 |
National
Archives and Records Administration: Issues and Prospects (Commentary On Remarks
by John Carlin)
by
WILLIAM J. MAHER, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
53rd president of the Society of American Archivists
The
following address was delivered on January 9, 1999, during the American Historical
Association annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
Caveat: my
remarks reflect my general observations as an archivist who has worked for more
than 20 years outside of the National Archives. Although I have held leadership
positions in the Society of American Archivists and the Midwest Archives Conference,
my views are my own and may or may not coincide with any positions of those
organizations.
It is not possible to relate the archival profession's perspective on the National
Archives without first considering a bit of history. When the National Archives
was established in 1934, the American archival profession was in its infancy,
without a professional organization, a scholarly journal, a publications program,
an educational structure, or a means for internal professional communication.
The establishment of the National Archives was the impetus for the 1937 founding
of the Society of American Archivists (SAA), the organization which has become
the predominant identifying icon of the profession. (1)
For the next two decades, the staff of the National Archives shaped and dominated
the profession. National Archives staff served in key leadership roles in the
SAA, creating much of the professional literature, while they also posed and
researched fundamental professional questions such as appraisal, preservation
standards, and guidelines for arrangement and description. By the 1950s, the
National Archives' Modern Archives Institute and its records management
workshops became the primary training ground for archivists throughout the United
States such that many who came to lead the archival profession and the SAA in
the late 1960s and 1970s began their careers through the National Archives,
even if they spent their careers entirely in institutions far from Pennsylvania
Avenue or presidential libraries. At the same time, and very much as a development
from the same roots that gave rise to the National Archives, there was a significant
expansion and professionalization of state archives. Thus, in the 1950s and
1960s, we saw the ascendancy of state archivists in the profession and the SAA.
The 1960s witnessed a sea change in the profession with the great expansion
in college and university archives, special collections repositories, and the
development of academically oriented historical records programs in state, local,
and private historical societies. What's more, these programs frequently generated
their own recruits to the profession through apprenticeships and cooperative
arrangements with suddenly-expanding archival education programs based in history
departments and library schools.
The 1970s saw the growing predominance of the extra-National Archives archivists,
educational programs, and professional associations, especially the creation
of several regional organizations and the creation of a permanent office for
the SAA. Perhaps the most fundamental result was the fact that the hallmarks
of being a professional could be secured, if not defined, outside of work at
the National Archives. Meanwhile, for reasons that are too complex to develop
here, the National Archives seemed to lose much of its internal effectiveness.
The experience of the Nixon Papers became a further signal that the Archives'
placement within the General Services Administration (GSA) was as philosophically
inappropriate as it was budgetarily inadequate. Through the direction and interest
of a number of SAA leaders, especially SAA's first Executive Director, Ann Morgan
Campbell, the archival profession joined forces with historians in the long
struggle for National Archives independence from the GSA. In that era, many
of the fundamental archival problems that concern archivists and historians
today (e.g. declassification, electronic records, space and facilities) took
a back seat to the overriding issue of independence. Consequently, although
there was the appearance of unanimity, because of focus on the unifying issue
of independence, there were key archival problems on which many professionals
disagreed strongly with the Archives' actions. Many of these surfaced after
NARA's 1984 independence from GSA.
In the post-independence era, a primary focus of archival/NARA relations has
been on the often divisive issue of who should be the Archivist of the United
States. In a sense, the die was cast by the first appointment in 1985/1986
when
the leading nominee of the Reagan administration was John Agresto, a political
scientist and protegÕ of conservative luminary William Bennett. Archivists
and historians readily came to agreement in opposing the nomination of someone
who
lacked archival and historical background and carried obvious political if
not ideological affiliations in exactly the way we had all hoped would be overcome
through the establishment of independence for NARA. In the end, the coalition
against Agresto managed to stall the nomination long enough that it died. In
his stead, another Republican favorite, Don Wilson, emerged as a viable candidate.
