A note for information professionals who may one aspire to participate
officially (through place of employment, voluntary professional service,
participation in task forces or working groups) or on an ad hoc basis in
finding solutions to complex RIM challenges/ Ones across the profession
(governmental, corporate, academic). We older information professions
largely have established our diverse legacies but for younger and midcareer
professionals, there are many opportunities ahead.
To the extent you can, in working with or engaging with others, start with
the language of the statutes and regulations affecting the entity in
question, going to reliable sites and sources for it. And to employers
which have a robust web presence that includes good, clear language
archives and records guidance, such as the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), consider reading that, as well. And walk around the
community, at conferences or symposiums, getting to know practitioners as
the real people they are. You already have deep immersion knowledge of this
for your own workplace and particular industries. But it's worth doing for
other entities, depending on your goals, objectives, and ambitions. Here's
why.
One reason I often link to guidance or regulations here, as on Twitter, is
that there is a lot of unreliable or even bad archives and RIM information
out there from third party sources. Some is in links that may have been
deliberately or inadvertently by laypeople or people with no civil service
experience. As I've explained, I don't engage with people (info pros or
laypeople) I only know as names on the web on such issues if I believe the
conversation will turn partisan. It's where I am now, out of respect for
my former employers, two non-partisan agencies.
I don't see the point of engaging with people whose own web presence or the
link shared is partisan in nature. My personal take is that people from the
partisan group making the error now have a better chance of being heard by
a fellow partisan in pointing out factual errors or unfair interpretation
than from engagement by a political Independent. I'm most comfortable
writing stand alone posts or blog essays centered on core elements I see
affecting GLAM institutions, RIM, history, and civic knowledge. It's up to
readers to accept or reject the analysis I share at what is very much a
niche blog. I accept that it isn't for everyone but appreciate those who
do read it.
I am happy to let NARA speak for me and my Fedland friends and colleagues
on all professional issues (its output is thoughtful and knowledgeable).
But I have noticed how readily third parties outside Fedland share
inaccurate or muddled information of ARM and RIM issues. Three partially
anonymized examples illustrate this. Two occurred within the last year;
one dates back some five years or more.
One was a private sector retiree whose work experience solely is in areas
outside archives, records or records law. And who described himself as
someone who took an interest in government issues and started writing about
them. He published a commentary a few months ago about Presidential
Records Act (PRA) and Federal Records Act (FRA) issues. His commentary,
published on a partisan site, centered on the Obama Presidential Center.
His essay contained outdated or incorrect information about some actions,
statutes (he seemed unaware of recent amendments), and practices, and some
misinterpretations. Yet it was circulated by some information
professionals who seemingly had not taken the time to look up the pertinent
statutes. I cannot say whether that reflected a similarly muddled
understanding of the issues at hand.
In another instance, a historian published an op ed that looked at some
Presidential and Federal Records Act issues. Although on the opposite end
of the political spectrum from the first essayist, his commentary also
contained a muddled description of some practices. And included at least
one link to an article from 2016 that contained some factual and
interpretive errors. All of this lessened the impact for more
knowledgeable readers of his essay and recommendations.
In a third instance, an attorney who represents a partisan public policy
group published a book in which he recounted his take on some issues
related to the Freedom of Information Act. His specialty is not records
management (his professional practice has been in other fields). And his
book also contained a very muddled (at best) account of Federal Records Act
issues.
The name of the legal advocate associated with specific public policy
stances still pops up in certain news accounts from time to time. If
you're interested in sustainable solutions based on examination of systemic
issues, I recommend iSteve Aftergood, instead. Aftergood is an
acknowledged transparency expert who has built up a reliable and
nonpartisan body of expertise and thoughtful, relatively objective
analysis, across the administrations of both politcal parties.
All three writers whose accounts seemed muddled to me have the right to
represent issues however they like. Including as advocates or partisans
across the spectrum. I like to think that astute and information savvy
readers can differentiate between nonpartisan analysis and partisan policy
advocacy. I was surprised at whom I saw sharing the information I just
descried. The web sharing included a few information professionals who
have not worked in civil service at the Federal level, in any of the three
branches of government. It may or may not have reflected their
understanding of the issues.
While I almost never point to errors of fact, I recognize that other
present and former civil servants do at times, a statutory and regulatory
focus which I appreciate. But I also understand the Fedland saying, "Don't
swing at a pitch in the dirt." In my case, I have deep trust in NARA's
ability to speak on these issues, given my work there and the people I know
who are working there now. It's a type of trust and serenity I wish for
others regarding the places where they work.
As citizens, we can do what we like online in such areas. As information
professionals, we have opportunities to represent. I often point to
fairness as a virtue, referring to a representational version of the Golden
Rule. That is, if you're frustrated by misconceptions or cartoonish
depictions of the industry in which you work, show the same consideration
and respect for those in which others work. It makes no sense to decry
depictions of academic, corporate or government workplaces as evil and to
turn around and do so tho the ones where you don't work yourself.
But calls for fairness may sound quaint. So I'll close with saying
information professionals are aware of the value of appraisal and how to
find information. The web may have areas of pollution but we don't need to
add to them. Earth Day can have multiple meanings. Yes, my 70s roots are
showing, ha!
If you want to be part of solutions in challenging and important archives
or records work, something I'd encourage you to consider, there are many
opportunities for you to do so in ways centered in statutory and reliable
foundations and human centered cultural awareness. Take the time to check
information online. And get to know your colleagues in workplaces
different than yours! We welcome knowledge seeking and sharing engagement
in person, as online.
Thanks for reading here on this Listserv and at my blog. And best wishes
and good luck to all!
Maarja
[log in to unmask]
Washington, DC
Blog: Archival Explorations
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archivalexplorations.wordpress.com_&d=DwIBaQ&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=b5NZPQUb9_r2rQ3Zd74ATT3aSs9yKyRnJLOhqJvd7fE&m=Zruhrj2M9EMxyONaV048Cvkj10pDdJyVP7c-IIxPyFw&s=hys2R7NybVtHySKlDQdDdQsvO-KtBY5eH6fJ64E8HbI&e=
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]
|
