
NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 12, #36; 15 September 2006)
by R. Bruce Craig (editor) with Emily Weisner (contributor)
NATIONAL COALITION FOR HISTORY (NCH)
Website at http://www.h-net.org/~nch/
***********************************************************************

1. STATE DEPARTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TAKES DOD TO TASK
2. DOCUMENTARY EDITORS LODGE PROTEST WITH NEH OVER NEW GUIDELINES
3. DOE REPORT ON INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS
4. BITS AND BYTES: National History Center Joins History Coalition; 
Constitution Day
   Events; Bush Library Release; Heritage Preservation Award Nominations 
Sought
5. ARTICLES OF INTEREST: “History by Miniseries: Too fast, Too Loose?” 
(Christian
   Science Monitor); "ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots" (The 
Nation)

1. STATE DEPARTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TAKES DOD TO TASK
During the 11 September 2006 open session meeting of the Advisory 
Committee on Diplomatic Documentation ­ the State Department’s 
historical advisory body that provides assistance in the production of 
the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) documentary edition 
series -- members of the committee took the Department of Defense (DOD) 
to task for repeatedly and consistently holding up the production of 
FRUS volumes.

In sharp contrast to the otherwise routine reports by State Department 
History Office (HO) presenters, Robert McMahon and other members of the 
committee ripped into the DOD during a discussion of status of future 
FRUS volume declassification efforts. Drawing attention to the proposed 
FRUS release schedule prepared by the HO, McMahon noted that DOD review 
deadlines for no less than seven volumes have been missed. HO staff 
chimed in and stated that on average, DOD reviews run seven and a half 
months behind; staff noted that concerns have been repeatedly raised in 
the committee’s annual reports to Congress, but with little effect. 
Following discussion, the advisory body requested that the HO request 
that DOD officials appear during the committee’s December meeting to 
explain the causes for the “unacceptable” processing delays.

During the meeting, HO officials gave the usual upbeat reports on the 
status of upcoming releases of FRUS series volumes. Chief Historian 
Marc Susser reported on several conferences and educational releases 
slotted to take place in the near future. Deputy Historian David 
Herschler introduced a half-dozen or so new hires for the HO and stated 
that as a result there now is a “full complement of staff historians” 
for the first time in many months.

FRUS General Editor Ted Keefer discussed at some length the challenges 
presented by the recent Japan volume release (see “Controversial Japan 
FRUS Volume Released” in NCH Washington Update vol. 12 #33; 24 August 
2006). He then lamented that several years back the HO had “backed a 
loser” when the decision was made to produce FRUS volumes supplemented 
with microfiche documents, but that he was pleased to report that they 
had “backed a winner” with the release of various digitally based 
Internet FRUS volumes. As evidenced by the number of website “hits,” 
these volumes are receiving substantial use by scholars and reaching 
far more readers than the standard print volumes. During the discussion 
that followed Keefer’s report, the advisory committee suggested that 
the HO may want to explore digitizing some of the volumes already 
published in print form.

2. DOCUMENTARY EDITORS LODGE PROTEST WITH NEH OVER NEW GUIDELINES
The Association for Documentary Editing (ADE) has sent a letter to 
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Chair Bruce Cole, 
expressing the organization’s concern over aspects of the endowment’s 
new Digital Humanities Initiative. The new initiative is designed to 
channel limited NEH funds toward the production of digital versions of 
scholarly editions rather than continue to concentrate efforts on 
producing print volumes. To resolve concerns that “trouble the 
scholarly editing community” the ADE has requested a meeting with Cole 
and his key program managers.

The letter, signed by ADE President Roger Bruns, discusses the 
potential impact that the NEH initiative will have on existing as well 
as new scholarly editions. According to the NEH’s new programmatic 
guidelines, in the FY 2007 funding cycle applicants for NEH project 
support funds must employ digital and online technology in the 
preparation, management, and publication of all critical and 
documentary editions. Projects that include a Text Encoding Initiative 
(TEI) component and offer free online access “will be given 
preference.” In the letter to Cole, the ADE asserts that this 
“eleventh-hour imposition...seems to require that on-going scholarly 
editions present plans for digital publication if they seek funding 
 from the NEH. The agency's objective is admirable. Its execution seems 
unrealistic and potentially endangers the future of the ongoing book 
editions.”

The ADE argues that “No electronic publication of any value and 
guaranteed permanence can be designed with two months lead-time.” Also, 
“publishers have made substantial financial investments in these 
editions with little or no profit to show for it. Asking them to 
produce free online resources is unrealistic.” (In addition to the ADE, 
university publishers have also raised concerns about the impact the 
new guidelines will have on scholarly presses.) The ADE asserts that 
the new requirement must be accompanied by “significant increases in 
funding that will permit hiring staff dedicated to the electronic 
projects.” Otherwise, it puts “at jeopardy the publications that the 
NEH has long nurtured, promoted and funded.”

The letter continues by statistically documenting what is characterized 
as a continuing pattern of “declining resources” set aside for 
documentary editions by the NEH. The ADE charges that funding is 
“wholly inadequate” in spite of the infusion of “We the People” (WTP) 
grant funds (WTP funds specifically support American history related 
programs and projects undertaken by the NEH), and that in real dollar 
figures, NEH grants in 2003 and 2004 “totaled less than they did in 
1982!” When combined with declining federal support by the only other 
source of federal funds for documentary edition projects ­ the National 
Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) ­ an ever larger 
percentage of project funds must now be raised privately.

The ADE letter also raised concerns about the elimination of the once 
vibrant peer review process for scholarly editions. The NEH eliminated 
the peer review requirement some time back, asserting that the process 
consumed staff time and resources. Today, the agency makes funding 
recommendations based on input from panels that, the ADE claims often 
lack the expertise to make thoughtful recommendations. The ADE 
maintains that “60 proposals from scholarly editing projects is not an 
overwhelming number” and calls on the NEH to reinstate peer review 
procedures.

To address the organization’s concerns, ADE President Bruns has 
requested a meeting with Cole and other members of the NEH’s senior 
staff. When contacted by the history coalition, a spokesperson for the 
NEH stated that the agency is “deliberately considering the points in 
the thoughtful letter.”

3. LATEST DOE REPORT ON INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS
The Department of Energy (DOE) has released a report ­ part of its 
Congressionally mandated responsibilities (Public Law 105-261) ­ that 
states that the agency has recently completed the examination of 
465,760 pages of documents in its systematic search for “inadvertent 
disclosures” of classified information. In its twenty-second report to 
Congress, the DOE redacted 116 documents that should be considered 
Restricted Data (RD) or Formerly Restricted Data (FRD).

The previously declassified documents were located in collections 
devoted to the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Army, 
and focused on nuclear weapons during the 1950s and 1960s. The RD 
included information about the efficiency of nuclear materials, naval 
nuclear propulsion information, and other weapon design. Some FRD 
information was also identified, reporting on topics such as storage 
location, stockpile quantities and nuclear weapon yield.

The current DOE report states that information in the previously 
declassified documents, if made public, could potentially assist 
enemies of the United States. The DOE believes that reports discussing 
older nuclear weapons are still valuable because the designs detailed 
in the pages are less sophisticated and therefore “would be most 
readily used by a would-be nuclear proliferant to obtain its first 
nuclear weapon.”

The report was issued in conformance with the Kyl-Lott Amendments in 
1998, which mandates a review of open shelf archival documents that 
contain information about nuclear weapons and energy. The DOE has now 
spent over $22 million in their review of 200 million declassified 
documents, according to the National Security Archive at George 
Washington University (GWU). The DOE report is available at 
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/inadvertant22.pdf

4. BITS AND BYTES:
Item # 1 ­ National History Center Joins History Coalition: The policy 
board of the National Coalition for History (NCH) welcomes its newest 
member organization, the National History Center. The center encourages 
research and teaching, and fosters public understanding of national and 
international historical issues. Created by the American Historical 
Association in 2002, the center was also established to provide a place 
where historians from all over the world can meet and exchange ideas 
and help historians reach out to broader audiences by providing 
historical context necessary to better understand today’s events. For 
additional information, visit www.nationalhistorycenter.org . The NCH 
welcomes new organizational members; for information, visit our webpage 
at http://www.h-net.org/~nch.org .

Item #2 ­ Constitution Day Events: According to a law passed in 2004 
(118 Statute 2809, 334-45), “each educational institution that receives 
federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on 
the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year.” 
Consequently, institutions, including colleges and universities 
throughout the United States, will be holding events to commemorate the 
U.S. Constitution on or about 17 September 2006. The National Archives 
has scheduled special events throughout September in honor of 
Constitution Day. This year, the Chronicle of Higher Education 
published a humorous “Pop Quiz for Constitution Day” that can be easily 
accessed and distributed by educators. Questions from the quiz prompt 
students and the general public to reflect on the first words of the 
Constitution and its current location. One question asks readers to 
remember who wanted the Constitution to be rewritten every generation, 
giving them choices ranging from Khrushchev and Satan to Thomas 
Jefferson. The full quiz can be found in the Chronicle Review at 
http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=FHJWcP6gxPpv8HxKwk4qfNCgj5CBhWyN.
  The schedule of events hosted by the National Archives can be found at 
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitutio
n/constitution-day.html .