While in retrospect we can remember our misgivings about the appointment, Wilson
had undeniable archival and historical credentials through his administration
at the Ford and Eisenhower libraries.
With Wilson's appointment, there developed increased discomfort between the
archival profession and the National Archives. On the one hand, the rapidly
maturing profession that had developed and strengthened independent of NARA
included many specialists who took strong issue with several NARA policies on
technical questions such as electronic records, preservation standards, user
services programs, and educational requirements. On the other hand, several
archivists inside and outside of NARA quietly and discretely worried about the
lack of strategic planning within the agency and the inability of the agency
to make headway in appropriations. The worst fears of archivists and historians
seemed to come to fruition in the signal case of the early 1990s when NARA leadership
took a position on the nature of electronic records in the politically-tinged
PROF's case. While the profession had earlier divided on whether to take a specific
position regarding Oliver North's records, by 1992 there developed the strong
sense among many archivists that NARA's position on the status of North's e-mail
undermined the concept of government records and was theoretically a backward
step for electronic records issues. Thus, many non-NARA archivists were pleased
by Judge Charles Richey's decisions against Wilson and the Archives' position
on e-mail.
The immediate circumstances of Don Wilson's 1993 departure, shortly after signing
a special memorandum about the status of Bush presidential material, focused
the archival profession's concerns about the political independence it wanted
to see in future appointments of the Archivist of the United States, especially
in regard to presidential politics. In this context, you can appreciate the
zeal and concern with which archivists observed the protracted process the Clinton
administration followed for appointing a successor to Don Wilson. From the previous
Agresto experience we learned that we needed to be prepared to speak up early
in opposition to candidates we believed lacked the historical and archival background
for the position or who appeared to be under consideration primarily because
of political contacts. Thus, we moved quickly to oppose Robert Hardesty, who
advanced his case in 1993/1994. We also understood the importance of having
viable alternative candidates and thus spent time interviewing several individuals.
As with the Hardesty candidacy, given the profession's history, it is not surprising
that we came to oppose the nomination of John Carlin. While we appreciated the
value that could come from an experienced public administrator and a person
well-skilled in public relations and advocacy, we were very concerned with the
precedent-setting character of the political context out of which the nomination
seemed to emerge. We feared that by moving away from a primary emphasis on professional
and historical credentials, even in the case of a candidate with other obvious
merits, we would be opening the door for future U.S. Presidents to appointment
candidates who might have more connections and fewer qualifications than we
saw in 1995. (2)
I still believe that the basis for our position was philosophically and professionally
sound as well as consistent with past positions. However, as it turns out, the
National Archives under John Carlin has made significant progress on many issues
important to archivists, and thus to historians as well. Speaking for myself,
and not as a representative of the SAA, I and several other archivists with
whom I have spoken are pleased with much that has been done at NARA under John's
leadership. Strategic planning has become a fact of life at the agency and a
critical tool for dealing with major administrative issues that arise. Policies
on some key areas that greatly troubled archivists, such as electronic records,
have been reversed. Above all, NARA has actively sought to create and maintain
a dialogue with the profession on important issues. Although areas of contention
or potential strife still exist, such as space planning, we have been pleased
that serious and genuine consultation has been the cornerstone of discussion.
Considering the unabashed opposition we presented to John's nomination, his
personal readiness to work with us has been most commendable and encouraging.
In the balance of my remarks, I would like to offer very brief observations
on seven key policy issues currently facing the National Archives. Although
I speak solely from my personal archival perspective, I believe my comments
are reflective of broader sentiments of my archival colleagues and are illustrative
of the principles at stake.
Space Planning: Archivists understand the critical space and facility
issues facing the National Archives at the Washington and regional facilities.
Except for Archives II, NARA lacks archival quality space and sufficient quantities
of space. The regional system, although effective at reaching researchers in
several urban areas, provides only partial coverage while also incorporating
some rather notable locational anomalies. Most critical are the overall shortage
of space in regional facilities and the very poor environmental conditions.
