ArchivesNext

What kind of person should Obama pick to lead the National Archives?

With the sad news that Dr. Allen Weinstein has resigned his post as Archivist of the United States, President-Elect Obama has yet another position to fill. What kind of person should he choose?

Share your views in the latest poll (at the right): What do you think should be the primary area of expertise for the next Archivist of the United States? (Pick only one)

Archives
History
Advocacy/lobbying
Technology
How to manage a government agency
Other (please explain in comments)

I know many of you will want to say “all of the above,” but which do you think is the most important?

With the news so fresh there has been little chance for speculation about a possible replacement, but you might want to consider the two people that Obama’s Transition Office appointed as NARA’s Review Team Leads (info courtesy of the NCH site):

Bruce McConnell is an independent consultant on cybersecurity, privacy, and Web 2.0. From 2000 to 2008, he grew two consulting firms, McConnell International and Government Futures, which work to promote cost-effective use of the private sector by government. Prior to this, he led the International Y2K Cooperation Center under the auspices of the United Nations and World Bank and he served in and led the information policy and technology branch at the Office of Management and Budget.

Gloria Parker is the Director of Business Solutions and Innovation for Civilian Government Business at Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). Under the Clinton Administration, Ms. Parker became the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s first Chief Information Officer (CIO). Before that, Ms. Parker was Deputy Chief Information Officer at the Department of Education. She previously worked as Senior Vice President of Business Development and Strategy for Apptis, Inc. and at IBM Corporation. Parker has received many prestigious awards including the 2000 Presidential Rank Award given for exemplary Government leadership.

Technology people, not historians or archivists. Or is that just a function of what’s needed for the transition?

At any rate, given Obama and his team’s understanding and embrace of technology, I would not be surprised to see him pick someone with a solid foundation of technological understanding, and I for one would welcome such a selection. As for whether that should be the new Archivist’s primary qualification, I tend to think it should be given how much about the future of the National Archives depends on how it deals with electronic records and electronic access. This topic should be fodder for some great discussions, I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

NOTE: If you do not see a sidebar with the poll at the right, click on the words “ArchivesNext” in the upper left, above the lovely blue squiggle. This should reload the page with the sidebar options on the right, including the poll.

Electronic records, Government information, Leadership, National Archives & Records Administration (NARA), Surveys | Kate T. | December 9, 2008 1:48 pm

23 Comments

By jordon, December 9, 2008 @ 3:18 pm

Given the recent politicization of the office of the United States Archivist in both Republican and Democratic administrations, I would really like to see Obama appoint someone who is independent-minded, serves his country and not the guy who appointed him, and, above all, understands the importance of maintaining presidential records as a means of preserving accountability. If he embodies all three of those traits, I don’t care if he still uses an abacus.
By spindry, December 9, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

I agree with Jordon’s sentiment regarding politicization and recent abuses of the Presidential Records Act. But the individual also needs to have sufficient understanding of web 2.0 to embrace its possibilities and truly democratize access and description of archives. Probably should not be a techie, but a visionary and collaborative administrator. The scope of the job is breathtaking and the incumbent needs to effectively advance policy, technology, history and politics. The opportunity is enormous for the right person!
By t, December 9, 2008 @ 5:19 pm

I would like to see a person appointed who embraces openess in operation, has a willingness to engage the public as equal partners in public documentation, who sees our sister professions as partners instead of competitors, and who is willing to provide professional and societal leadership in promoting an open, democratic, and culturally aware America. I think this might be a natural view for those who’ve grown up using connective technolgies, but I’m with Jordan. If the new archivist can provide the leadership and vision requested in these comments, the how is less important.
By Gordon, December 9, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

I was a little disappointed to see that I’m so far the only person who voted “History” in the poll. I don’t disagree with any of the comments posted so far… openness and a willingness to explore new technologies should be considered. I’m optimistic that those qualifications will be high on Mr. Obama’s list. For me, however, a firm grounding in history and an understanding of the past is critical to the future success of the next NARA chief.
By jordon, December 9, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

Well put, t-pain. And Gordon, I don’t think what you’re looking for is incompatible with some of the previous comments. I voted for “Archives” but I think I pretty much agree with you.
By David, December 9, 2008 @ 8:51 pm

If I could I would pick all the areas of expertise listed. Seriously! I’m not kidding or making light of this situation. When I first scanned the list, I leaned first towards technology, then Archives, then Advocacy/Lobbying. I eventually settled on Advocacy/Lobbying. But, in spite of this choice, I still feel the US needs an Archivist who can demonstrate capabilities in all areas mentioned and apply them as skilfully as possible.

The next Archivist, therefore, needs to skilfully promote NARA and build partnerships; wisely apply current and emerging technologies; and espouse the benefits of archives and history and impart their vital importance to the US population.

My 2 cents from Canada
By Noah, December 10, 2008 @ 3:18 am

While I agree that all these are certainly necessary to some degree for competent functioning as our National Archivist, I will vote for Advocacy/Lobbying, and I would also like to add that within Advocacy and Lobbying the National Archivist should also embrace networking to allied professions in order to consolidate the National Archives reputation as an information organization. I would be thrilled if Bruce McConnell were appointed the national archivist. His involvement with Y2K and the provision of stable record managing in over 170 nations demonstrates to me an ability to ensure that our nation’s documentation stays preserved in this time of transition. While I think history is important, I think it will be a moot point if we don’t have someone at the top that can see what we have to do to avoid a digital dark age. I would also like to see more outreach to program such as National Spatial Data Infrastructure as it develops national standards for geospatial data sharing. More outreach to emerging best practices not only in Web 2.0 applications, but also data curation and added-value services data curators can provide to data sources will also help to enable access to our government’s records. This type of collaboration, networking and lobbying, focused on preservation, will enable future historians to write the history of the present, and make archives appear vibrant, required organizations for our nation.
By Kathleen Roe, December 10, 2008 @ 7:26 am

No surprise to some, I definitely want to see someone with advocacy/lobbying skills in the position who appreciates and can reflect the value of archives and records (as well as the qualities others have indicated).

And as part of her/his vision, “the Archivist” should recognize the critical importance of interaction, partnership, and collaboration with the archival community around the Nation. It was one of Allen Weinstein’s most valuable understandings, and the National Archives has much to offer in sharing its research and techniques, in working with the rest of us on issues, and in seeking to be the flagship institution that many other national archives in fact are.

But this will be a tough fiscal time, with tough challenges to sell to Congress and the public why NARA and archives need resources. It is very possible to convey that, but we need a very articulate, impassioned advocate leading the institution. There is a bench of senior and other staff who can carry out the technical, professional needs–an archivist, an historian, another information professional can all be good choices, but most of all we need a compelling voice for archives.
By Lisa, December 10, 2008 @ 8:24 am

Of course, there are plenty of people who are both archivists and technology people (as evidenced by everyone here), but I think the point about being able to effectively navigate government red tape is going to be crucial for advocacy; as someone who’s worked for city government in the past, that was already a challenge – it’s an entirely different ballgame at the Federal level.

The ideal person will have experience getting things done within that system, but the real test will be how they can take on ideas from the wider archival community to really promote what we do to preserve history, wherever we are in the country – it could be a tough road if it’s someone who doesn’t already have a firm grounding in what’s already afoot.
By jordon, December 10, 2008 @ 11:50 am

Having read through everyone’s thoughtful responses, the thought occurred to me that our comments say as much about ourselves and what we prioritize and value in the profession as it does about our ideal U.S. Archivist job description. Clearly (as David mentioned) we want the new archivist to have ALL of the qualities that Kate enumerated, but it is fun to see which ones we prefer. It’s interesting, s’all.
By Russell D. James, CA, December 10, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

You actually have to apply for this position, though, at least you had to in previous administrations. Anyone know where to get the application? I want to link it on my blog.

Gordon, I would vote “history,” but the poll does not show up in my browser – whether using Firefox, IE, or Opera. It just isn’t there. But remember, Weinstein was an historian and archivists all over whined for months about his not being qualified. We need an historian who is an archivist.

I think a former president of SAA, CoSA, or NAGARA should get it.
By jordon, December 10, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

Weinstein was better than Carlin, who was a politician. Ugh. How about bringing back Trudy Petersen?
By Kate T., December 11, 2008 @ 7:07 am

Jordon – Can you please provide evidence for why you think Weinstein was better than Carlin? Based on their achievements, please, not just disdain for Carlin because he was a politician.

Russell – I believe you are wrong that people need to “apply” for this position. It’s a Presidential appointment.
By Russell D. James, CA, December 11, 2008 @ 8:40 am

Unless it is a cabinet level position, the CFR says you must apply for the position. GAO needs to have the applications on file for audit purposes.
By Maarja Krusten, December 11, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

Kate, you are correct, the Archivist is a Senate-confirmed Presidential appointment. Of course, it is listed in the “Plum Book.”

Russell, I followed Weinstein’s appointment closely on the old Archives & Archivists List and do not remember archivists there whining that he was not qualified. There was considerable speculation over why Carlin was not permitted to fill out his expected 10-year term. There was some debate over the archives and records management components of NARA. And how much depends on senior executives and second tier officials in the ranks below the AUS. I also remember some discussion of what views an older historian held about technology issues. Where did you see whining? I’m fascinated to hear that that might have occurred!

If you remember the sites, could you let me know here? Since I’m interested in public perceptions of NARA and its chief, I’d love to go back and look at other forums where that might have been on display in 2004-2005. I remember on the History News Network some historians discussed from the perspective of academics the issue of access/non-access to Weinstein’s research notes, but that’s the only other forum I followed on the issue in 2004-2005. Do clue me in on others you may have followed, I’d love to look back at this.

Maarja (on month long Christmas vacation with more time on my hands than usual)
By Maarja Krusten, December 11, 2008 @ 6:00 pm

If anyone is interested in viewing the NARA entry in the November 2008 Plum Book, it is available at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2008/p166-167_nara.pdf

As you can see, the agency head is a Senate-confirmed Presidential appointment, as are heads of Cabinet departments and many other agencies. The AUS is the only Presidential appointment at NARA. The other positions listed in the Plum Book for office heads and so forth either are career civil service (CA) or excepted service. The book only lists SES and SL staff (Senior Executive Service and Senior Level). It’s a little out of date in its listing of some of the heads of individual Presidential Libraries — David Alsobrok retired in June 2007.
By Maarja Krusten, December 12, 2008 @ 8:16 am

I don’t think I could pick just one predominant category in the poll. I do understand, however, why Jordon, in the first comment posted, observed of the qualities Jordon characterized, that “If he embodies all three of those traits, I don’t care if he still uses an abacus.”

The National Archives and Records Administration deals with such an enormous range of issues in its two main components — archives and records. Obviously, no agency head is going to be equally knowledgeable, in terms of having deep background, about archival theory, records management theory, technological issues, history, preservation, public outreach, and so forth. No matter what s/he brings to the table in terms of background, s/he is going to have to rely on subordinates in some of these areas. That’s unavoidable.

Since that is the case, in addition to technical skills, in whichever areas s/he has worked in the past, s/he will have to be a good judge of people. Ideally, the agency head must understand how large organizations function, how to get effective and candid briefings on challenging issues, how to lessen the chances of in-fighting among subordinates, how to signal a desire to have a “reward the messenger” rather than a “shoot the messenger” culture, and how to get the best out of people at all levels during times of fiscal restraint. This takes differing skills. Remember, career civil servants have greater job protection than do members of the Senior Executive Service. SES work on a yearly contract. So the Archivist must ensure that those contracts encourage good managerial behaviors. That’s not easy to do.

Outreach is important but tricky. NARA must juggle the sometimes competing demands of a number of stakeholders, including the creators of records, internal users of records within the government, and external users of records (historians, genealogists, journalists, and other researchers). Nancy Smith and Gary Stern commented in their 2006 article in the Public Historian about the challenges of encouraging Presidents to create and preserve rich records. But Russell Riley pointed out in an op ed about White House records in the Washington Post his sense that fewer and fewer written records are being created and kept these days. If so, that is a huge problem, but one historians seem reluctant to consider. You’re more likely to see narrowly focused articles about IT issues than ones that reflect how the creators of records in the White House might react to present statutory requirements. Yet the U.S. Archivist must deal with all the stakeholders.

So NARA must retain or win the trust of historians (with their “I wanna see your stuff” approach) and the creators of records, who, as John Earl Haynes once pointed out, may be reluctant to create candid records lest they be misunderstood or misused. Such issues are not easy to resolve, especially since they sometimes result in litigation in which the Archivist is named as a plaintiff. Of course, the AUS can only speak in court through the Department of Justice. As Acting Archivist Trudy Peterson once said, in matters of litigation, the government speaks with one voice. Much to think about there, in terms of who best can juggle all of this and produce good outcomes under difficult circumstances.
By Russell D. James, CA, December 12, 2008 @ 9:03 am

Okay, I did some research and these are the things that came out of it:

First, if you go to http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html and do a search under “Weinstein” you will find literally thousands of emails generated about Weinstein’s nomination, many of them negative about his appointment. Make sure to click on “next message” on the top of each main message you go into.

