NARA and Anthony Clark; What NARA Can’t Do, What NARA Must Do, and What NARA Should Do

A great deal has been written lately about the struggles researcher Anthony Clark has had accessing records of the National Archives. It has been the subject of much discussion on the A&A listserv, Richard Cox has written about it on this blog here and here, and you can watch a podcast of a recent talk by Mr. Clark, summarizing his experience here. I wrote two posts about this situation last summer (here and here). If you need more background, you can read more at the blog Mr. Clark started to document and share his ongoing efforts to gain access to NARA records.

As the title of this post says, I will present here what I think NARA can’t do, what I think it must do, and what I think it should do. But first, a bit of a background might be helpful to place my recommendations in a proper context. As most of you know, I used to work at the National Archives. I had a position of some responsibility and I was in a position to observe the actions of senior managers across the institution. I still have many colleagues at NARA with whom I keep in touch. For many reasons, I do not write here very often about events at NARA. When Mr. Clark’s difficulties re-appeared on the archival landscape this week, I did not want to write any more about the matter. But I’ve seen some comments recently that make me think it’s important for people to get a realistic picture of what needs to happen. I will leave aside, for the moment, any discussion about what SAA might want to do in light of Mr. Clark’s charges.

So, speaking as someone who is familiar with both how NARA works and the statements Anthony Clark has made, here are my thoughts.

What NARA Can’t Do

NARA will never engage in an examination of its actions with SAA or any outside body (other than a governmental investigation). Those who think that SAA can call for some kind of investigation of NARA’s actions are unrealistic. NARA would not participate in such a process, and I don’t think that SAA would ever expect them to. Again, I think this is an unrealistic expectation to have of any government agency. Similarly, I do not believe NARA will ever provide any detailed public explanation of its actions. They will not engage in a public “tit for tat” discussion with Mr. Clark. This is something NARA cannot do because of its own institutional culture and the common practices of government agencies, and on the whole I do not think such a public discussion would be particularly productive.

What NARA Must Do

Rather than engage in a rebuttal or defense of the lengthy list of specific accusations, what NARA must do is to publicly acknowledge it has made mistakes and do what it can to make the situation right. This means conducting proper reviews of all NL documents and withholding or redacting only those portions that are appropriate and providing Mr. Clark with adequate information about the materials that are being withheld. As he described so well in the talk I listened to, it appears that NARA has not been doing this with the documents they have been providing to him. There are many things NARA cannot go back and undo, but improper FOIA review is one thing they can, and must, correct.

What NARA Should Do

NARA will not review its actions publicly, but in my opinion, they should conduct an internal review of all the charges made by Mr. Clark and an overall review of how this matter was handled from the beginning. Many, many mistakes were made. NARA should understand, for its own purposes, what happened and why. If people acted improperly, they should receive appropriate disciplinary action. If people acted out of ignorance of proper procedures, they should be properly trained. I am sure there are some lessons to be learned from Mr. Clark’s unfortunate experiences, and NARA should make sure it has learned them. I assume NARA’s Office of the Inspector General is aware of the story, but I do not know if this is appropriate for them to handle, If not, then I am sure Acting Archivist, Adrienne Thomas, can find some appropriate way to explore the matter. The archival community and Mr. Clark may never know the results of such an activity, but that is not the point. Just as I hope NARA changed its policies and processes after the Sandy Berger scandal, I hope some things will change for the better because of what NARA learns from its behavior with Mr. Clark.

Again, based on my knowledge and experience, these are realistic expectations. Some people seem to think that all NARA’s actions are part of a consistent strategy to deny Mr. Clark access to the records he wants to see. I do not believe this to be the case, but certainly from the results it would be possible to interpret it that way. I do not think we can expect much of an explanation from NARA, but actions speak louder than words. If NARA is not correctly applying FOIA exemptions and improperly withholding and redacting documents, then they must change those practices as soon as possible. That is something that NARA can and must do.

3 Comments

• 

  By Russell D. James, CA, February 20, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

  Absolutely correct, Kate! I agree with everything you said.

  I have followed up on your excellent reasoning with a post of my own at http://recordsjunkie.blogspot.com detailing what SAA can’t do, can do, and should do.

• 

  By t, February 23, 2009 @ 10:13 am

  Yeah – I agree, Kate. NARA is not some sort of evil empire just looking for ways to violate FOIA and professional ethics. But people like you and Clark and Richard (and possibly SAA if they step up to the plate) need to continue to pressure them to make their processes more transparent and to adopt a more user-centric model when it comes to compliance with access laws. Even more so, the comments on this blog about the new AUS are important. Commitment to openess starts at the top.

Other Links to this Post

1. NARA and Anthony Clark, articles to reference. « The Novice Archivist — February 25, 2009 @ 12:17 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment