It's all about access

April 17, 2004 11:47 AM

The recent White House nomination of Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States has produced some interesting reactions. Is this standard election-year politics, or is there something else going on?
posted by grateful (45 comments total)

History is written by the victors... but just in case, Dubya needs somebody who knows how to operate a shredder...
posted by wendell at 12:00 PM on April 17, 2004

Hmm. writing books citing sources only you can see. Nice.

Actually, I'm surprised that they just got around to kicking Carlin out. Clinton had a good record on declassifying stuff (or is my viewpoint just skewed from those 12 years of GOP rule?)

thanks for the link, it'd been hours since I despaired about our reich...
posted by Busithoth at 12:35 PM on April 17, 2004

Is this standard election-year politics, or is there something else going on?

nope. just typical Bush secrecy.
posted by graventy at 12:46 PM on April 17, 2004

I work very closely with archivists, and respect them greatly. While much of their work is mind-numbingly boring, it is ethically and intellectually very challenging. Archivists adhere to a very strict voluntary code, though this code is not legally binding; thus the profession is very leery of those whom they do not know well. It should be. A bad archivist is a real danger, not an inconvenience.

Bush's penchant for secrecy, depending on how you look at it, is either fodder for scandal mongering, or an attempt to disguise some really nasty aspects to his character. These include the president's driving records including, DUIs , Laura's history of vehicular manslaughter.While I am not certain how common it is replace the national archivist, if I were a friend of the Administration, I would suggest that not add to the appearance of impropriety.

As one who is highly suspicious of lil' Potus, I think that the 9/11 panel has uncovered enough confidential information that contradicts the president's and the cabinet's public statements, that Americans have the right to insist that the current archivist be allowed to serve out his term.

I find it highly disturbing that this very important post is left to the discretion of the administration. I think s/he should be appointed by knowledgeable experts at the National Archives and Smithsonian.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 12:54 PM on April 17, 2004

Opps. That last comment is a mess. It is such an interesting topic.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 12:56 PM on April 17, 2004

writing books citing sources only you can see.

worked for the church for centuries.
posted by quonsar at 1:06 PM on April 17, 2004

worked for the church for centuries... and still does, at least better than I would like it to.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 1:14 PM on April 17, 2004

Nope, just standard Metafilter paranoia. On the other hand, the Boston University connection is disturbing...
posted by ParisParamus at 1:25 PM on April 17, 2004

The Illuminati gave it three T stops. It must be evil.
posted by PrinceValium at 1:30 PM on April 17, 2004

Paris - In case you weren't aware, the Damnatio Memoriae has a long history going back, really, to the dawn of civilization. Caligula's "Damnatio" was merely a recent chapter of this ancient practice. The hiding or the erasure of the past - records and traces of the past in every form, whether they be written records, artifacts, buildings, corpses and skeletons, or whatever - is a time honored political tactic. It was used, to great effect, in the old Soviet Union :

".....A famous example of the concept of damnatio memoriae in modern usage is the "vaporization" of "unpersons" in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four ("He did not exist; he never existed"). The most famous recent example of damnatio memoriae in actual practice is the removal of Lavrenti Beria immediately after the death of his patron, Iosif Stalin.
"

Furthermore, Damnation Memoriae - as a practice and a political tool - is not confined solely to the expungement of individuals from the social record. It, as I mentioned, can involve a wholesale erasure of the past :

"
In 1562, a Franciscan friar who had accompanied Spanish troops to Mexico ordered the burning of thousands of Mayan hieroglyphic books, in an attempt to eradicate the repository of local spiritual beliefs and to pave the way for Christianity. In one afternoon, practically the entire record of a civilization had been turned to ashes; only four codices are known to have survived. In 1914, the German Army invaded the Belgian city of Louvain, a treasure house of Gothic and Renaissance architecture. In an act of no military significance whatsoever, Louvainís magnificent library of 300,000 volumes, which included nearly a thousand irreplaceable illuminated manuscripts, was burned to the ground. ("At Louvain," said a man who watched it happen, "Germany disqualified itself as a nation of thinkers.") More recently, during its psychopathic reign in Cambodia in the mid-1970ís, Pol Potís regime destroyed nearly all of ancient Cambodiaís manuscripts and monuments. In its rage against modernity and civilization, the Khmer Rouge went so far as to examine ordinary citizens for marks on the bridge of the nose, the telltale sign of reading glassesówhich was enough to bring down a death sentence."
posted by troutfishing at 2:15 PM on April 17, 2004

