Table of Contents

• From the Chair
• Review of the 2003 Government Records Section Meeting
• Two Government Agencies View Encoded Archival Description (EAD)
• From the SAA Website :

"DC Archives Clean-up"
"Keeping Secrets"

• Editor's Corner
• Utah 's Millennial Records Preservation Project
• Who Owns Hizzoner's Records?
• Review : "Thirty Years of Electronic Records"

List of Government Records Section Contacts

From the Chair

Dear Colleague:

I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. For those of you whom I haven't met, I am Virginia Fritzsch and it is my privilege to serve as Chair through the next annual meeting in August 2004. I am a public records archivist with the Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison , WI , specializing in the records of local governments.

Other members of this year's Steering Committee include Vice-Chair of the Section, Ms. Nancy J. Melley of the National Archives Center for Electronic Records, College Park, MD; Mr. Randy Jones of the National Archives Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA; Mr. Terry Baxter of the Multnomah County Records, Portland, OR; Mr. John H. Slate of the Dallas Municipal Archives, Dallas, TX; and Ms. Deborah Kennedy of the King County Archives, Seattle, WA.

In addition, Mr. James G. Cassedy of the National Archives in College Park will continue as the newsletter editor, Mr. David A. Haury of the Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka , KS , will continue to serve as the Council liaison and Ms. Janet Waters of the University of Northern Colorado , Greeley, CO, will take over for Anita Doering as web liaison.

The first thing I want to do as chair is thank Paul Bergeron and the rest of his leadership team for their dedication and hard work over the past year. In addition to reviewing program proposals, providing feedback to Council on issues and policies affecting government records, and sharing information over the past year, Paul and the Steering Committee did a wonderful job of putting together a great annual meeting program.

Although I was among those unable to make it to LA, I've heard good things about the meeting program. On behalf of the Section, I want to convey our appreciation to the 2002-2003 Steering Committee.

Looking ahead, let me preview next year's activities. Although August seems far away, we need to plan the annual business meeting and submit a description for the published program in January. I encourage you to think about the kind of section meeting that you would like to attend (for example, a panel discussion, featured speaker, break into small discussion groups, etc.) and the topics or issues you would like to hear about. Please share your ideas with me or any members of the steering committee. The annual business meeting is not only a venue for connecting with our colleagues, but should also provide ideas and information that are relevant and useful to us.

The next Newsletter will be published in the spring of 2004. Please consider contributing a brief article. We are looking for news, responses to previous articles, updates of ongoing or recently concluded projects, government records issues that concern you, and archival humor: especially government records humor (if you can find any). Contact Jim Cassedy ( james.cassedy@nara.gov ) with your submissions. Finally, mark your calendar now for the 68th Annual Meeting in Boston , August 2-8, 2004 . The Program Committee and Host Committee are planning an exciting six days of professional development and social events.

I urge you to actively participate in the work of the section this coming year. We need your voice when giving feedback to the SAA organization on issues and matters concerning the care and accessibility of government records. We can provide a unique perspective on issues, policies, rules, and laws regarding government records, which by extension, affect each of us as citizens.

Virginia Fritzsch
Chair, Government Records Section
Society of American Archivists

Review of the Government Records Section Meeting, SAA Annual Meeting, Los Angeles , California , August 21, 2003

Mr. Paul Bergeron, Chair of the Government Records Section (GRS) called the meeting to order at 8:00 am .

Mr. David Haury of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) Council described Council activities. Of particular note were the search for a new SAA Executive Director; SAA's increased involvement in political issues, including a statement on cutbacks of state and local archives and records management agency budgets, and SAA's response to various Executive Orders, including Executive Order 13233 concerning Presidential Records; and increased cooperation with the Association of Records Managers and Administrators, as well as cooperation with the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators (NAGARA) and the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (COSHRC).

New officers of the GRS were nominated and elected. They include Nancy Melley, NARA , also Chair Elect; Terry Baxter, Multnomah County Archives, Oregon; and John Slate of the Dallas , Texas , Municipal Archives. Deborah Kennedy of the King County, Washington, Archives continues as a member of the Section Steering Committee, as does Randy Jones of the National Archives and Records Administration. Virginia Fritzsch assumed the office of Chair of the GRS.