Second, I called the NARA Public Affairs office and asked them how one would go about applying for Weinstein’s job.They directed me to the White House Personnel office and they told me that the job is a non-career job and is a political appointment but that it is not Cabinet-level and so has to be applied for. They said there are two ways to apply for it. The first is to apply with the Bush administration at https://app2.whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/appointments/ and they will forward to the Obama administration if President Bush does not make an appointment in the next 38 days (likely). The second way to apply is to go to this website and apply online: http://change.gov/page/s/application
non-career position. In both situations, if they feel you have the qualifications to be a serious applicant, you will be contacted by the appropriate personnel office to submit a curriculum vitae and appropriate background check information for the FBI.
By Maarja Krusten, December 12, 2008 @ 9:35 am

Oh, so you indeed were referring to the Archives & Archivists listserv. Interesting. Maybe you use the term whining in a different sense than I do. I tend to associate with or apply the term whining mostly to children.

To me, asking questions and expressing concern about how something is playing or will play out does not equate with whining. In fact, I don’t equate voicing complaints with whining in all instances. (I’m applying the dictionary meaning, which is “to complain with or as if with a whine . So I tend to use “whine” in a very narrow sense, such as “he whines a lot about not being able to play because of bad weather” or “she whines a lot about the fact that her co-worker likes the thermostat set too low for her liking.”

I didn’t pick up on that sort of vibe in the A&A List discussions but maybe that’s just me. I thought there was a lot of good airing out of issues on the List. I didn’t see as much discussion of Carlin’s departure or Weinstein’s selection back then on the records management listserv. When I tried to bring up the topic on the RM list, I remember someone told me that questions about the naming of Weinstein were “just” political. Eh, not how I saw it then or now, but people look at these things through various perspectives, obviously.

I remember some of us on the List linked to articles by historians, some of whom seemed side tracked by the issue of his research notes. Remember how former NARA official Richard Claypoole wrote in a letter to the editor published in WaPo on April 9, 2005 that “Given the fact that Mr. Weinstein is a noted historian, someone likely to be embraced by historians, I can’t believe that opposition to him is based on anything more than a philosophical disagreement the left has with the conclusions he reached and evidence he produced in his two Cold War masterpieces, “Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case” and “The Haunted Wood.”

I myself would have preferred more focus on the challenges an AUS faces and less on left/right stuff. I felt that the focus on the History News Network on right/left splits obscured some of the other issues. I’m hoping this time around we’ll have some good debates on what NARA needs, not just on the List, but in other forums as well!

As for the application process, you may remember what the NYT wrote last month. Applicants for positions with the incoming administration are asked about what they have said in public forums, blogs, etc., among other things. The vetting process results in close scrutiny on a number of fronts.
By Maarja Krusten, December 12, 2008 @ 9:52 am

P.S. Thanks Russell for going to the trouble to find out what NARA and the WH Personnel Office said about the application process. I saw your post on your own blog and on the Listserv, many thanks.
By Larry Hackman, December 17, 2008 @ 8:43 am

Kate, I sent in a comment on the qualifications for archivist of the US but don’t find it. Did it go astray?

Larry
By Kate T., December 17, 2008 @ 8:52 am

Larry – There’s a comment from you on the NEXT post on this subject. Did you have more than one? Here’s your comment:

Kate, I believe the Archivist of the United States needs to know how to LEAD (which includes managing) a large program, experience which has required the person to shape the agenda of the organization and effectively pursue it through vigorous advocacy and great communication skills. The experience doesn’t necessarily need to be in government, but experience in a political environment wiil help. Many years ago I argued in Clinton days that I did not know an American archivist well qualified to lead the National Archives, and that may still be the case. We just don’t have archives that are large enough and that require the development of the kinds of relationships that an Archivist of the U.S. ideally ought to have. That certainly is not to conclude that a historian or librarian is a good candidate, but the leader of a university or major non profit could come closer.

Larry

[If this is it, sorry for the confusion--I know that putting up follow-up posts can split the discussion, but I'm not sure how to avoid that. Short of not putting up follow-up posts! Kate]