So if the Bush Administration is actually attempting to control access to these documents - a form, really, of Petit - Damnatio Memoriae - then it is in notable company indeed.
posted by troutfishing at 2:21 PM on April 17, 2004

Sounds like Bush knows history is not going to be kind to him nor his administration, so he is doing everything he can to control the information future generations are able to access.
posted by wsg at 2:43 PM on April 17, 2004

psychohistory
posted by JohnR at 2:49 PM on April 17, 2004

But isn't it refreshing to see an example where the Dubya Administration seems to actually have learned something from History?
not neccesarily the right thing, but something...
posted by wendell at 2:55 PM on April 17, 2004

In 1562, a Franciscan friar who had accompanied Spanish troops to Mexico ordered the burning of thousands of Mayan hieroglyphic books, in an attempt to eradicate the repository of local spiritual beliefs and to pave the way for Christianity. In one afternoon, practically the entire record of a civilization had been turned to ashes; only four codices are known to have survived.

But what Diego de Landa took with one hand, he gave back with the other. In his writing, he gave the key that eventually led to the deciphering of Maya hieroglyphs--the closest thing we have to a Maya rosetta stone.

Pol Potís regime destroyed nearly all of ancient Cambodiaís manuscripts and monuments

Actually, the Khmer Rouge didn't touch the monuments hardly at all. I've been to Angkor, and other than a few bullet holes, the monuments weren't touched.
posted by Xoc at 3:03 PM on April 17, 2004

Xoc - That was a bit of a factual error, wasn't it? Good catch. The New York Observer needs a bit of fact checking, I'd guess.....Or maybe they're just fucking with the past!

I'm pretty ignorant on this, but I read that The Khmer Rouge did desecrate temples - "The modern Cambodian sense of cultural and ethnic identity largely derives from this Buddhist faith and the sangha – the community of ordained monks – is among the nation’s most cherished institutions. But the sangha has still not recovered from its near-total destruction in the 1970s by the Khmer Rouge, which turned temples into pigpens and forced monks to marry or join the army." Reading between the lines in a UNESCO summary, I get a sense, rather, of simple neglect rather than intentional destruction.

Not that the Khmer were nice or anything.
posted by troutfishing at 3:33 PM on April 17, 2004

Nope, just standard Metafilter paranoia.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:25 PM CST on April 17

ParisParamus, the Emperor has no clothes.
posted by four panels at 5:11 PM on April 17, 2004

This is actually pretty spooky, and I wouldn't have known about it, were it not for this fpp. Thanks!
posted by dejah420 at 7:03 PM on April 17, 2004

What WSG said, but with and exclamation point.

There is something paranoid about this administration's relationship to information-- something that reminds me daily of the Nixon administration, or the Kremlin.

Why doesn't this seem to bother voters and the media?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 9:10 PM on April 17, 2004

[insert quote from 1984 here]
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:31 PM on April 17, 2004

"This is actually pretty spooky, and I wouldn't have known about it, were it not for this fpp"

this is probably the best way to describe how good the much-maligned NewsFilter can sometimes be.
good post and thread, thanks everybody.
posted by matteo at 11:31 PM on April 17, 2004

There is something paranoid about this administration's relationship to information-- something that reminds me daily of the Nixon administration, or the Kremlin.

What is paranoid about this administrations relationship to information? How does it remind you of the Nixon administration or the Kremlin? Specifically. How does this administration treat information differently than previous administrations, whose information policy you were presumable knowledgeable about and agreed with.


This is actually pretty spooky

How is it spooky? No offense meant, but that's a very vague comment. In what ways does this information concern you? How will Bush appointing an archivist impact your life or the lives of your loved ones?

he is doing everything he can to control the information future generations are able to access.


How is Bush doing this? Specifically. By appointing a different archivist? Would it not then stand to reason that Clinton was doing the same thing when he appointed his archivist? Assuming there were public consultations in the past regarding archivist selection, what leads you to believe that the choice of the public was also the eventual choice of the administration? Would not a future administration be able to appoint their own archivist that could "declassify" any information that this administration "classifies"? What power does the archivist have in making decisions such as these? Does not congress and other committees or the administration itself decide what is and is not classified and the archivist only acts on those decisions? What information is at stake here? Won't history still have access to the New York Times and all other sources of information regarding this era even if Bush himself burns down the archives?

Bush's penchant for secrecy

No offense meant again but honestly, seriously, can you really say beyond a doubt that this administration is "more secretive" than past administrations? Or other governments? Where is the evidence for this? Are there statistical comparisons as to the amount of "secrecy" this administration engages in?

I'm not necessarily an apologist for the Bush administration, but I think the reason many people are turned off by this type of criticism of it is these types of unsubstantiated comments that are stated as fact. These are nothing more than opinion that aren't backed up with anything more than anecdotal evidence.

In terms of this particular discussion, I still can't quite understand how this administration appointing a new head archivist somehow translates into GWB being allowed in after dark to shred his wife's DWI rap sheets. A far more conclusive link has to be drawn between the role and authority of the archivist and how Bush could manipulate him, if he were so inclined, which I've seen no evidence in this thread to suggest is the case.
posted by loquax at 12:11 AM on April 18, 2004

this is probably the best way to describe how good the much-maligned NewsFilter can sometimes be.
good post and thread, thanks everybody.

I second that motion.
posted by The God Complex at 12:16 AM on April 18, 2004

loquax:
Just a few things at random off the top of my head:
(feel free to fact check me, someone)
Bush is the only president who did not fully disclose his military record.
Bush has had fewer press conferences than any president since the dawn of television.
This administration goes out of its way to block the public's access to information for little reason - as in cases like this.

Statistical evidence might be found in the number of denied FOIA requests, press conferences and gag orders issued by this administration as opposed to others.

Sure, I could google for more stuff, but I'm busy drinking. More later...
posted by bashos_frog at 5:02 AM on April 18, 2004

but I think the reason many people are turned off by this type of criticism of it is these types of unsubstantiated comments that are stated as fact.

heh. even Joe Lieberman, not your average shrill WTO protester, had lots -- LOTS -- of bad thing to say re The Bush Wall Of Secrecy

anyway, just off the top of my head, there's John Dean ("Increasingly, stalwart conservative supporters of Bush and Cheney have become critical of what columnist Robert Novak calls their "passion for secrecy," noting that they only have themselves to blame for the public and Congressional reaction".), who knows a thing or two about Presidential passions for secrecy, there's Judge bangs gavel on Bush-Cheney stonewalling, and also Bush View of Secrecy Is Stirring Frustration. Disclosure Battle Unites Right and Left .

I'm also kind sick of the always-shifting accusations from the Bush fans' field here on MeFi: first it's too much "BushFilter", and user X linking to too much anti-Bush stuff and user Y pasting too much anti-Bush stuff from links or me using small tags and so forth.
now it's the "unsubstantiated" accusation's turn (even if, say, those who are not necessarily Bush apologists but really talk like ones, should mind the "WMDs" beam in their own eyes before they mind their brother's "unsubstantiated accusations" splinter, but I'm digressing).

as you probably know, loquax, there's open posting history here, so you can just check out y2karl's or troutfisihing's links (jut to name two but there's so many more users) to "Bush and Secrecy" stories. you'll find a lot of very substantiated material.


I'm not necessarily an apologist for the Bush administration

of course not.
but that little "necessarily" is really cute.
posted by matteo at 6:55 AM on April 18, 2004

loquax - If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, lowly, well, it is a duck! - right? (I couldn't resist)

Are you serious? Have you been living on Mars? > Let's start with a single example - Cheney's refusal to disclose the minutes of his Energy Task Force meetings - on grounds of executive privilege and national security. These meetings excluded everyone but members of the oil, coal and nuclear industries. Environmental groups and public interest groups were not invited or blocked from attending.

This is a shame because, for the amount of money the Bush Administration has dumped into the Iraq debacle, the US could now be well on the way to energy independence. A few hundred billion goes a long way.

Last I heard, the Federal Government worked for the US people, not for the business establishment or the petrochemical industry.

I guess I was wrong. But we'll probably never know the details of those meetings or - perhaps more likely - the details will come out in 10 or 20 years from now when they are politically irrelevant.
posted by troutfishing at 8:31 AM on April 18, 2004

Not that the Khmer were nice or anything.

Again, the Metafilter Information Officer manages to give some vauge fact about history (Good ole clav set some things right about 'little boots") and manages to insult an entire people.

A better example whould have been Davids' "removal" of several committee members, from his art, during the french revolution and beyond.

Actually, the Khmer Rouge didn't touch the monuments hardly at all. I've been to Angkor, and other than a few bullet holes, the monuments weren't touched.

really, you are sure? you visit Tom, Preat, other sites. Research the theft of artifacts?, or even consider that the KR MURDERED bonzes and turned temples into storehouse and military posts. Do you know why Pol Pot "saved" these greater monuments?

this whole hub-bub is about Alger "shoulda committed suicide" Hiss?
he was guilty as a cat in the foxes sock drawer.
posted by clavdivs at 9:20 AM on April 18, 2004

I haven't been living on Mars. I've certainly heard many of the complaints that this administration is secretive. What I don't understand is:

1) Why secrecy in itself is a bad thing. We need secrecy in our society to an extent, don't we? Are we as lay persons (speaking for myself at least) really in a position to judge what is "needed"?

2) To what degree is it more "secretive" than past administrations? 10%? 50%? How does one judge that and how relevant is it?

3) How any discussion of the Bush administration's secrecy is relevant to the appointment of a new archivist, as per my comment, which was the thrust of my comment, and was not answered.

These aren't rhetorical questions. I simply fail to see the logical of these arguments, and of the discussion in this thread.

It's very easy to think of individual examples of a behaviour and point to a trend, like the energy task force meetings or Iraq in whatever incarnation. I'm asking would and did other administrations act differently? My company, for example, is a publicly held company, but has "secret meetings" all the time. Does that make us a "secretive" organization? Is it wrong to restrict information for general consumption? To what degree?

Nowhere in the links you provided matteo, was there a comparison between Bush's decisions regarding publishing reports, and say Clinton's or Carter's. It fact, they seemed to me like primarily partisan critiques and media complaining about lack of access. And those links highlighted that appointing an archivist won't help Bush "control" information, as he has presumably been doing so for 4 years already.

As for this thread, before you posted your links matteo, there were no substantiated comments, only rhetoric being tossed about and that's why I made my comment. I still disagree with your position regarding the secrecy of the administration, but now there's something to discuss, so thank you.

As for being a Bush apologist, I don't speak for anyone else on here, and no one else speaks for me. I'm not an American citizen, but if I was, I don't know if I would vote for Bush or not. I think this administration has done some good things and some bad things. What I worry about is focusing criticism of Bush (or anyone else, anywhere else) on things that are unimportant, unprovable and not central to the issue of whether or not his administration should be re-elected. There are things that the administration has done that I'll be first in line to tear apart, but I haven't seen, beyond a few isolated examples, why the level of information control or the appointment of a new archivist is a reason to vote against Bush.
posted by loquax at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2004

Who would'a thought there are Bush supporters in Canada?
posted by wsg at 11:32 AM on April 18, 2004

loquax, did you read the linked material? To answer your request for comparison, the article linked to the word produced in the FPP does directly comment on Clinton's archivist (the one being replaced by Bush) opened up more Executive Branch documents than any previous administration. Which does directly contrast with an apparent to this newspaper reading American citizen's perception of the Bush crew.

Is secrecy necessarily bad? No, obviously, not in all cases. But in retrospect, generally, it is healthy for the truth to come out and be evaluated and that is precisely what Cheney, for instance, is not allowing in regards to his energy task force. Now that several years have passed since those meetings, the facts should come out so we can decide, as voters, whether the right choices were made. One might argue that there was no need for secrecy in the first place in that instance but I find the argument over keeping the meeting minutes secret to this day of benefit only the energy companies and their conspirators.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:45 AM on April 18, 2004

I did read it billysaysthis. Which of my questions does it answer? He's still the archivist today isn't he? Does that mean he's continued to open up more Executive Branch documents than ever as part of the Bush administration?

My issue is not whether or not the Bush Administration is secrective. It is. For sure. All organizations are. My issue is how secretive is it compared to others, how does this secrecy impact us, and what does that have to do with the appointing of a new head archivist.
posted by loquax at 11:54 AM on April 18, 2004

The travesty here is that if this nomination does go through, the real information will never be accessed, not ten or twenty years down the road, because it will have been filtered through Weinstein.

The other conspiratorially intersecting tid-bit is the daddy connection. The fact that Daddy Bushes records are becoming available is a very tempting taste of tainted tales to come.
I'll just keep my fingers crossed and hope the proper amount of attention and diligence pursues this nomination and that only a qualified non-partisan Person is selected.
posted by wuakeen at 12:23 PM on April 18, 2004

My question is how much discretion does the archivist have in expunging files from the archive?
posted by wsg at 12:53 PM on April 18, 2004

How is it spooky? No offense meant, but that's a very vague comment. In what ways does this information concern you? How will Bush appointing an archivist impact your life or the lives of your loved ones?

It's spooky because I'm a fan of history...as opposed to revisionism. This administration and this appointee are both fans of secrecy. It's a purely political appointment, and as such, considering the backhanded methods by which they are trying to unseat the current archivist, one can assume, that true to form, there is some political tit-for-tat...and that as such, many of Bush's embarrassing records are likely to just disappear.

Not unlike the bill Bush signed soon after taking office that locked down his daddy's papers, so that the public couldn't have access to them. Not unlike the executive orders he's entered which make it impossible for homeowners and property holders to see what businesses have planned for streams and other open areas around them.

It effects me because I believe in an open Republic. I believe that we as Americans not only have the right, but the duty to watch the steps of our leaders so that we can correct or remove them when necessary. I believe that our history should not be tainted by archivists who believe that secrecy about potentially embarrassing things is the best choice.

I don't need to be protected from information...and I don't want this administration deciding what information is just too vast for my pretty little head...which is exactly the sort of paternalism that this forced appointment suggests.

It's spooky because we have laws in place, and this administration is once again doing everything in it's power to circumvent those laws.

It's spooky because people don't see how the direct attempt to violate the law by the head of the government is spooky.
posted by dejah420 at 8:12 PM on April 18, 2004

Loquax - you've got a steady hand on the rudder there. I know more than a few Metafilterites who would have gone into a rage from my little poke. Anyway - there's a fundamental contradiction between government's desire for secrecy and the openess - and free flow of information - necessary for the healthy functioning of Democracy. It's all too easy, under the rubric of "National Security", for those in power to aid various interest groups and then use the classification of relevant documents to cover their tracks

[ US News and World Report, Friday Dec.12, 2003 ] "   ....For the past three years, the Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government--cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters. The result has been a reversal of a decades-long trend of openness in government while making increasing amounts of information unavailable to the taxpayers who pay for its collection and analysis. Bush administration officials often cite the September 11 attacks as the reason for the enhanced secrecy. But as the Inauguration Day directive from Card indicates, the initiative to wall off records and information previously in the public domain began from Day 1. Steven Garfinkel, a retired government lawyer and expert on classified information, puts it this way: "I think they have an overreliance on the utility of secrecy. They don't seem to realize secrecy is a two-edge sword that cuts you as well as protects you." Even supporters of the administration, many of whom agree that security needed to be bolstered after the attacks, say Bush and his inner circle have been unusually assertive in their commitment to increased government secrecy. "Tightly controlling information, from the White House on down, has been the hallmark of this administration," says Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs for the Cato Institute. "

[ National Catholic Reporter, January 9, 2004 ] "The volume of federal government information deemed confidential is three times larger today than just five years ago-from 8 million such classifications in 1999 to more than 23 million in 2002.....In March President Bush cited fears of bio- and agro-terrorism when he extended “classification authority” to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. Meanwhile, the volume of governmental information not officially classified but still withheld from Congress, the media and the public continues to grow.

