Sharing two links from different spots on the spectrum to illustrate RM
issues as assessed by writers who appear unfamiliar with some aspects of RM
and archival praxis. One is a recent story in the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/22/susan-rice-records-intelligence-committee-wants-ar/
 The other is an op ed by Rick Perlstein, a progressive author who has
written history books about Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/lesson-watergate-article-1.3180241

While the political aspects and framing of some of the issues and
associated quotes in both links are beyond the scope of this Listserv (as
also that of the Archives & Archivists Listserv), the information literacy
aspects are not.  Both links contain information that can create erroneous
or confusing impressions of RM issues in the minds of members of the
general public.  Since some involve arcane practices, I'm sharing links
about some of the underlying issues.

For the first link, laypeople may not realize that presidential libraries
for materials administered under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) are a
part of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  And that
transfers of records, such as those created by the National Security
Council, occur under regular records management procedures at the end of an
administration.

I've worked on several such moves myself in the past, physically providing
records guidance within the White House in support of the White House
Office of Records Management at the end of an administration and
facilitating transfer.

In my work as a National Archives employee, because I screened for
restriction or disclosure records created and seen by a President, I held
the necessary numerous compartmented security clearances necessary to
access and properly handle records we took into our custody.  In one case,
at the end of an administration, as a president of one party left and one
from the other party came in to office, I physically took charge of the
materials.  I was the designated cleared National Archives security escort
official who rode in a truck with NSC records from the White House to the
secure storage area where we placed the materials we took into custody.
 (Moves involve civilian and military personnel;' see this recent article
about military support:
http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Article/1033472/airman-provides-the-logistics-behind-obamas-archival-move/
 )

Access to such records occurs only through pertinent statutes and
regulations, in some cases as determined by the courts. (Most WH
components' records fall under the PRA; a few fall under the Federal
Records Act.  This has evolved due to court decisions.)
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

For the second link, the op ed in the New York Daily News, general readers
may not know that the author appears to have conflated two different and
separate Bush White House email issues ("22 million missing WH emails").
One was the use of RNC rather than dot gov accounts by certain staff
members during the George W. Bush administration.  The other centered on
technological issues with WH email, reliably described in old news stories,
such as this one in 2009, about litigation by CREW.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/

Similar assertions to those the writer made in the New York Daily News
column received wide circulation in late 2016 and provided information
literacy opportunities for archives and records experts.

For my part, I encourage writers and readers to go to authoritative
information.  The National Archives has published excellent transition
information, including this article by David McMillen earlier this year.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2016/winter/presidential-transitions
.
NARA has clear, reliable information about the differences between PRA and
FRA materials on its website, which has received recognition as one of the
best in the Federal government for clarity and usefulness..

NARA's RM role with FRA materials starts at the moment of creation.  Not so
with the PRA, although WH officials have the option of consulting with NARA
while a President is in office.  Statutorily, with PRA materials, the
President and his designees have records management authority while in
office.  (This is not made clear in the Washington Times article but was
the case for President Barack Obama as well as for his predecessors and
successors.)  NARA's statutory role with PRA records begins at the end of
an administration.

I should also note that John Powers, mentioned in the Washington Times
article in his capacity as a NSC official, has worked at the White House
since 2015.  Although he is a former NARA official (Office of Presidential
Libraries and Office of Information Security Oversight), he is not a
detailee but a WH employee. He had an excellent reputation at NARA, where
his job included liaison with the Public Interest Declassification Board,
which has bipartisan membership..

In the information literacy and records and archives literacy context, it
generally is good to consider but also to go beyond what litigants say in
shaping public opinion (whether CREW or Judicial Watch or any other group
that releases statements about their access efforts).  And to start by
looking first at what statutes require.  Neither the reporter for the
Washington Times or the author who published an op ed in the New York Daily
News did that.  This is not uncommon with new links and commentary; it can
occur simply because the writers are not familiar with praxis or for other
reasons beyond the scope of this Listserv.

Maarja
@ArchivesMaarja
Blog:  https://archivalexplorations.wordpress.com/
Washington, DC

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]