Forwarded to NRA from Australian Archivist's Listserv by Iain Flett - a reminder of our responsibilities! ____________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sims, Debbie" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 8:57 AM Subject: Archivist in the News >From the Australian Archivist's Listserv > >NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 10, #16; 16 April 2004) >by Bruce Craig (editor) <[log in to unmask]> >National Coalition for History (NCH) >Website http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~nch >***************** >1. Historical and Archival Communities Push for Senate Hearing on >Archivist of the U.S. Position 2. Historians and Archivists Take a >Closer Look at the Weinstein Nomination > >1. HISTORICAL AND ARCHIVAL COMMUNITIES URGE SENATE HEARING ON ARCHIVIST >OF THE U.S. POSITION Concern is growing within the archival and >historical communities regarding the Bush administration's hoped for >"fast-track" process to replace Archivist of the United States John >Carlin with one of its own choosing -- historian Allen Weinstein. >According to informed sources, the administration hopes to short-circuit >the normal confirmation process and see Weinstein confirmed through an >"expedited" process. Their goal >-- place Weinstein in the position prior to the November election. >According to Hill insiders, the effort to replace Carlin is coming from >the highest levels of the White House. Reportedly, Karl Rove who is >widely viewed as one of the president's chief political advisors, if not >his political mastermind and, Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the >President, want their own archivist in place for two overarching >reasons: first, because of the sensitive nature of certain presidential >and executive department records likely to be opened in the near future, >and second, because there is genuine concern in the White House that the >president may not be re-elected. > >Though it is not widely known, in January 2005, the first batch of >records (the mandatory 12 years of closure having passed) relating to >the president's father's administration will be subject to the >Presidential Records Act (PRA) and could be opened. Another area of >concern to presidential officials relates to the 9-11 Commission >records. Because there is no mandatory 30-year closure rule (except for >highly classified White House and Executive Department records and >documents), all materials relating to the commission are scheduled to be >transferred to the National Archives upon termination of the Commission >later this year. These records could be made available to researchers >and journalists as soon as they are processed by NARA. > >In what appears to be a calculated move by administration officials, >Rove and Gonzales have advanced the nomination of Weinstein fully aware >that according to the "National Archives and Records Administration Act >of 1984 (P.L. 98-497) the Archivist of the United States position is to >be an appointment based "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 the Archivist." >If Weinstein is confirmed and if President Bush is not elected, then >President Kerry could be accused of "politicizing" the position should >he try to replace Weinstein. In fact, though, the president's strategy >in seeking to replace Carlin at this time rather than later injects an >element of partisanship that could give John Kerry, should he be elected >president in November, ample justification to replace Weinstein in the >same manner that the White House is seeking to replace Carlin. > >Carlin has made it widely known that he anticipated stepping down from >the Archivist position in July 2005, upon his 65th birthday, upon the >tenth anniversary of his appointment to the position, and upon the >completion of his ten-year strategic plan for NARA. His intention not to >step down until then has been stated in several public interviews >including (reportedly), in a recent interview with CNN's Brian Lamb (26 >November 2003 broadcast of "National Journal"). Months back, recognizing >that Carlin intended to step down next year, archival organizations had >begun to pull together qualification statements and a "highly qualified" >list of names for the White House to consider in finding Carlin's >replacement. What appeared to be an orderly procedure to pass power from >Carlin to a new archivist in summer 2005 has now been short-circuited. > >There are two basic ways for the Archivist of the United States to be >replaced -- resignation or replacement by the President. In his letter >to NARA employees last week (see "Historian Allen Weinstein Slotted by >Bush Administration to be Next Archivist of the United States" in NCH >WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol 10, #15 8 April 2004) Carlin stated that he was >not resigning and he would not submit his resignation until a new >archivist is appointed. There is no indication that the White House has >any cause-related reason to replace Carlin and no reason was >communicated to Congress when Weinstein's nomination was advanced >formally last week. Some observers speculate that by refusing to resign >until a new archivist is in place, Carlin is tacitly protesting what >Hill insiders consider his "premature" removal. > >If Carlin (a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton) had resigned outright, >the decks would have been cleared for the White House to promptly >replace him. However, that did not happen. It appears that the White >House does not want any adverse publicity that would be generated by >officially coming up with a "reason" for communicating to Congress its >desire to replace Carlin as required by law ("the President shall >communicate the reasons for any such removal to each House of the >Congress"). Hence, by advancing Weinstein's nomination (which was >received by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on 8 April) and by >securing Weinstein's confirmation, the White House can then quietly >force Carlin's resignation. > >Owing to the controversy surrounding the anticipated resignation of >Carlin, historians and archivists are calling for these and other issues >to be addressed in Weinstein's confirmation hearing. To that end, some >historical and archival organizations believe that John Carlin should >also be invited to testify under oath regarding the pressure he is under >and what he knows about his "premature" resignation. Governmental >Affairs Committee staff, however, report that such a move would almost >be unprecedented in a confirmation hearing. > >On 14 April 2004, archival, historical, and other governmental watchdog >organizations concerned both the politicization of the appointment >process and the qualifications of the nominee, issued a "statement" >calling for the Senate to conduct a confirmation hearing consistent with >other positions of importance requiring Senate confirmation. The >statement drafted by the Society of American Archivists and issued on >behalf of several archival and historical organizations (see >http://www.archivists.org/statements/weinstein.asp ) raises a concern >about "the sudden announcement on April 8, 2004, that the White House >has nominated Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United >States." According to the statement that has the endorsement of the >Society of American Archivists, the Association of Research Libraries, >Council of State Historical Records Coordinators, Northwest Archivists, >Inc., the Association of Documentary Editors, Midwest Archives >Conference, the American Association for State and Local History, and >the Organization of American Historians: "Prior to the announcement, >there was no consultation with professional organizations of archivists >or historians. This is the first time since 1985 that the process of >nominating an Archivist of the United States has not been open for >public discussion and input. We believe that Professor Weinstein must -- >through appropriate and public discussions and hearings -- demonstrate >his ability to meet the criteria that will qualify him to serve as >Archivist of the United States....the decision to appoint a new >Archivist should be considered in accordance with both the letter and >the spirit of the 1984 law." > >The statement also calls on the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs >"to schedule open hearings on this nomination in order to explore more >fully 1) the reasons why the Archivist is being replaced, and 2) >Professor Weinstein's qualifications to become Archivist of the United >States." > >2. HISTORIANS AND ARCHIVISTS BEGIN TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE >WEINSTEIN >NOMINATION >Now that the nomination of Allen Weinstein has been officially advanced >to the Senate for confirmation (see related story above), historians and >archivists are scrambling to learn more about the president's nominee. >Allen Weinstein possesses both strong Republican political connections >and scholarly qualifications. In the past he has served as a foreign >policy adviser to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) Chair of the Senate Foreign >Relations Committee. Lugar has worked with Weinstein for years in >promoting democracy across the globe. According to the senator, >Weinstein "always has had a keen understanding and perspective of the >complexities of democratic societies, qualities that will serve him well >as head of the agency that preserves the nation's most important >documents." (For Weinstein's official bio, tap into >http://www.centerfordemocracy.org/awbio.html ). But outside the world of >Republican political activists and a small circle of historians of >espionage, Weinstein is not very well known by many academics. Also, he >is a virtual unknown to archivists. Though he possesses fine academic >training and qualifications, Weinstein has not been a member of either >the Organization of American Historians or the American Historical >Association for years, essentially since his career turned to that of >being an activist in the field of foreign relations and international >service. > >Several historians and journalists familiar with Weinstein's scholarly >and popular writings (especially relating to the contentious Alger Hiss >case) and career have started to express their views on the nominee >privately and publicly. His nomination has been characterized by former >National Security Archive founder and director Scott Armstrong as "the >most cynical appointment of an Archivist possible. He [Weinstein] has a >very clouded, very complicated, self-promoting, neo-con, politically >manipulative record....While he uses historical