Item #3 ­ Bush Library Release: The George Bush Presidential Library 
has released about 18,000 pages of documents from the George Bush 
Presidential records and the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential records. 
According to Supervisory Archivist Robert Holzweiss, the library has 
released “60,841 pages” while “an additional 11,300-plus documents 
remain closed.” There is no set date for the release of the remaining 
documents. The 18,238 documents that comprise the 30 August 2006, 
include memos and letters from staff and various political figures 
regarding issues such as health care, the environment, and campaign 
finance. The complete list of released materials can be found at 
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/releaseddocuments.html.

Item #4 ­ Heritage Preservation Award Nominations Sought: Nominations 
are being sought for the 2007 “Award for Outstanding Commitment to the 
Preservation and Care of Collections,” a contest sponsored by the 
Heritage Preservation and the American Institute for Conservation of 
Historic and Artistic Works. In the past, the award has been given to 
both large and small institutions throughout the United States. The 
2006 award winner was the Historical Society of Frederick County, 
Maryland, one of the smallest institutions to win. Larger, nationally 
recognized organizations such as the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) and the Henry Ford National Historic Landmark 
have also received the award. Successful nominations demonstrate an 
exemplary commitment to conservation concerns, preservation and care of 
their cultural property. Nominations may be submitted by anyone; 
self-nominations are also acceptable. However, they must be postmarked 
no later than 15 December 2006. Nomination guidelines and a list of 
previous recipients can be found at 
http://www.heritagepreservation.org/awards/aic.htm .

5. ARTICLES OF INTEREST
Two postings this week, both relating to the recent ABC 9/11 docudrama. 
In “History by Miniseries: Too fast, Too Loose?” by Daniel Wood and 
Gloria Goodale (Christian Science Monitor; 13 September 2006) the 
authors focus on the controversy generated by “The Path to 9/11" that 
mixed historical fact with creative fiction in tracing the events 
leading to the 9/11 tragedy. Much of the debate centers on the 
portrayal of the Clinton administration and their alleged refusal to 
seriously address issues of terrorism. Politicians and media critics 
claim the docudrama could influence the outcome of the November 
elections. While experts are divided as to whether or not the 
miniseries could influence political realities, ethical questions 
regarding the manipulation of historical fact are inescapable. For the 
article, visit, 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0913/p01s01-uspo.html?s=hns .

In "ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots" (The Nation; 11 September 
2006) Max Blumenthal present's his "incontrovertible evidence" 
outlining the involvement of the films screenwriter and director "in a 
concerted effort to blame President Clinton for allowing the 9/11 
attacks to take place." For the article, go to: 
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/path_to_911 .

************************************************************************ 

Who We Are...
The National Coalition for History (NCH) is a nonprofit educational 
organization that provides leadership in history related advocacy; it 
serves as the profession's national voice in the promotion of history 
and
archives, and acts as a clearinghouse of news and information of 
interest to history related professionals. Membership in the history 
coalition is open to organizations that share our concern for history 
and
archives. For information on how your history/archive organization can 
become a member, visit our website at http://www.h-net.org/~nch/ and 
click on the "Join the Coalition" web link.

Contribute and Support this publication...
Individuals are invited to help support the NCH by sending a donation 
directly to the NCH at 400 A Street S.E., Washington D.C. 20003, or, by 
making an online donation at 
http://www.conservenow.org/detail.asp?ORGID=2032&memflag=true. All 
contributions are tax deductible.

Subscribe Today!
We invite individual readers to subscribe to this FREE weekly 
newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington 
Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are
interested in history and archives issues. Reports in this publications 
are copyrighted by the National Coalition for History and may be 
reprinted by history coalition member organizations with attribution. A
complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH 
web page at www.h-net.org/~nch/.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to 
[log in to unmask] with the following text in the body of the message 
(and only this text) SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname,
institution. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail message to according to the 
following model SIGNOFF H-NCH.

You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at 
http: www.h-net.org/lists/subscribe.cgi and at the "network" prompt, 
scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and 
"submit".
*************************************************************************
****

________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

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]>