In the context of financial management issues, archivists are pleased that a
reassessment of the space issue has begun. We applaud the driving principle
that the status quo is unacceptable and that reconfigurations might be necessary
to obtain sufficient quality space for records while also utilizing technology
to expand accessibility for users beyond the present level. We appreciate the
political sensitivity of such a study, and we applaud the careful efforts that
have been made to hold public hearings throughout the country. However, we would
also like to emphasize principles which should guide the process in the next
stages: any recommendations that emerge should be based on a rigorous cost-benefit
analysis of the facilities both on their own terms and in relation to other
parts of the National Archives system, including comparisons to Archives I and
II and the presidential libraries. Furthermore, a report of the space planning
group covering findings to date and outlining options for facilities and sites
should be produced as soon as feasible.
Standards: Archivists are pleased to learn of the progress
in developing standards for the housing of temporary records, and we look forward
to being able to view and comment on the draft standards. This is a classic
example of where sound work on NARA problems can have important exemplary benefits
for the profession as a whole, and we hope these standards will strengthen the
hand of archivists throughout the United States in working to improve environmental
conditions in their own institutions.
Defense Department Standard: Archivists have been quite hopeful
about the work of NARA with the Defense Department to develop standards for
records management software applications, which recently resulted in DOD Standard
5015.2 (Design Criteria for Electronic Records Management Software Applications).
We have not had a chance to look at these criteria yet, but we appreciate the
importance of developing guidelines which archivists can present to systems
personnel so that effective records management options can be developed for
such important electronic systems as e-mail. This long overdue work promises
to be of benefit to archivists throughout the country. Furthermore, we anxiously
anticipate the next step of operational guidelines and baseline requirements
for an electronic records management system.
General Records Schedule 20—Electronic Records: There
have been many encouraging developments as a result of the Public Citizen lawsuit
against the National Archives to block the implementation of GRS-20 which had
tried to provide a generalized disposal authorization for electronic records.
Still, I fully support the arguments behind the SAA's refusal to sign-on to
this 1997 suit because of conceptual problems in the suit. Many archivists have
been supportive of SAA's criticisms as voiced in its 1997 position paper on
the suit and GRS-20.(3) Indeed we are most encouraged
by the approach taken by the Archives in response to the suit, and even more,
the substance of the recommendations of the Electronic Records Working Group
(ERWG).(4) The ERWG recommendations are quite consistent
with SAA's position on GRS-20 and especially gratifying in their focus on the
necessity of using specific records schedules to cover program records and
on
avoiding the scheduling of records by media. At the same time, we would want
to emphasize that it should be the archivist's prerogative to decide how and
when to reformat records. We understand the added value that electronic records
have when kept in their original form, but we realize that reformatting is
sometimes
a necessary step for their professional management. In relation to GRS-20,
we would also like to commend NARA for making a serious effort to incorporate
individuals
from outside the National Archives in the working group to ensure that it would
benefit from the critical thinking of leading specialists in the field—a
fact that reflects NARA's recognition of the maturing of the profession. We
hope that this same collaboration will extend to the follow-on group that is
to be appointed—we hope at an early date.
NHPRC: Archivists throughout the country continue to bemoan
the low level of funding available for critical records projects. The recent
increases in funding for NHPRC have been encouraging, although with the continued
emphasis on the needs of the documentary edition projects, support of records
projects has had to remain at a low level. We are particularly disappointed
by the fact that more money has not been made available for electronic records
projects. The experience of ERWG clearly shows that electronic records issues
are so complex that solutions must be developed outside the federal government
as well as inside. NHRPC is virtually the only federal source of funds for research
and development on technical archival issues.
Declassification: We are all aware of the enormous problems
that researchers face when dealing with records that have been classified for
national security purposes, and we understand that the core of the problem
lies
not at the National Archives but in the agencies that establish the original
classification. For several decades, archivists have regretted the enormous
resources that have been required to administer the declassification of older
federal records. Although at the base, the declassification function is not
inherently an archival one, it is compatible with the core archival mission
of supporting accountable government. For these reasons, archivists were pleased
with President Clinton's 1995 Executive Order 12958 which called for accelerated
declassification through "bulk declassification." We are particularly
proud of the National Archives' role in the declassification of nearly 300
million
documents since the existence of the Executive Order.(5)
Last fall, archivists spoke out strongly against the original provisions of
the Kyl amendment, which sought to reinstate page-by-page declassification for
25-year old records to protect Department of Energy information. We are pleased
with the compromise which calls for NARA and DOE to develop a plan to prevent
inadvertent release of records containing Restricted Data through Automatic
Declassification. We are, however, concerned lest the conservative tendencies
of DOE prevail over the archival and historical interests in following the spirit
of the Executive Order for declassifying historically-valuable records.
Education and Professional Credentials: As the archival profession
has grown in the past three decades, it has come to be dominated by archivists
trained in university-based programs of archival studies, library science, and
public history. It has increasingly attempted to take control over the criteria
used by employers to hire archivists, notably through a certification program
and increasing emphasis on standards for graduate archival education programs.
In the process, many of my colleagues have grumbled about NARA's distance from
these developments. In particular, they have been concerned that the archetypical
path is for NARA to appoint archivists as entering professionals based on advanced
graduate training in American history but little archival experience or training.
In general, there has not been an open door for archivists from other institutions
to come to work for NARA or vice versa. We appreciate that much of the reason
for these conditions stems from federal personnel management regulations and
conditions. We are encouraged by the recent word we have heard that NARA staff
are beginning to address what should be the federal qualifications for archivist,
a process that could lead to revisions to the federal personnel handbook. I
sincerely hope that NARA will find a means to consult with the archival profession,
especially the SAA and the Academy of Certified Archivists on these issues before
the federal manual is revised. We also believe that serious thought should be
given to allowing the internal education program (CIDS) to become superseded
by external archival educational programs. There is too much archival talent
inside and outside of NARA not to encourage strong interchange of professional
personnel.
In sum, there are several recent encouraging developments at NARA that hold
the promise of benefiting the archival profession at large. We are particularly
encouraged by the increased evidence of collaboration and we hope that under
John Carlin's leadership this will continue and expand. At the same time, we
understand the tendency of historians and archivists to be ready to criticize
NARA on archival and information policy issues. We believe, however, that more
will be gained by trying to channel these critical perspectives into collaboration
through early consultation of the Archives with the professions and the professions
with the Archives.
My final word is a cautionary one for the National Archives, inspired by the
observations of a colleague. NARA is an important and accomplished public institution,
but it no longer needs to exist as a self-sustaining archival enterprise, as
it did 30 to 60 years ago. We will all benefit by greater integration of the
Archives with the profession. NARA should take advantage of the overall strength
of archival programs throughout the county—programs which educate archivists
and conduct research on fundamental archival issues faced by all of us who
care
about maintaining an accountable record of our government and the rich historical
heritage of our society.
End Notes:
1. For an excellent overview of the development of the
profession and the SAA, see J. Frank Cook, "The Blessings of Providence
on an Association of Archivists," American Archivist 46 (Fall 1983): 374-399.
2. The many press articles in the New York Times,
Washington Post, and Chronicle of Higher Education provide
the details of the Hardesty and Carlin nominations. For example see, "Former
Governor Is Nominated to be Archivist over Objections of Academic Groups,"
Chronicle of Higher Education, May 19, 1995.
3. Society of American Archivists, "Archival Issues Raised by Litigation
Challenging General Records Schedule 20," May 3, 1997.
4. Electronic Records Working Group, "Report to the Archivist
of the United States," September 14, 1998.
5. Information Security Oversight Office, "1997 Report to the President,"
August 31, 1998.
|
|
