Crossposting - Electronic Records in the News

[LownB@aol.com]

I am forwarding this message as their may be some interest in the subject
matter.  Please forgive crosspostings as I know this was on the Recgmngmnt
list and ERECS-L.

Beverly
LownB@aol.com
 ---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:   MikeRav@ix.netcom.com (Michael Ravnitzky)
Sender: FOI-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU (State and Local Freedom of Information
Issues)
Reply-to:       MikeRav@ix.netcom.com
To:     FOI-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Date: 97-07-03 02:58:39 EDT

I hope that this transmits okay.  If it doesn't wrap the lines, I
apologize in advance.  This is quite interesting.

>NCC Washington Update, vol. 3, # 26 , June 30, 1997
>   by Page Putnam Miller, Director of the National Coordinating
>      Committee for the Promotion of History <pagem@capaccess.org>
>
>1 Oral Arguments in Electronic Records Court Case
>-- On June 27, Judge
>Paul Friedman of the United States District Court for the District of
>Columbia heard oral arguments in the case of Public Citizens v. John
>Carlin, U.S. Archivist -- Case Number 1:96 CV02840.  The American Library
>Association, the National Security Archive, the American Historical
>Association, the Organization of American Historians, as well as
>individual researchers are co-plaintiffs in this case.  Michael
>Tankersley, accompanied by Alan Morrison, presented the case for the
>plaintiffs and Anne Weismann, accompanied by Jason Baron, presented the
>government's case.  The suit challenges the Archivist's promulgation of a
>"General Records Schedule" authorizing all federal agencies, at their
>discretion, to destroy the only electronic version of Federal agency
>records stored on agency electronic mail and word processing systems
>provided the agency has printed a hard copy of the electronic record on
>paper of microform. The complaint states that the Archivist has
>"improperly ignored the unique value of electronic records" and "has
>abdicated his statutory responsibility to appraise the historical value of
>such electronic records."
>
>The government rooted its defense in the argument of content versus form,
>stressing that while the electronic record is not being preserved the
>content is being preserved in paper form.  Additionally, the government's
>position rested on the assertion that some agencies are not as
>technologically sophisticated as others and preservation of content in
>paper format is what is realistic and that saving all electronic mail
>would clog the system.  Judge Friedman interrupted with frequent
>questions: Would it be all right to destroy all memorandum, regardless of
>format?  How could a plaintiff file an FOIA for electronic material if it
>has been destroyed?  Hasn't the Archivist given a blanket authorization to
>agencies?  Most corporations have record keeping policies that specify
>specific time periods, and if not this is suspect, why not the same for
>the government?  If the U.S. Archivist doesn't know what electronic
>records are being destroyed by agencies, is he fulfilling his role as
>gatekeeper on preservation of federal records?  Why does the government
>have to have one government wide plan, why couldn't it have different
>plans for agencies that are more technologically advanced?
>
>The plaintiffs argued that the General Records Schedule was intended to
>deal with routine, narrow administrative records and not with substantive
>policy records and that electronic records included under this schedule
>now include programmatic records on the development of agency policy.
>Plaintiffs also stressed: the archivist's abdication of authority to
>review records that are being destroyed, the importance of format since
>electronic records have special research capabilities that paper records
>don't have, and the lack of specificity in time tables.  A key point made
>by the plaintiffs was that they were not recommending that all electronic
>records be preserved, but that on a case by case basis that electronic
>systems, not individual records, be evaluated for their potential for
>having historically significant material.  Tankersley noted that while it
>may not be necessary to preserve the e-mail from the Bureau of Printing
>and Engraving, the e-mail of the policy makers at the Department of State
>may be slated for preservation because of their significance.  Judge
>Friedman's questions for the plaintiffs focused mainly on issues of
>clarification, such as how appraisal of electronic systems would be
>handled and whether drafts are considered federal records. A decision in
>this case is not expected for several months.


__________________________________________________________________________
This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list
server.  If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the
message body of "unsubscribe bap" to majordomo@lists.stanford.edu