Capitol CommentaryBruce Craig, Director of the National
|
||
|
The Future of the 9/11 Committee Records In an effort to protect the privacy of certain individuals and ensure the classified nature of some of these documents, NARA staff will be meeting with Senate committee staff to develop guidelines for processing and providing public access. Deputy Archivist Michael J. Kurtz is on record, stating that processing these records is “a major priority” and that while NARA has no special appropriated funds for processing these records, every effort will be made to facilitate public access as soon as possible. Kurtz also stated that NARA anticipates many screening challenges and that the openness guidelines provided by the commission itself will be of critical importance. With these concerns in mind, the National Coalition for History has requested a meeting with the 9/11 Commission leadership to discuss the disposition guidelines that will need to be developed for the records of the commission. Hopefully, the history coalition will be able to provide input to insure that declassification guidelines will be in place to guarantee the expeditious processing of the records so that historians, political scientists, journalists and other scholars will gain access to these important records without undue delay. Plaintiffs File to Alter Judgment in PRA Case Scott L. Nelson, the attorney handling the case for the Public Citizen Litigation Group, filed papers on behalf of historical, archival, and government openness organizations (including the OAH) requesting that the court reconsider its dismissal. Nelson cites two reasons in the motion: first, “that the Court’s decision appears to overlook the uncontested fact that EO 13233 is currently being applied on an ongoing basis to all releases of Reagan presidential documents and Bush vice-presidential documents” so that the plaintiffs injuries “is by no means speculative or hypothetical”; and second, that the court’s opinion seems to rest in part on “a misapprehension of fact,” as seventy-four pages of materials “are still being withheld under the Executive Order.” The motion was filed just days after Public Citizen was notified of a denial of its FOIA appeal on some seventy-four pages of materials (eleven separate documents) of Reagan era records that have yet to be released to scholars under constitutionally based privilege provisions of the PRA. Among the records being withheld: a six-page December 8, 1986 memo to the president and director of public affairs entitled, “Talking Points on Iran/Contra Affairs”; a series of memos dated November 22, and December 1, 1988 for the president entitled, “Pardon for Oliver North, John Poindexter, and Joseph Fernandez”; and a two-page memo for the president from the attorney general, “Appeal of the Decision Denying the Enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987.” Other withheld memos relate to the extension of claims of executive privilege over the release of Justice Rehnquist’s papers and materials relating to “Use of Military Aircraft by Mrs. Reagan.” The privilege claims asserted on these documents were originally claimed by the legal representatives of former President Reagan and were concurred by President George W. Bush (for the list of withheld documents see item “Special Postings--Withheld Reagan PRA Papers” posted on the NCH webpage at: <http//:www2.h-net.msu.edu/~nch/>). Scholars who believe that these materials have potential research value and would be interested in being listed with other researchers on an affidavit proclaiming the importance of these materials are urged to contact Scott Nelson at <Snelson@citizen.org> . NHPRC Adopts New Directions The commission also approved a new vision statement: “America’s documentary heritage preserves the rights of American citizens; checks the actions of government officials; and chronicles the national experience. Democracy demands an informed and engaged citizenry. By preserving our documentary heritage and promoting its distribution and use, the people seek to guarantee the protection of the rights of all, hold accountable government and other public institutions, and increase understanding of our history and culture for generations to come.The NHPRC is a public trust for documenting democracy.” Six new goals were also adopted for the NHPRC:
Government Secrecy Classification Activity on the Increase NARA Release Documents U.S.-Nazi Collaboration in Protecting War Criminals The documents demonstrate that U.S. and Allied intelligence services failed to understand how closely the “Jewish question” was related to the central goals of the Nazi regime. The records also show how U.S. banks and financial institutions assisted the Nazis from 1936 to 1941. Along with the declassified materials, NARA has also released a book entitled, U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis (National Archives Trust Fund, ISBN 1-880875-26-8; $24.95; to order call toll-free 866-272-6272) that provides hard documentary evidence of what Cold War historians have long contended--that there were close collaborative relationships established between U.S. government officials and Nazi intelligence officers who were thought to be useful in the struggle against the Soviet Union in the postwar era. Weinstein Confirmation Hearing Held Amid Concerns from Historical Community [Also see: OAH Joins Statement on Nomination of Allen Weinstein as Archivist of the United States ] On July 22, 2004, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a confirmation hearing on the pending nomination of historian Allen Weinstein as the next Archivist of the United States, replacing the current archivist John Carlin. In his opening remarks, Weinstein promised to devote all of his efforts and energy “to addressing the range of responsibilities assigned to the Archivist,” assuring the committee that he would continue an “independent and bipartisan approach.” He then outlined NARA’s current challenges and priorities including providing effective post-9/11 security for documents; completing the redesign of the Federal Records Management initiative; moving forward on NARA’s electronic records initiative; expanding NARA’s education and public programming throughout the nation; supporting the National Historical Publications and Records Commission “at effective budgetary levels”; addressing internal administrative concerns such as loss of experienced personnel due to retirement; and, strengthening cooperation with the presidential library system. Weinstein faced several pointed questions from the committee’s members. Senator Susan M. Collins (R-ME), using her prerogative as chair of the committee, minced no words when she asked him to address concerns raised by some in the historical community regarding his commitment to openness. Weinstein described his experiences in opening government records including a large number of FBI files relating to the Alger Hiss case in 1972--which are today in the Truman Presidential Library. He also discussed his role in depositing the Herbert Solow papers at the Hoover Institution, and he described his current role in opening the previously closed records relating to Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science church. Weinstein then announced that he had recently signed a deed of gift for all his remaining personal notes and tapes relating to the books Perjury and The Haunted Wood and that these records will be available to researchers without restriction “by early next year” at the Hoover Institution. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) asked whether Weinstein had any knowledge of Archivist John Carlin’s December 19, 2003 letter indicating his intent to resign. (That letter was produced by the White House as evidence that Carlin had initiated the replacement search process.) Weinstein stated he had no such knowledge and then described the circumstances in which the White House approached him about the position. On September 23, 2003, Dina Powell, assistant to the president and director of presidential personnel, contacted him about the possibility of a nomination as the next Archivist of the United States. In late November and early December he was then asked to fill out investigative and ethics forms that precede all presidential nominations. Weinstein stated that he was made aware that he would be the White House’s nominee “in early January 2004.” Under questioning, he also stated that he had several “generalized” conversations with White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales and several others but that at no time were there any discussions about issues relating to archival records relating to the presidency. Both Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Carl Levin (D-MI) raised concerns about Weinstein’s position vis-à-vis the Bush Executive Order 13233. In the staff questionnaire, Weinstein stated that if confirmed as archivist, “it would be my responsibilit--so long as E.O. 13233 is in place--to oversee NARA’s legal team in defending the Executive Order against court challenge.” Durbin thought this curious and wondered why Weinstein felt obligated to defend the administration’s order rather than the language in the Presidential Records Act itself. Weinstein responded that “as a private citizen” he views the E.O. as “tilt[ing] the balance [toward] confidentiality . . . rather than timely disclosure” but that he would seek a “dialogue and negotiation” before proceeding on the current legal and adversarial track. It became clear to members of the committee and some in the audience that as a historian, Weinstein clearly is uncomfortable with certain provisions in the Bush EO. Durbin expressed his hope that Weinstein would “revisit this” and reconsider his position. Senator Levin introduced a bombshell document into the hearing record--a letter from current Archivist Carlin that was prepared in response to a number of questions posed to him by Levin regarding whether he [Carlin] approached the administration, or had the administration initially approached him about resigning as archivist. (The National Coalition for History and several of its member organizations have repeatedly called on the committee to get to the bottom of the issue relating to the Carlin controversy.) In Carlin’s response (dated July 21) obtained by the history coalition, the archivist stated: “In answer to the first question, the Administration initially approached me. On Friday, December 5, 2003, the Counsel to the President [Alberto Gonzales] called me and told me the Administration would like to appoint a new Archivist. I asked why and there was no reason given.” Levin and Durbin expressed concern that, contrary to provisions of the Archives Independence Act, the White House was requesting Carlin’s resignation without stating a reason required in the law. Following a cordial but doggedly persistent pursuit of his objective, Levin requested of Chairman Collins that the committee send a letter to the White House requesting an explanation of why Carlin was being asked to resign as these actions endanger “the independence of the Archivist’s office.” If the committee declined to do so, Levin would do so independently. The hearing occured in the midst of requests by the National Coalition for History and several archives and history organizations that the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee establish a new procedural precedent in the process of confirming a new archivist. The history coalition urged the committee to hold a general oversight hearing on the management of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) prior to a confirmation hearing each time a new archivist is to take office. In a letter to committee staff, the history coalition stated that “general oversight hearings are rare events (no such hearing has been conducted by the Senate in at least a decade) and neither the House nor Senate Appropriations committees regularly assess the operating programs of NARA during the annual appropriations cycle. By conducting such a hearing prior to confirming a new archivist the Governmental Affairs Committee could be provided with valuable information and insights about the changing needs and priorities of NARA.” As envisioned, the oversight hearing should include a comprehensive assessment of the progress and problems in carrying out the NARA Strategic Plan, as well as an assessment of specific programmatic and activity centers such as digitization and electronic records, documentary acquisition and access, administration of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and presidential libraries, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), the administration of the regional archives and records centers, public outreach programs, and internal management, staffing, and training practices. The history coalition stated that “such a hearing would serve to educate both the Committee and the nominee about the needs of the National Archives when a new archivist takes the helm.” Committee staff took the recommendation under advisement and agreed to discuss the suggestion with the senators. The request for the oversight hearing came one day after a May 5, 2004 meeting between representatives of history and archival community (including the OAH) with Senate staff. The meeting was the first step in the congressionally sanctioned requirement for “consultation” with history and archives organizations when filling a vacant Archivist of the United States position. During that meeting the participants discussed the confirmation process and general criteria for filling a vacant Archivist of the United States position. The meeting also included a frank discussion of a number of issues and concerns regarding the specific qualifications of the nominee. --Bruce Craig |
|