[ECOLOG-L] VOTE. Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: Reactions to the thread: Government request for the destruction of archives, please consider writing

2018-10-29 Thread Aaron T. Dossey 


One recommendation I would make at least for future related situations:

VOTE.


On 10/29/2018 12:17 PM, Buma, Brian wrote:


I second this - how can we best help your effort?  My work has made 
extensive use of old records, I'd hate to see some of that potential lost.



Brian Buma, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Integrative Biology

CU Denver


www.brianbuma.com


*From:* Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
 on behalf of Katharine Leigh 


*Sent:* Monday, October 29, 2018 6:47:15 AM
*To:* ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: Reactions to the thread: Government 
request for the destruction of archives, please consider writing

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 <mailto: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 mailto:jrjac...@stanford.edu>>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:29 PM
To: Joy Cytryn mailto:jo...@earthlink.net>>
Cc: Cindi Katz mailto:ck...@gc.cuny.edu>>;
Athanasios Koutavas mailto: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 cu

Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: Reactions to the thread: Government request for the destruction of archives, please consider writing

2018-10-29 Thread Buma, Brian 
I second this - how can we best help your effort?  My work has made extensive 
use of old records, I'd hate to see some of that potential lost.


Brian Buma, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Integrative Biology

CU Denver


www.brianbuma.com


From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
 on behalf of Katharine Leigh 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 6:47:15 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: Reactions to the thread: Government request for the 
destruction of archives, please consider writing

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 
mailto: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 
mailto:jrjac...@stanford.edu>>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:29 PM
To: Joy Cytryn mailto:jo...@earthlink.net>>
Cc: Cindi Katz mailto:ck...@gc.cuny.edu>>; Athanasios 
Koutavas 
mailto: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 
> mailto: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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: Reactions to the thread: Government request for the destruction of archives, please consider writing

2018-10-29 Thread Katharine Leigh 
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 


On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:17 PM Joy Cytryn  wrote:

> Feedback from the librarian at Stamford from whom I originally posted this
> thread..
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mr. James R. (Librarian) Jacobs 
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:29 PM
> To: Joy Cytryn 
> Cc: Cindi Katz ; 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  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
> >
> >
>

[ECOLOG-L] FW: Reactions to the thread: Government request for the destruction of archives, please consider writing

2018-10-28 Thread Joy Cytryn 
Feedback from the librarian at Stamford from whom I originally posted this 
thread..  

-Original Message-
From: Mr. James R. (Librarian) Jacobs  
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:29 PM
To: Joy Cytryn 
Cc: Cindi Katz ; Athanasios Koutavas 

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  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
>  
>