documentation in his >work, he is very selective in his use." > >Much of the controversy on Weinstein's work relates to the disposition >of his research notes and his research methods relating to his "Perjury: >The Hiss-Chambers Case" (1978, rev. 1998) and a more recent work, "The >Haunted Wood" (1999). His book on the Alger Hiss case is considered in >many circles as definitive. Because Weinstein concluded that Alger Hiss >was Soviet spy, he earned the wrath of Hiss's defenders (including >Victor Navasky publisher of The Nation), but, at the same time, >Weinstein found himself embraced by conservatives for the same reasons. >"Perjury" served as his entree into the world of conservative causes and >financing which Weinstein has tapped throughout the years to help >underwrite his various projects. (For interesting reading focusing on >the records-related issues regarding "Perjury," tap into: >http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=19971103&s=navasky and >http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010716&c=1&s=navasky ). More >controversial questions arise out of a more recent study in which >allegedly Weinstein (or his publisher) paid a fee to the KGB for >"exclusive access" to documents that no other historians have been able >to see relating to Soviet espionage in America. Historian Ellen >Schrecker writes about Weinstein's role in the payment to the KGB (in >possible violation of Russian law) that resulted in the crafting of "The >Haunted Wood" co-authored by Weinstein and former KGB agent Alexander >Vassiliev (For more on this controversial issue, tap into: >http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=19990524&s=schrecker >). Schrecker notes "this sort of research is not the kind that inspires >confidence within the scholarly community" and it raises "ethical >questions." (See also other recent postings on the History News Network >by British economist-historian Roger Sandilands: >http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/4604.html and The Nation lead >editorial, "The Haunted Archives" at: >http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040503&s=editors ). In addition >to professional historians' concern about Weinstein's research methods >and attitudes about access to records, Weinstein has yet to establish >his credentials in the realm of archival management. >Consequently, archivists have begun to compile a series of questions >that >Weinstein will be asked to respond to. >In the statement issued 14 April (see related story above) archivists >have expressed a desire to learn more about Weinstein's "knowledge and >understanding of the critical issues confronting NARA and the archival >profession generally, especially the challenges of information >technology, and the competing demands of public access to government >records, privacy, homeland security, and ensuring the authenticity and >integrity of all records." To that end, archivists wondered how >Weinstein believes NARA "should balance competing interests for >protecting sensitive or confidential information with those seeking to >gain access to records created by government agencies; ideas for >continuing essential programs as well as important new archival >initiatives, such as the Electronic Records Archives project; his >thoughts on fully supporting the National Historical Publications and >Records Commission (NHPRC) whose grants help to raise the level of >archival practice at state and local levels," and his "experience and >demonstrated ability to lead and manage a large government agency such >as NARA." > >No doubt in the weeks ahead, answers to these and other questions stand >to make this nomination controversial both in terms of the >politicization of the office of Archivist of the United States and with >respect to the nominee's specific qualifications. Hopefully, answers >will come when the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee holds >confirmation hearings that have yet to be scheduled. > >************************************************************************** >This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use >of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential or >subject to legal privilege. If you receive this email and you are not the >addressee (or responsible for delivery of the email to the addressee), >please note that any copying, distribution or use of this email is >prohibited and as such, please disregard the contents of the email, delete >the email and notify the sender immediately. > >State Records advises that this email and any attached files should be >scanned to detect viruses and accepts no liability for loss or damage >(whether caused by negligence or not) resulting from the use of any attached >files. > *************************************************************************** > >Scanned by PeNiCillin http://safe-t-net.pnc.com.au/ **************************************** Iain EF Flett 5 Provost Road, Tayport, Fife, Scotland DD6 9JE +44 (0)1382 552218 <[log in to unmask]> Traidcraft - fighting poverty through trade http://www.traidcraft.co.uk ************************ "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana ************************************ _________________________________________________________________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger