Sharing a link to a blog post I recently wrote about the history of
declassification of national security classified records.  You'll find a
description and a link to download unclassified slides of a presentation in
2013 by Neil Carmichael, Director, Insider Threat Program Office, National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  He then headed a division in
NARA's National Declassification Center. See the link and my assessment of
Carmichael's briefing at "Perspectives,"
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archivalexplorations.wordpress.com_2017_12_10_perspectives_&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=tsaFQ8OMxi7YTVu7Bdxdhj13b7wH8fA5W4GIqi-lzug&s=XPulASkOz-fNPueCO9yA1dNr3m2WqHXd7FR6UEYDMTM&e= 
Context provided by our new exhibit, "Remembering Vietnam."

As Neil pointed out in 2013, over time some of the decisions and internal
deliberations in security classified records become available for
research.  As an archivist and historian who also has worked on appraisal
and scheduling of records, I'm interested in the impact of changes in
candor in classified and unclassified records.  [I'm about to publish an
unclassified history of some little known aspects of Federal government
operations.]

Given the emphasis in many RM programs on legal discovery, whether
officials write and create records may be affected by external framing of
issues which your program officials (governmental, corporate, academic) may
read in the news or elsewhere online.  The negative impact (fear of
creating and preserving records) in assessing risk can be hard for RMs to
mitigate.  One way to supplement legal requiremens is to remind officials
that there are uses of recorded knowledge (including history) that are not
inherently adversarial to them and do not place them in the crossfire.

The *Secrecy News* newsletter serves as a reminder of the existence of
balanced assessment of records issues generally, not just those created
within the government.  I explained its value in a recent post to the
Archives & Archivists Listserv about determining the intent and impact of
information shared online.  In the RM context, such newsletters also have
value in the emphasis on educational, rather than polemical, content.
Moreover, they often recognize or center the role of the RM or archivist in
ways not seen elsewhere.

If any of you are visiting family in the Washington, DC, area during the
Christmas holidays, please consider coming to the National Archives museum
to see the "Remembering Vietnam" exhibit.  As you can see in the records
portal for it, it includes some recently declassified records as well as
multiple contemporary and retrospective perspectives.  My note to the A&A
Listserv about the value of balanced contextual assessments of RM and
archives issues, below.
-----Original Message-----
From: \Maarja Krusten via <[log in to unmask]>
To: Archives & Archivists (A&A) List <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Dec 22, 2017 11:27 pm

<snip> If you don't already subscribe to it, the Federation of American
Scientists *Secrecy News* newsletter is a good read on a wide range of
Federal records and archives issues.  You can subscribe here
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fas.org_blogs_secrecy_&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=tsaFQ8OMxi7YTVu7Bdxdhj13b7wH8fA5W4GIqi-lzug&s=qRxkP6-q2NV6o-fFe1e01abR4A-UwgrGYXE7lEb_UCM&e=  or follow the author, Steven Aftergood, on
Twitter:   https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_saftergood_with-5Freplies&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=tsaFQ8OMxi7YTVu7Bdxdhj13b7wH8fA5W4GIqi-lzug&s=FaC9VGNOExeUTkOw4GJcTvwMZhRkyZA1iUCF5c3jYTg&e= 

​<snip>
I rarely comment at *Secrecy News* but did feel comfortable doing so when
Aftergood described a law review article ("Does Candor Require Secrecy?")
in 2010.  My comment was much the same as I would have shared on A&A:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fas.org_blogs_secrecy_2010_05_candor_-23comment-2D5702&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=tsaFQ8OMxi7YTVu7Bdxdhj13b7wH8fA5W4GIqi-lzug&s=ujAMnryB4fTw_k01nO6t8mN3GDESCFYhgMrVMewl6CI&e= , which drew an
interesting reaction from another reader.

At *Secrecy News*, Aftergood starts with the legal framework of records
issues and often uses quotes from people with various perspectives or
interpretations. As a source of insights, his balanced approach is better
than that of analysts who either don't understand records issues well or
write about them (for various reasons) in a polemical or one-sided
fashion.

Polemical writing can occur when a plaintiff writes as an advocate about
ongoing litigation or when an author doesn't check on or misunderstands
records statutes.  You see an example in this in a recent story. . . which
quotes Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch.  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__freebeacon.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=tsaFQ8OMxi7YTVu7Bdxdhj13b7wH8fA5W4GIqi-lzug&s=XapX6Yg4QWFlhYRTsHGt6WQNHuP2XTi-f0-y4x0twvk&e= 
national-security/clinton-struck-deal-obama-state-dept-keep-records-private/
And in this *Newsweek* piece
​ [about G. W. Bush White House records]​
 from 2016:  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.newsweek.com_2016_09_23_george-2Dw-2Dbush-2Dwhit&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=tsaFQ8OMxi7YTVu7Bdxdhj13b7wH8fA5W4GIqi-lzug&s=KDK69zmj4itz_D58n4KBWV5TRfsWuUbmNjP7Y_CdjX4&e= 
e-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

Missing in the coverage of Judicial Watch is context regarding records
management practices.  All Federal Agencies and Departments subject to the
Federal Records Act (FRA) routinely identify which materials are record,
which nonrecord, which personal.  This is based on a property concept that
applies to employees of all ranks.

​<snip>

...educating employees of all ranks about the need to segregate personal
from work related materials, in a way that is sympathetic to how mixture
might occur, is part of being a good records manager.  Luckily for Feds,
the National Archives has issued excellent guidance on this which RMs can
draw on and laypeople can check, as well.  This is not referred to anywhere
in the piece about Judicial Watch.

And missing in the *Newsweek* piece is the statutory distinction between
what is a presidential record and what is purely political and outside the
scope of the Presidential Records Act, statutorily personal, not official.
Hence the practice by White House aides with purely political as well as
governmental duties of using personal email as well as dot gov accounts,
depending on which hat they were wearing.  Here, too, the distinctions lie
in the property concept.  <snip>

Of course, such links can be useful in other ways. Recognizing the purpose
of articles and blog posts is part of information literacy. Is it
educational in purpose?  Adversarial (in a political or legal sense)?  What
is the intent?  Knowledge and civic literacy?  Or cherry picking to paint
someone cartoonishly as a villain or a hero?  Does the rhetoric open or
close the door to learning opportunities?  Commenting at knowledge oriented
sites works better than at polemical or partisan sites, where your attempt
to educate a writer and the readership may feel pointless.  Silence does
not always imply consent or assent.

Looking for references to statutes and common practices and quotes from
people with different perspectives is part of assessing the usefulness of
information in links you read.  Its absence can be a yellow or red flag.
If you're interested in Fedland records and archives issues, *Secrecy News* is
a good read at a website that strives to focus on knowledge.  And if you're
an archivist, historian, or records manager comfortable with sharing your
own knowledge and expertise, it's a learning oriented site where you can
feel comfortable doing so.

Maarja
@ArchivesMaarja
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archivalexplorations.wordpress.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=tsaFQ8OMxi7YTVu7Bdxdhj13b7wH8fA5W4GIqi-lzug&s=kdhVC97lCOtKHR92Fl1HhSm4Hk1c3nMXcBy97y_VqM8&e= 
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
The ARCHIVES & ARCHIVISTS (A&A) LIST is sponsored by the Society of
American Archivists. The opinions expressed on the A&A List do not
necessarily represent those of SAA and are not endorsed by the Society.

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]