Chair Paul Bergeron introduced two speakers. Dr. Max Evans of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) spoke to future plans and grant focus of NHPRC. Mr. Tim Slavin spoke to the future advocacy activities of the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (COSHRC). Unfortunately, neither speaker was able to write an article for the GRS Newsletter. After a question and answer period, the meeting concluded at 10:00 am .

Jim Cassedy
Editor
Government Records Section Newsletter
301-837-1584
james.cassedy@nara.gov 

  ________________________________

Two Government Agencies View Encoded Archival Description (EAD)

[Editor's note: Elizabeth Perkes of the Utah State Archives and Lydia Reid of NARA originally made presentations at the NAGARA 2003 Annual Meeting held in Providence , Rhode Island , July 9 - 12, 2003 . The session was entitled, "Is EAD Feasible for Government Records." The Editor thanks both Ms. Perkes and Ms. Reid for their contributions, and asks NAGARA's forgiveness of his crass opportunism.]

The Utah State Archives and EAD

Elizabeth Perkes 
Utah State Archives 

The Utah State Archives has, for many years, adopted information technology solutions to standard archives-related work processes. The major showpiece of this effort is the Archives' database which was developed in the 1980s, yet continues to be highly adaptable as business requirements change.

Utilizing an Oracle database, applications have been written in-house with software called APPX. Writing application programs in-house has permitted the Utah State Archives to incorporate a strong archives theoretical model into the structure of the database, enhancing the intellectual control of record series. The database operates on a web interface.

The Archives' local system tracks records throughout their lifecycle. Records analysts start the process by visiting agencies, inventorying their records, and entering subsequent retention schedules for each series into the system. Agencies may also submit retention schedules directly into the system through a web form. The system offers specific fields for data to be entered, which are automatically mapped to MARC codes.

By the time a retention schedule has worked its way through the state's approval process, it has already recorded the name of the creating agency (linked to an authority file), the series title and any variant titles, date spans, arrangement, description, and format (with inactive storage locations specified) Also noted is volume, information concerning public access and confidentiality, and an appraisal note. The records automatically become part of the Archives' catalog, whether or not the records are permanent or in Archives' custody.

Other information elements, such as links to related records, information about prior creators, shelf location of Records Center boxes, information about and links to finding aids for processed series, and subject access points can be added later, thanks to the system design.

The Archives' adoption of EAD came about because of the long-time practice of writing series inventories with word processing software. Data from the local system would be retyped in a word processing file, then container lists added, all formatted to look professional. In 1996, these finding aids were added to the Archives' web site and made searchable by placing them into a Folio InfoBase, which is essentially one large SGML document that converted a few pages to HTML when requested by the web browser.

After an EAD standard was accepted by the wider archival community, the Utah State Archives adopted it because of its official status. At first, staff members were skeptical about how much it would actually help their work processes.

Fortunately, the conversion process from Folio to EAD was relatively painless, facilitated by the fact that the Archive's finding aids already followed an established style based on cataloging standards. The project was completed in about four months (April - August 2000), with the conversion of several hundred full finding aids.

The Archives has realized some important benefits by using EAD. First of all, the XML copy of the finding aid is the unquestioned master copy. Stylesheets are used to transform the master XML file to derivative HTML and PDF versions. All are placed on the Archives' web site.

Patrons have the choice of accessing the finding aids by searching a catalog, and then following a link to the greater descriptive information in the finding aid; by following links within subject-oriented research guides; or by browsing through a list of all existing finding aids, organized by creating agency.

The finding aid list links all three versions of the finding aids, so if other institutions want to see how the Archives encoded an inventory, that information is available. Finding aids are also viewable to staff members directly within the Archives' local database system.

In some cases, the Archives' finding aids are simply too big for a browser to handle. In these cases, after the HTML file has been created, the container list is deleted and a link is made to a PDF version of the file. The PDF file, being compressed, is much easier to download. It is to be noted that this situation is more likely to be confronted by government archives rather than manuscript repositories, due to the greater volume within a series and the ongoing nature of the records, particularly records such as legislative bills.

Another advantage is that the PDF version of the finding aid looks nice and is easy for patrons to print. It is also searchable, both via major search engines on the web and within the document itself.

To date, series inventories are still begun as separate documents, where data from the local system are retyped into the XML file. This tends to introduce errors, particularly with regard to authority file names. In the future the Archives may adopt procedures where the local system generates the XML copy and populates information within the <eadheader> and as much of the <archdesc> as possible. Archives staff will then add container lists and modify other descriptive information as necessary.

Staff members do like the flexibility that working directly with the XML file offers them, rather than having the database generate everything. For every straightforward record series that gets processed, there is always one that won't fit neatly into the rules, and databases live and die by rules.

An unexpected outcome of the EAD project has been its effect on electronic recordkeeping initiatives. Many of the solutions being developed for electronic records use XML technology. Due to EAD, Archives staff members have developed a good understanding of XML and stylesheets, and have been able to communicate the particulars about the project to government information technology specialists, opening up a dialogue about electronic recordkeeping issues.

For further information concerning the methodology employed during this process is described on the Archives' web site at http://archives.utah.gov/referenc/ead.htm .

The National Archives and Records Administration and EAD: Structure v. Presentation

Lydia Reid 
National Archives and Records Administration 

[Ms. Reid wishes to acknowledge the editorial contributions and review of two NARA colleagues, Ms. Lisa Haralampus, and Ms. Dorothy Dougherty.]

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is an independent federal agency responsible for managing the archival materials of the Federal government. As the national recordkeeper, NARA maintains archival materials across the country in the Washington DC area, regional facilities and the Presidential Libraries. The National Archives holdings are primarily government records, but also include donated non-governmental archival materials.

Prior to the 1990's, NARA did not have a standardized method of describing its holdings, government or otherwise. In the mid-1990's, NARA designed and implemented a prototype database, the NARA Archival Information Locator (NAIL). This system originally focused on the description of audio-visual materials and was later retooled to support descriptions of all record types.

Because NAIL development lacked a big picture focus, NARA decided to step back and determine the requirements needed to comprehensively and completely describe all record types in its holdings. In evaluating these requirements, we determined that no existing standard met all our needs. One of the standards NARA investigated was Encoded Archival Description (EAD).

EAD is a Document Type Definition (DTD) and is written following the syntactic rules of Standardized General Markup Language (SGML) and Extensible rules of Standardized General Markup Language (SGML) and Extensible Markup Language (XML).

It is a data structure for archival description that preserves multi-level and hierarchical description for complete collections. Contextual information about archival creators is embedded in the archival descriptions and currently there is not a separate DTD for archival creators.

Archival finding aids created with EAD can be made available electronically through the World Wide Web in their native SGML/XML or converted to HTML for broader usage. These tend to be static documents and searches across them usually result in the retrieval of the full finding aid rather than sections that are most relevant to a search.

Many smaller archives use EAD editors to encode electronic versions of their finding aids. Larger and/or more technologically mature archives often generate their EAD finding aids from databases containing information about their holdings.

Although EAD has many advantages, NARA concluded that simply migrating our finding aids into that format would not work for the following reasons:

•  NARA used a myriad of descriptive processes. Our goal was to create standards and a system to provide a consistent way of describing our holdings throughout NARA . We did not want to spend resources creating unrelated EAD finding aids for multiple descriptive processes. We did not want to just overlay a solution that may or may not meet our needs.

•  We wanted to develop a system that could be integrated into other systems in NARA that manage the entire lifecycle of archival materials. This would contain some information outside the EAD format. Simply coding a static output of descriptive information was not sufficient.

•  When we first looked into EAD, it had very limited authority control. We decided that authority control would play an important role in providing access to NARA 's vast holdings. We wanted not only to apply authority files to archival descriptions, but also to actually create and link to authority records, particularly those of archival creators, for a more integrated descriptive system.

•  Also, when we initially investigated EAD, the search and retrieval tools were very limited and resulted in retrieval of an entire finding aid - as opposed to just the descriptions that were relevant to a user's search.

•  Finally, our finding aids were in various formats and states of completion and they could not be easily and consistently encoded.

Because we could not find an existing standard or tool to meet our needs, we chose to develop a database based on our own logical model of how to describe archival records and their creators. The database, known as the Archival Research Catalog (ARC), was developed by customizing a commercially available library catalog product called OLIB.

With ARC, we have a central data discovery tool that will become a more and more reliable research starting point for both staff and public as more and more descriptions are added. Even now, while ARC is only populated with information about 20% of our holdings, it provides increased access to our descriptions.

ARC also allows us to maintain and modify information in one system without having to update multiple finding aids. ARC also allows description authors to build on each other's work without starting over. With this one centralized system, staff are now able spend less time on developing or formatting their own finding aids and spend more time on writing good, quality descriptions.

We did not develop ARC in a vacuum. It was based on our evaluations of previous internal NARA standards and external national and international standards including, EAD, MARC, ISAD (G), ISAAR (CPF), RAD, and the Australian National Archives. As a result, ARC elements map to these standards rather easily. These mappings are not 100% matches, but do correspond at more than a minimum level.

With the ability to map to many different standards, ARC output is not single-product focused. Instead, the database is flexible enough so that we can map out and export our descriptions into a variety of formats, as we choose.

Therefore, although EAD was not chosen as the agency's data structure, NARA could use this format as a presentation tool, when appropriate. For example, static finding aids may prove useful for searchers who are looking for predefined sets of "popular" holdings. NARA could create these prepackaged finding aids in EAD format for users who do not want to conduct more sophisticated ARC searches.

Even though we did not choose to implement EAD, we believe ARC aligns NARA with the professional archival community. ARC is based on professional standards and is a comprehensive archival system. It supports multi-level, hierarchical archival descriptions; provides contextual information by linking to descriptions of creators in centralized authority files; supports subject authority control (which allows for precise retrieval); links to online digital copies of popular holdings; and provides potential links to other records lifecycle systems.

All in all, ARC has been a useful solution to solving NARA 's descriptive inconsistencies and disconnected finding aids, but this solution may not necessarily be appropriate for other repositories.

When determining how to describe your own holdings, you need to keep in mind that the development of standards and the customization of software takes time, money, specialized skills, and commitment.

When selecting a new tool, you need to factor in the size of your institution and the resources you have available to you. To determine the best solution for you, first review your current standards. If your standards are incomplete, you may have to develop a whole new system or method of describing your holdings. If your standards work for you and are shared by everyone in your repository, then implement a system that best meets your standards. You will have to consider whether to develop a system on your own or find an existing format/system that perhaps can be customized to meet your needs.

While the development and rollout ARC was a multi-year effort, it has been well worth the time and energy. ARC was launched on the Web to NARA staff in May 2002 and to the public in September 2002. So far, the feedback has been positive. Recently the June 2003 issue of Martha Stewart Living included a brief description of the photographic holdings at NARA and suggested that readers use ARC to search for unique Father's Day gifts. We implemented the ARC data entry system in Spring 2003 and recently began exporting new descriptions to ARC. We hope to have the large majority of our holdings described in ARC by 2008.

To learn more about ARC, visit our web pages at:

http://www.archives. g ov/research_room/arc/index.html To contact us about arc please send an email to arc@ n ara.gov

________________________________

Archivists Challenge DC Mayor to Fund Municipal Archives Cleanup

SAA and three regional archival organizations (MARAC, MAC, and NWA) collaborated in response to a recent Washington Post article highlighting the deplorable condition of the Washington , DC , Archives program.

To read more, go to: http://archivists.org/news/dc_archives.asp

" Keeping Secrets "

In his January 26 letter to the editor of US News & World Report , SAA Vice President Rand Jimerson reminds the publication's 2 million readers that, "Our democratic institutions depend on accurate records and public access to such information." He advocates for "the overturn of recent administration policies that cloak our public servants' actions in secrecy."

For more information, please go to:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040126/misc/26lett.htm

_______________________________

Editor's Corner

The Editor apologizes for the great delay in the publication of this issue of the Government Records Section Newsletter. I am grateful for the patience of its readers and, more especially, its contributors who have written such thought provoking articles. Thank You!

The Editor also solicits, nay, implores the reading public to make a contribution to the Government Records Section News, not withstanding the delay in publication. We promise wide distribution, and minimal editorial interference.

Finally, the Corner notes that the current Editor will have served two years in this capacity as of August 2004. He plans a retirement at that time, and earnestly seeks a replacement as of that date. Please apply to the Chair or Vice Chair of the GRS. Thanks!

