Thanks Joy! Okay so what do we do? What is the mass public, share on social media, take action "ask"? Give me instructions for a task I can complete in 5 min to help this, and I'll do so, and then share info. Thanks.
Best Kat Katharine L. Leigh My Linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/katharine-leigh/9a/175/482/en> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:17 PM Joy Cytryn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Feedback from the librarian at Stamford from whom I originally posted this > thread...... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mr. James R. (Librarian) Jacobs <jrjac...@stanford.edu> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:29 PM > To: Joy Cytryn <jo...@earthlink.net> > Cc: Cindi Katz <ck...@gc.cuny.edu>; Athanasios Koutavas < > athanasios.kouta...@csi.cuny.edu> > Subject: Re: Reactions to the thread: Government request for the > destruction of archives, please consider writing > > Hi Joy, > > Thanks for contacting me. NARA’s official response makes it seem like it’s > business as usual that there’s nothing to be alarmed about. And in some > respects, I guess that’s right. However, what I’m learning as I dig into > this is that: > > 1) many more records across the Federal govt are listed as “temporary” > than I originally thought. Somewhere between 1-5% are ever actually deemed > “permanent." In essence, all records are temporary. Most records are > innocuous, but some, like those referencing the lawsuit Cobell v. Salazar, > the largest class-action lawsuit in history against the US government over > Indian trust funds, was designated under the label Energy & Minerals rather > than BIA for some reason. Was this done on purpose? I don’t know, but would > think that those files would be of high research value. I also talked with > a former county supervisor in Mendocino, CA who thought that some of those > records, if destroyed, could end up opening up much more logging and > off-shore oil extraction in his area with historical precedent being erased. > > 2) that the scheduling process is not nearly as public and transparent as > it needs to be, and that decisions seem to be more frequently based on > "Adequate from the standpoint of legal rights and accountability" or > "significant actions of Federal officials”, > > 3) that, rather than an expansive idea of research value or public policy > history, agencies and NARA have a very narrow definition of research value. > > 4) And sadly, this seems to be a regular bureaucratic occurrence (banality > of evil right?!), not necessarily some nefarious political machination to > delete history — though many are seeing this within the context of the > recent ICE request to destroy documents on detainee deaths and rapes and > the recently leaked DoJ memo advising silence and delaying tactics on Fish > & Wildlife FOIA requests. Preservation of history and precedence need to be > the primary reasons for records schedules, but instead, the primary seems > to be based on whether or not it is "Adequate from the standpoint of legal > rights and accountability” (CYA) or covers "significant actions of Federal > officials” (also CYA). > > Unfortunately, the way the process is set up currently, if there’s an > agency(ies) records for which your work depends, it’s up to you the > researcher to delve into the agency's schedules, track on the Federal > Register for announcements of scheduling changes, and let the agency know > when files deemed “temporary” or “having little or no research value” are > actually important. My hope is that any larger response would include > suggestions for making these decisions more transparent, open and public, > and that there be some sort of process put in place so that records deemed > temporary could, instead of being destroyed, be tranferred to libraries and > archives if at all feasible. This should be seen as a teaching moment for > both NARA and the academic/library/archives communities. Please feel free > to forward this to any listservs you know that are currently talking about > this issue. > > best, > > James Jacobs > > > On Oct 28, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Joy Cytryn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > Mr. Jacobs, > > This has produced quite a storm on a number of listservs. This is a > post from Arian Ravanbakhsh the Supervisory Records Management Policy > Analyst in the Office of the Chief Records Officer. > > https://records-express.blogs.archives.gov/author/arianravanbakhsh/ > People on the left have expressed concern about the current administrations > stand on public access and retention of information, especially in light of > the changes at the EPA. Is there concern about the material scheduled for > destruction that Russ Kick has pointed to or in your opinion is this just > smoke. > > > > I accessed your website The Digital Federal Depository Library Program > https://www.lockss.org/community/networks/digital-federal-depository-library-program/ > Has your organization seen changes with the current administration that > cause you concern? > > Best, > > Joy Cytryn > > > > >
