1. Controversy is nearly unavoidable in such issues because
they imply changes that may alter the services received by particular
local constituencies in several separate locations throughout the country.
Furthermore, aside from the general tendency of the American public
to distrust the actions of a central government, there have been sufficient
examples of missteps by NARA in recent decades to render several of
its constituents dubious about the intentions of the space study. We
greatly regret this erosion in trust, and we therefore bly encourage
NARA to continue the open and careful deliberative process they have
begun to ensure that such fears do not become justified. We commend
NARA for initiating a formal and systematic study that includes a series
of public hearings in the regional centers as a prominent element. At
the same time, we encourage archivists and users throughout the country
to engage in serious study of and deliberation on the space problem
before rushing to take policy positions simply to defend the status
quo.
2. In addition to the summer 1998 round of information-gathering
hearings, NARA's public consultations should include a second round
of hearings after specific recommendations have been developed in order
to receive public comment on those recommendations before actions are
taken to implement them.
3. In the development of recommendations, the following
objectives and issues must be given serious consideration:
3.1 The plan should provide a realistic means of achieving
an efficient and fiscally sound program for the use of space that
incorporates objective measures of quality, quantity, accessibility,
and public use of space.
3.2 To establish a rational baseline for the allocation
of resources for archival storage facilities, the NARA study should
include a rigorous cost-benefit assessment of all NARA storage facilities.
It would be unfortunate if the space planning process focused only
on regional archives when the costs associated with other storage
facilities (in both rent, use, and staff efficiency) actually might
be higher. Similar cost-benefit assessments should be employed for
any proposed centralized alternatives.
3.3 Salient issues that arise from the summer 1998 hearings
should also be addressed, for example, the desirability of bringing
together related records that support use by specific communities
and locations.
3.4 A primary consideration of the plan should be continued
accessibility of archival materials to the current national and regional
communities of NARA users and supporters.
3.5. NARA's public forums to date have demonstrated
b local support for each of the regional archives. Large numbers of
citizens, however, never take advantage of a regional archives facility
because their distance from archives is too great. NARA space planning
should assess the information needs of potential users as well as
current users and try to ensure that as many citizens and government
agencies as possible have "ready access to essential evidence."
NARA may wish to consider situating facilities according to population,
remove spatial anomalies (such as sending Virginia records to Philadelphia
and not to a DC-area facility), and implement document-delivery programs
and loan of NARA microfilm similar to services provided by many other
information agencies. Electronic access may also be an option for
the millions of citizens who have not been served by the current distribution
of regional facilities.
3.6 The space plan will need to provide assurance to
federal agencies of ready access to their records so that those agencies
will continue to actively participate in the transfer of inactive
federal records to NARA.
3.7 NARA should recognize that one of the great strengths
of the current system is that it supports the special local knowledge
that a regionally dispersed staff contributes to the appraisal of
regional records and the ways in which such staff are well-positioned
to provide reference support for records on topics of b local area
interest. We urge NARA to ensure that this success is enhanced through
whatever plan it adopts.
3.8 Although the impact of recommendations on specific
sites is unavoidably a local issue affecting specific local constituencies,
the space, facilities, preservation, and user-services problems faced
by NARA are fundamentally national problems, which may require a system-based
approach. We encourage all interested parties to consider the broad
national issues before adopting specific positions on particular regional
sites or on individual recommendations or options available to NARA.
3.9 Regardless of the content of specific recommendations
from the study, addressing the issues of the quantity and quality
of space will require significant additional federal funding. NARA
should not hesitate to develop and promote realistic funding requests
to Congress. Even if the immediate prospects for sufficient funding
to initiate a new space program are limited, the pursuit of funding,
perhaps for a phased implementation, is essential. The existing space
situation is obviously so problematic as to render it impossible for
NARA to meet its national responsibilities simply by reallocating
existing resources.
3.10 Archivists, historians, public users, and local
political constituencies should be prepared to actively support new
NARA funding requests through all appropriate means for contacting
legislators and government officials.
3.11 NARA should look to how it might capitalize on
the enormous good will that has been expressed in public meetings
to date concerning the value of archives, the quality of NARA's archival
staff and services, and the desire of the public to use archival materials.
3.12 At the same time, NARA must be exceedingly careful
in the process it follows for studying the issues, developing recommendations,
sharing the recommendations with the public, and making and implementing
the final decisions. Due process, careful deliberation, and open communication
will be essential for the process to be a shared venture of administrators,
archivists, and users aimed at greater support for more adequate quality
facilities and services.