Jim Cassedy, Editor
Government Records Section Newsletter
James.cassedy@nara.gov 

________________________________

Utah 's Millennial Records Preservation Project

Stuart Preece 
Patricia Lyn Scott 
Utah State Archives 

While the State Archives has worked with local governments to manage records for decades, it became apparent at the end of the 1990s that local records were still being lost. The Archives determined the situation demanded a more proactive approach.

The Millennial Records Preservation Project, launched in 1999, is designed to train local government officials to manage records, to identify local government records appropriate for preservation microfilming, to provide for preservation microfilming of those records, and to provide regional centers for the accessing of the microfilm.

The program was initially designed to work with Utah 's 236 cities and towns and 40 school districts. The project was endorsed by Utah 's eight regional planning districts, which provided an organizational structure for the program. Microfilming was to be done in regional centers. To finance the program, funds were reallocated from a small preservation grant program for local governments.

The project began in Utah 's three northern counties (the Bear River Regional Association, comprising Box Elder, Cache, and Rich counties). The Utah State University (USU) Library's Special Collections was designated the regional center and repository for that region.

The State Archives provided the microfilm camera, film and film processing, and financed half the cost of the camera operator, as well as providing technical support. The USU Library hired students, provided camera space, financed the other half of the cost of a camera operator, and supervised the microfilming operation. The University was designated the regional repository for a copy of all microfilmed rolls of the region.

Local officials were trained to inventory their records, to select appropriate records for preservation microfilming, and to deliver them to USU. This first project operated from November 1999 to April 2001 and produced 368 rolls of microfilm representing 190 record series from twenty-eight cities and towns, 1 cemetery district, 1 regional council, and 18 school districts.

The Millennial Project emphasized the preservation of specific series of records. For local community governments, for instance, priority was placed on microfilming council minutes, cemetery records, ordinances, incorporation papers, and annual audits. For school districts, emphasis was placed on school board minutes, school histories, scrapbooks, annual reports, and audits. For counties four main categories were selected - county commission minutes, ordinances, territorial mining district records, and territorial county court records.

An analysis of the results for the first phase of the project, however, revealed that only 65 percent of local governments and school districts in the Bear River Regional Association were participating in the program. The operating procedures for the program were reviewed and revised.

The second region consisted of seven southern counties, including the Five County Association of Government's area (consisting of Beaver, Garfield , Iron, Kane, and Washington counties) as well as Piute and Wayne counties. In addition to those records microfilmed during first phase, it was decided to film territorial district court records. Southern Utah University (SUU) was designated the regional center. Microfilming of that Region's records commenced in February 2001, and it is anticipated the project will be completed in Spring 2004.

While the State Archives continued training local officials, our new procedures had Archives' staff visit each local agency and undertake the actual process of record identification and inventorying. This change resulted in regional participation increasing to 100 percent. An added benefit was the increased knowledge Archives staff had of the records of local agencies.

The total statistics for both projects, as of January 1, 2004, are: 1014 rolls of microfilm completed, containing 554 record series, representing the records of 84 cities and towns, 27 school districts, 2 cemetery districts, and 10 counties.

The Millennial Records Preservation Project preserved a wide variety of local Utah community records. Ninety-eight percent of these communities had never had any of their records preserved on microfilm. For this reason alone, we consider the Project to be a great success.

For more information on the project contact: Pat Scott at (801) 538-3343, e-mail - pscott@utah.gov , or Stuart Preece at (801) 538-3195, e-mail - spreece@utah.gov . Additional information will be available at: http://www.archives.utah.gov

________________________________

WHO OWNS HIZZONER'S RECORDS?

[Editor's note: Ms. Janet Linde of the Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York and Ms. Linda Edgerly, Director, Information and Archival Services, Inc., The Winthrop Group, made presentations at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference (MARAC) Spring 2003 Meeting held in Trenton, New Jersey, April 24 - 26, 2003. The session, introduced by Mr. Robert Sink of the Center for Jewish History was entitled, "Who Owns Hizzoner's Records? Civic Ownership of Executive Records." While Ms. Edgerly was unable to submit an article, the editor thanks both Ms. Linde and Mr. Sink for their contributions, and asks MARAC's forgiveness of his ongoing crass opportunism.]