The tone was set early. Soon after taking office, Bush used an executive order to overturn practices related to the disclosure of material from prior administrations, including those of his father. Under previous interpretations of the Presidential Records Act, most information would be disclosed beginning 12 years after an administration left office. Under the Bush order, previous presidents (and the incumbent) have the right to restrict disclosure indefinitely.

From its first days the Bush administration made clear its intention to vigorously assert “executive privilege,” the concept that the deliberations of the executive branch are subject to congressional and public oversight only to the extent that the administration wants them to be.......

“It is the most secretive administration going back to Nixon or even before Nixon,” former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta told NCR. “It is striking, quite frankly, how much they have done to push back an almost 50-year trend of more open government.” "
posted by troutfishing at 9:34 PM on April 18, 2004

It's a good thing that people are finally talking (Clarke, O'Neill, and Powell--to Woodward, at least, etc) before the election. We'd never know a ton of stuff if it wasn't for them.
posted by amberglow at 9:39 PM on April 18, 2004

Woo! Some activity in here all of sudden. Troutfishing, Dejah420, good posts, both of which go a long way towards me understanding your issues with the Bush administration's attitude towards information. Until you two and matteo posted some explanation and links, this was a really vague and partisan thread that didn't actually discuss anything, in my opinion. I'm really not trying to be patronizing, or playing devil's advocate. I just saw the congratulations being made earlier in the thread and couldn't help pointing out that nothing of substance had been said (other than the bit about damnatio memoriae).

I still disagree to an extent, not with the principle of what you say, only in the quantification of Bush's secrecy. I think it's impossible for anyone to quantify how secretive he's being compared to others. Almost every source you look at is going to be biased one way or the other. Just look at what comes up when you look up this. Clearly those opinions will be skewed, as will John Podesta's. Or Joe Leiberman's. And attacking "secrecy" is really really easy. By definition, a denial of secrecy is more secrecy. Who's to say if there are any secrets at all? Area 51 or Vernon Jordon come to mind.

Beyond that, wsg asked "how much discretion does the archivist have in expunging files from the archive?". That's exactly what I'd like to know regarding this thread. I haven't been able to find on the net what the roles and the responsibilities of the head archivist regarding the classifying or declassifying of confidential information. Does this appointment really mean anything? Is the head archivist anything more than a caretaker of a museum?

I don't think there's much risk long term, in this day and age at least, of information being lost in time. Maybe some documents (some very notable documents, admittedly) will be buried, or modified, or changed, but you can't convince me that no other government doesn't engage in that type of secrecy. Either to protect themselves, or national security, or whatever. But the actions of the administration and the vast majority of records will be preserved, either by the archives, or the individual agencies, or the news media, or whistleblowers, or whatever. Isn't this thread, among the many others here and elsewhere at least partial proof of that?

I guess my point is, and I'll shut up after this, that of all the things to criticize the administration about, this isn't the best one, in my opinion. Criticize the administration's actions with respect to the energy question, or 9/11, or Iraq, or whatever. There's more than enough ammo there. But I think slamming them for engaging in information control is wasted energy, especially with respect to the appointment mentioned in the thread.

Also, I would have voted Clinton, Clinton, Gore in 92, 96, 00, for the record, so I'm really not all bad. And in the end, I think this was a really good thread.
posted by loquax at 10:12 PM on April 18, 2004

The Code of Federal Regulations establishes policy regarding the retention and disposal of Presidential materials. (Cite 36 CFR 1270)
posted by grateful at 5:58 AM on April 19, 2004

Beyond that, wsg asked "how much discretion does the archivist have in expunging files from the archive?". That's exactly what I'd like to know regarding this thread. I haven't been able to find on the net what the roles and the responsibilities of the head archivist regarding the classifying or declassifying of confidential information. Does this appointment really mean anything? Is the head archivist anything more than a caretaker of a museum?

The US Archivist holds an administrative position. He does have the ability to guide policy. Appraisal (i.e., evaluation of records in terms of long-term value) is a major part of NARA's duties; thousands of records are destroyed daily because it's neither feasible nor useful to keep every piece of paper that comes out of every national agency. One concern is that, through hiring decisions and policy changes, a US Archivist with an agenda could cause appraisal decisions to be made on a basis other than long-term value such as embarrassment potential to Bush, etc.

From reading the ARCHIVES listserv, a lot of the concern is not necessarily that Weinstein will be a bad archivist but that (a) no one knows what kind of archivist he will be — there was no public comment period, he doesn't have much of a reputation except as a policy wonk; and (b) that he's not a professional archivist, i.e., his background is in history, not archival theory or practice. (So was Carlin's.)

NARA is not "a museum" and NARA's policy can have serious effects on what's available to researchers both now and in the future. The following was a comment from my blog on some NARA policy changes a few months back (would link but I don't have permalinks); it demonstrates the potential NARA has to use non-legislative policy changes to effect serious change in the information policy of this country.

NARA is proposing some rule changes in regard to FOIA requests. I'm particularly concerned by Sec. 1256.48, which reads, in part:

(a) NARA may withhold from disclosure, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2), the following:
(1) Records that contain information on substantial internal matters of agencies that, if disclosed, could risk circumvention of a legal requirement, such as a statute or an agency regulation.

NARA credits 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2) (i.e. FOIA); however, actual consultation of the statute shows it says nothing of the kind:

[This section does not apply to matters that are - ] related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

There's certainly nothing in there about an agency regulation taking precedence over FOIA, which is what NARA seems to be saying. I haven't heard any discussion of this at all; perhaps I'm misunderstanding some part of the rule-change. But if it says what it seems to this seems like a bad thing for open access.

posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:11 AM on April 19, 2004

Thanks IshamelGraves, for clarifying the role of the archives and the archivist. I wasn't trying to diparage the office, just highlighting my own ignorance of its role and responsibilities.
posted by loquax at 8:56 AM on April 19, 2004

In other words, the archivist has a lot of latitude as to which records he archives and which ones he dumps.
posted by wsg at 9:29 AM on April 19, 2004

Then the next question is, which records come across his desk? Would the famous 9/11 report starring the Saudis have been his domain? Does all government produced documentation come to the archives for storage, or just selections? Would he have the power to notably change the way history regards this administration, or does the administration posses that ability all on their own?
posted by loquax at 9:43 AM on April 19, 2004

Loquax, NARA works with government agencies to develop retention schedules with the goal of reducing the amount of material which makes it to the archives only to be discarded there -- so no, they don't get absolutely everything produced by the government. On the other hand, I believe (and I am neither a lawyer nor a credentialed archivist nor do I work at NARA, so take this with a grain of salt) that agencies generally (in theory, at least) cannot withhold documentation from NARA if NARA specifically requests it. What is and is not an official record is defined via federal statute and NARA has ultimate jurisdiction over everything that's considered a record.

That having been said, archivists are, at their best, an ornery bunch with a decent, if flawed, self-enforced ethical code. I doubt Weinstein could issue an order to, say, destroy something really important for blatently political reasons without protest from his staff.

On the other hand, more suble machinations are certainly plausible. It's not so much the destruction of record but the restriction of access that's the more realistic concern. The entire legal fiasco over access to the Nixon tapes is an example of the sort of conflicts that can arise. Or witness the various recent issues with Dean and Bush's gubernatorial records, where executive orders pretty much took these issues out of the state archives' hands.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:54 AM on April 19, 2004

Hey, where was your sober voice of reason and knowledge at the beginning of the thread! Just kidding, thanks for the info, I think it really helps to place this issue in the proper persepective.
posted by loquax at 10:28 AM on April 19, 2004

Loquax, mefi tends to be pretty quiet on the weekends...and thus a lot of comments tend to come rolling in on Sunday and monday for posts that went up late friday thru Sunday afternoon. :)

IshaelGraves, great additional info...troutfishing, as always, you're like a god of data...my google fu boggles at your mastery. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 1:24 PM on April 19, 2004