Dear colleages: Please excuse and ignore cross postings.
I'm not sure how many of you have been watching the President's nomination of
a replacement Archivist of the US. There was some discussion about a year ago
but nothing on Monday's Washington Post editorial, apart from Peter K's
raindrop and one other posting. While the subject has been posted to this SAA and
ARMA lists, there has been no discussion whatever. I hope this isn't a
reflection of our general interest in the subject or we shouldn't expect our Senate to
take much about recordkeeping very seriously. Yet, there is a great deal at
stake for the general public and also for the archives and records management
profession.
Below is an email letter that I have just sent to my two US Senators. I hope
that this posting will generate some interest in this matter. In the meantime,
I urge each of you to write to write to your Senators immediately
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
as the nomination has just cleared the Senate. At least by email, Senators
will not accept mail from anyone outside of their state. See ARMA Washington
Brief Senate Committee Approves Weinstein and Monday's Washingon Post editorial
"A New Archivist" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3596-2005Feb6.html We can expect the full Senate vote any time now.
An important part of my own reservations about the nomination are included in
the below letter as I wanted to keep it short.
I will be publishing a paper shortly on the home page of my website that I
co-wrote with Mike Steemson,
"Heritage groups challenge George W. Bush nominee for US Archivist: So What?"
that is being published in the current issue of the UK Records Management
Journal. That paper will discuss the subject more thoroughly.
Regards,
Rick Barry
www.mybestdocs.com
Cofounder, Open Reader Consortium
www.openreader.org
-------------------------------
February 9, 2005
Dear Senator [Warner/Allen]:
I am a professional consultant and author in the field of information and
records management. I'm writing to you about the President's nomination of Alan
Weinstein as Archivist of the US, which has cleared Committee. My concern isn't
political in nature. Nor is it about Messrs. Weinstein (nominee) or Carlin
(incumbent), but rather about the essential, inviolate nature of our national
records and the Archivist responsible for their proper stewardship.
This is a position that regrettably is rarely discussed in the media; yet is
one that is of vital importance to all Americans. It was the subject of a Post
editorial Monday; however, that editorial failed to mention an important
point that I raise here.
As you know, the incumbent has a critical role in determining what public
records will be kept and for how long, including vital Presidential Record, the
general level of secrecy with regard to public records that is vital to
documenting human rights and the accountability of government officials. As you are
also no doubt aware, as part of our protections against politicizing the
position, and as part of the wake of the Watergate, The National Archives and
Records Administration Act of 1984 (US Public Law 98-497), signed by President
Ronald Reagan, clearly states that, "The Archivist shall be appointed without
regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional
qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of
Archivist." House Report 98-707 required that determining professional
qualifications be achieved through consultation with recognized organizations of
archivists and historians. This was not done in this case. The law also states
that when the Archivist is removed (as happened here), before doing so, the
President must inform both Houses of Congress in writing of his reasons. If the
President has done so, it has not to my knowledge been made public. It should be.
Like a few other key positions, there is no specific time limit on the
Archivist's position; nor is the incumbent expected to tender his/her resignation
with a change of administration. You have always been a straight shooter. I hope
that you will not vote in favor of this nominee or any other nominee until
you have been properly informed of the compelling reasons for dismissing the
incumbent and feel that they are weighty enough to warrant this unusual action. I
also ask that, if reasons have been given for the incumbent's dismissal, you
will send me a copy of that explanation, which I hope and trust will also be a
matter of public record. The public is entitled to nothing less. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rick Barry
www.mybestdocs.com
Cofounder, Open Reader Consortium
www.openreader.org
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