Introduction

Robert Sink 
Center for Jewish History 

 The handling of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's records raises at least four important archival issues: custody of public records, access to those records, the adequacy of the New York City public records law, and the adequacy of funding for the City's Department of Records and Information Services (DORIS). On November 20, 2001 , the Giuliani Center for Urban Affairs was registered as an organization with the state of New York . This was just six weeks before the end of Rudolph Giuliani's final term as Mayor of New York City.

On Christmas Eve 2001, the Commissioner of DORIS (an appointee of the Mayor) signed a contract with the Giuliani Center that provided that the Mayor's records would be moved to a private facility, that the records would be processed at no cost to the City, and that the records would then be returned to the City. The Giuliani Center then contracted with the Winthrop Group to do the processing using experienced professional archivists.

These agreements became public knowledge in January 2002, and several public interest groups such as the Citizen's Union and Common Cause asked Mayor Bloomberg (Giuliani's successor) to cancel the contract. Ten days later the NYC Archivists Round Table, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference, and the Society of American Archivist make a similar request of Bloomberg. The Bloomberg administration, however, made it clear that they would not intervene in the controversy.

The City Council held hearings on the issue in February and around that time the New York State Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) ombudsman ruled that anything in the Mayor's recordkeeping system was a public record and thus could be requested under FOIL. In March, the City Council drafted legislation but largely ignored suggestions from archivists and historians to strengthen the public records law. The Council took no action on its own draft and the issue receded for about six months.

In January 2003 the Council again took up the issue, and legislation was passed in March. The new law was not retroactive and thus did not explicitly cover the Giuliani records. It did have some improvements but still ignored most archival concerns. Finally, it created a review board to oversee DORIS and mandated that it must have one archivist and one historian among its members. The archival community recognized that the result was a varied one with some gains but also several lost opportunities.

This brief overview requires a few additional points to provide context for assessing the professional issues.

1. There are weak precedents in New York City for records to automatically to go to DORIS . A local community college has custody of the City Council's records for instance.

2. That same community college has had similar contracts with DORIS to process another Mayor's records.

3. Even the local archival group sponsored a meeting recently which focused on a City agency that asserts that all of its records are active and should not go to DORIS . The program's speakers were from an architectural firm that has a contract to do the archival processing of the agency's records.

4. DORIS had been under attack from the start of the Giuliani administration and suffered budget cuts and staff reductions over his eight years in office. I know that both Janet and Linda agree on the need to reverse this situation.

A Community Responds

  Janet Linde
Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York

The removal of the records of the Giuliani mayoral administration took place during a year of purposeful assaults on the concept of public ownership of the records of publicly-elected officials and the public's rights of access to those records. During the same 12-month period, the records of the Bush gubernatorial administration were sent to the
Presidential Library of the first President Bush, and the President issued an Executive Order that effectively gutted the access provisions in the Presidential Records Act.

From a local viewpoint, the removal of the Mayor's papers from the custody of the City of New York was seen as an affront to the hard-pressed New York City Department of Records and Information Services (DORIS), an agency that had provided access to mayoral records throughout
the last decade despite a 47% reduction in staff, most of which took place during the Giuliani administrations. Thus, the Giuliani situation resonated and played out in relation to both national and local issues and situations.

How do archivists formulate a response to public records custody issues that is ethical, professionally balanced and, insofar as possible, separated from the inevitable politics of such situations?

It was important to set up basic rules about what this campaign was going to be about. In the case of the Giuliani mayoral records, three principles guided the campaign. First, it was decided the campaign would be
based on solid public records principles; second, the campaign would try to gain more support for (DORIS), emphasizing the government's responsibility to care for its records; and third, the question of custody should be separated to some extent from the question of funding (a concept that was sometimes difficult to balance with goal two). In addition, the campaign was to focus on the actions of the former mayor and the officials of the Giuliani Center and not on the Winthrop Group. In
selecting the Winthrop Group, the Giuliani Center had selected qualified archivists to process the records.

During the year long debate, a constant refrain in the media and advocate commentary on the loss of the Giuliani records was that, to some extent, the fight for those particular records had been lost as soon as the locked trucks carted the records out of the City's custody on New Years' Eve. Once the records left public custody, many said, there was no way to know what had happened to them.

As archivists we may take some comfort in the fact that once the Winthrop archivists began their work on the records, professional controls would provide safeguards against any unauthorized disposal or removal of records. However, we don't know what happened to the records before the Winthrop archivists began their work but after the records left public custody. The only documentation that was initially provided to identify the contents of the records consisted of a two-page listing, one page listing the major paper record groups and the series of audiovisual
records and artifacts and the other listing records series with no indications of the volume or dates of the records.

With public records, everything begins with the issue of custody. The only way to ensure the integrity of the archival life cycle, from appraisal and accessioning, through processing, to the provision of access to the public, is for the custody of public records to be in the
hands of archivists who are paid out of public monies. I do not say this to cast any aspersions on the ethics of archivists who work at private universities or for private companies or, as in my case, for private non-profits. Nor do I pretend that public archivists never compromise their principles because of pressures from their various bosses, many of whom do inhabit a highly politicized world. However, I do believe that within government archives there are often checks and balances that prevent public archivists from allowing perversions of the integrity of public records and that support them when they try to keep infractions from taking place.

Access issues were also important to those advocating continuous public custody of the Giuliani papers. The first version of New York City 's contract with the Giuliani Center gave Giuliani unprecedented rights to control access to the records of his administration. Mayor
Giuliani would have had the right to block public access to any documents in which he deemed he had a "private interest." Further, that arrangement essentially gave a private entity priority of access to the documents. The Giuliani Center had unfettered access to the records,
while the public had no access at all.

Possibly driven by public outcry, an advisory opinion was issued by Robert Freeman, director of the New York State 's Committee on Open Government, stating that sections of the agreement were "inconsistent with the State Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)." By the time of the
first New York City Council Hearings in April, a new contract had been executed that changed the access provisions to remove the former mayor from the access process. Access, however, was only to be permitted through FOIL requests to the City Corporation Counsel who would vet them before sending them on to DORIS and to the archivists at the Fortress.

This process was to be in place for three years until the records were returned to DORIS . In addition, the contract still contained several categories of blanket restrictions. For instance, the Office of the Corporation Counsel (OCC), rather than professional archivists, would
determine which records held by the Center were official government documents and which were the private records of former Mayor Giuliani or another individual.

Other categories of records were subject to OCC review, including records dealing with matters relating to City security and law enforcement, records considered to be of a private nature, and records relating to current or anticipated litigation or otherwise legally privileged. The NYC archival community, and others, were concerned that the categories were overly broad and vague, that there was no statutory basis for the categories, that there were no set time limits for restrictions, that there was no indication as to what would happen to restricted records,
and that all records which may be security-related, privileged or private were to be brought to the attention of the OCC.

It is important to understand that the citizens of New York City have always had access to mayoral records soon after an administration ended. Even though it might take years for a complete processing job to be finished, DORIS archivists would survey mayoral records upon receipt and
identify series that needed more detailed attention before access could be allowed, usually because of concerns for individual privacy, and which series could be opened immediately.

The fact that researchers could only get access to the Giuliani records through a laborious, time-consuming, and usually unsatisfactory process for three years was not well received by the research public or by citizens with evidential and informational needs for the records. These
records included documentation of the City's response to 9/11, a subject on which the former mayor has already published a book-a book that no one has been able to effectively examine because the records are not available.

The NYC archival community failed to convince the City Council to change the terms of access to the Giuliani records during the period of the processing. However, the legislation that was passed by the Council in February 2003 contained the following language: "Nothing in this
subdivision should be construed to limit access by the public to city records. The department [DORIS] shall be responsible for granting such access to the public."

In addition, the Declaration of Intent and Findings that opens the bill states: "The professional archiving of and accessibility to these records are cornerstones of a free society...The Council proposed this legislation after hearing testimony from expert historians, archivists,
and good government advocates regarding the proper handling of important historical documents so as to maintain their integrity and avoid any selective denial of access to such records, or any appearance thereof. "

"It is important that, when others look back at any period in history, they have, to whatever extent possible, access to the complete and accurate record of the City's public office holders and their administrations...The measures instituted by this legislation also seek to better ensure equal access to all members of the public by keeping historical records in the custody of a public entity dedicated to the service of the City of New York. In so doing, the Council expects to
facilitate DORIS's Charter-mandated mission to 'ensure that all significant research material pertaining to the operations of the City as well as other municipalities shall be preserved and readily available for use'[.]"

Editor's PostScript: On October 15, 2003 , the New York Archivists Round Table (ART) bestowed on Janet Linde ART's Award for Archival Achievement. Among other achievements, ART cited Ms. Linde's, "perseverance, energy, and patience over more than a year of dealing with this issue - and above all, for her eloquent articulation of the value of open access to government.

________________________________

BOOK REVIEW   

Thirty Years of Electronic Records 
Bruce I. Ambacher, editor 
The Scarecrow Press 
Lanham , Maryland , 2003
190 pages 

  Dr. Michael L. Miller 

The Preface to this volume begins: "This is a celebratory volume. It recognizes the accomplishments of the oldest, largest, and most actively managed program for archival electronic records in the world." The preface also notes that the writings are "biased" because the authors are all current or former National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) staff and all but one has spent some portion of his or her career in NARA 's custodial unit for electronic records. Finally, the Preface notes that the chapters are based primarily on the experience of the authors who have "labored in the vineyard," and that "their perspectives remain firmly focused on the realities of actively managing archival electronic records collections." If you accept these parameters, and their limitations, you will find the book a relatively satisfying addition to the literature on electronic records.

The book's eight chapters break into three general areas. Chapters 1-4 grow out of papers presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) in 2000. They recount the core history of the custodial program and provide overview of the years in question (1968-98) supplemented by a very useful chronology of the events of thirty years under discussion. Specific chapters (Chapters 2-4) focus on appraisal, archival processing, and reference and description. These four chapters give views "from the trenches," or at least from inside the many organizational units that have been responsible for custodial management of electronic records. Secondly, a broader management perspective is provided by Chapter 7 and in the recollections piece authored by Meyer Fishbein, one of the early pioneers of electronic records at NARA . The third area is comprised of Chapters 5, 6, and 8 describing the Electronic Records Archives Program, the PROFS case, and the work of the National Historical Records and Publications Committee (NHPRC) respectively. The events covered in these chapters extend well beyond the thirty-year window.

So why read this volume? There are several reasons. A major one is the quality of the contributors. Eight of the twelve authors are SAA fellows and two of the eight are past presidents of SAA. For the generalist interested in electronic records, the best chapters are Jason Baron on the PROFS case, Ken Thibodeau on the ERA program and the chapter on management perspective. In part their value lies in the fact that they look outside the custodial unit itself and place that program in a larger context. That context includes the internal NARA debates over the placement of the electronic records program; the professional debates over electronic records appraisal, the value of email as a record, and custodial verses non-custodial (or post custodial); as well as the many ongoing interagency and international electronic records initiatives. Unfortunately, these authors raise the issues but don't have the opportunity to address them in depth. As one example, since NARA 's archival program underwent numerous organizational and functional realignments over 30 years, an objective assessment of what worked and what didn't and how these lessons learned inform NARA 's strategic direction for electronic records would have been very useful.

For those more steeped in electronic records generally, the volume presents a history of what was arguably the most influential electronic records program in the 20 th century. As an adjunct professor for the University of Maryland , I've found histories of electronic records in short supply and this collection helps fill that void. A word of caution however - this is not a complete history of NARA 's efforts in electronic records. It is principally the "inside" story of the custodial unit told from the viewpoint of long-time custodial unit staff. Recollections on what took place and why vary, as Edie Hedlin points out in her contribution from a management perspective (page 159). I too found that while I agreed with the description of what happened during the times I was most involved with the program, my understanding of the whys and the larger context was sometimes different.

Finally, the book will provide the more knowledgeable reader with a better appreciation of the perspective of NARA 's archival program. What comes across clearly is a proud and dedicated staff battling adversity and trying to preserve the Federal government's electronic records despite all obstacles they faced. Past is prologue and this book is essential to understanding the genesis of NARA 's current policies and initiatives.

Perhaps the best way to understand, appreciate and use this book is to think of it as a group memoir, the collected recollections of some of the founding archivists who played seminal roles in the development of how the United States and the world approaches electronic records. For some purposes that type of record is the most valuable.

________________________________

Contacts