As chairperson of  the little known OAH Committee on Research and Access to Historical Documentation,  and a State Archivist/Historian,  I was asked to prepare a short essay on "access to archives,  classification, and the Freedom of Information Act."  This a daunting assignment, one which two major government commissions (the most recent reporting to  the Presdent the last week of March) have generated volumes of opinion and documentation relevant to the question. To paraphrase  Ed Ayers in a recent CSpan presentation on his view of the digital future of research and writing,  like a fool I raised my hand.

I first consulted with the members of our committee who were able to particpate in a conference call  on March 25 for what I thought would be a half hour meeting, and which ended after an hour and a half, producing a transcript that far exceeded my proscribed word limit, even when condensed and abstracted (the conversation is available on line linked off the agenda at http://ecpclio.net//megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000126/000000/000002/unrestricted/2005-03-25.htm).  We were fortunate to have Bruce Craig to lead us.  He kept us current with the lobbying efforts of the National Coalition for History (NCH) -- a non-profit organization that represents the historical and archival professions,  while Nancy Berlag, Walter Hill, and I  probed with him the such fundamental questions as  how the 'need to know' standard of the courts should be defined,  how the right to know is conditioned by security needs(especially after 9/11),  how access should be balanced by  personal privacy, how and when executive privilege should be permitted, and above  all, how does a democracy based upon majority rule, assure  the public at large that it is basing its actions on a reliable, accessible record.

Fortunately we have a new Archivist of the United States, Allen Weinstein, who has articulated a deep commitment to finding answers to these questions.  In a recent interview  Dr. Weinstein made it clear that there is a distinction between any scholarly debate that might arise from his own scholarly endeavors (he welcomes the scholarly discussion)  and his devotion to access within the context of a dependable and dynamic archival program.  As many of us know, he pioneered in seeking documents under the Freedom of Information Act.  He is working diligently to bring all Presidential libraries under one coherent and accepted policy of access, and will not release any materials now at College Park that are not covered by such a policy based upon a signed agreement.   He has embraced advocacy for the revival of the National Historical Publications and Records Commision (NHPRC) as a necessary and integral component of what the National Archives is all about.  In my opinion he is the first Archivist since the 'R' was added to the National Historical Publications Commission to view the Commission as an essential aspect of the total program of the National Archives and to openly advocate full funding for both the records and publications programs.  He also made it clear that he seeks broader cooperation among the other keepers of the collective memory of the nation, including the State Archives, where a fair degree of entrepreurial and innovative work has been undertaken to cope with such fundamental issues of access as the creation of permanent electronic archives.  Dr. Weinstein and at least one State Archivist openly advocate  the management of the flow of permanent electronic information into the archives from the moment of creation, delegating the advice on who should have access and when,  to thoughtful panels of experts selected by the Archives, panels that encompass the broad spectrum of differences that will arise.

While some latitude will inevitably be allowed the people we elect to office to make decisions concerning access for the period of time they are in office, we ought not to permit them to do so beyond a reasonably prescribed time limit once they are out of office.  Neither Presidents nor National Security advisors should have the right to close indefinitely,  or remove from public view altogether, the record of their work.  In the world of HIPPA regulations we have permitted those who govern to stumble badly in passing  laws so poorly written as to ignore  that what is private health information for the living ought to become public and freely accessible information at some defined point in the future.   That indeed is the essential point of all access concerns.  In a democracy such as ours,  there needs to be a time, a persistently forward moving date, after which all that has been identified as permanently valuable information is totally free and accessible.

Of course determining what should be retained permanently in the massive rush of information that is generated every day is an even more difficult stumbling block than setting a time for release.  In the desire to know what is happening and why, some rush to judgment,  and, in the case of some TV anchors, find themselves pushed into retirement, obscuring the fact that the questions they raised could not be answered precisely because the records no longer exist for whatever reason, legitimate or otherwise.  To have faithful, full, and accurate reporting as history or as current events, a concerted effort must be made to ensure that accurate and complete records are maintained in an archival setting from their inception.

It is worthwhile for historians and archivists to expend some of their energies helping to establish and enforce standards of what we keep and why.  If our principal means of communication is currently by phone, blackberry and email, then some effort needs to be undertaken to see to it that phone logs and essential electronic communications are both managed well and permanently kept, going directly from the moment of creation to an archival setting that at some defined point is fully accessible to the public.

Historians do need to be sensitive to the fact that Freedom of Information requests can paralyze a government agency that is faithfully attempting to do its assigned tasks. Some Archivists, including this one,  are all too aware of this problem, especially with regard  those requests that appear to be put forward by,  or  on behalf of,  particularly disgruntled individuals who are not necessarily concerned with the best interest of the public at large.  It is important that in seeking more rapid and open access to government information that adequate resources are given the Archives and government agencies to manage, record, and maintain government information in a readily accessible format.  It is also important that independent review boards are established to both screen frivolous requests and to provide legitimate guidelines for the release of public information in whatever permanent form it may exist.

If you have a chance, log into CSPAN's presentation of Ed Ayer's March 15th talk at the Library of Congress on "The Digital Future" (http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Ayers&image1.x=21&image1.y=7, last accessed on 2005/04/02).   Professor Ayer's enthusiastically looks to the future of research in the digital age and the importance of digital archives.  It is a thoughtful tour de force based upon his work with the Valley of the Shadow archives (http://valley.vcdh.virginia.edu/usingvalley/) and the experiment he did with William G. Thomas, III, in writing an article (http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/AHR/, last accessed 4/2/2005) exclusively in electronic form for what Professor Ayer’s believes is  permanent reference on a perpetually  authoritative web site (intially funded by the NEH).  The problem is that there is currently no such thing as a permanent electronic reference on a perpetually authoritative web site.  Jstor probably come as close as any experiment in establishing one, and our efforts to place all land records in Maryland on line may prove a viable model.  The truth is that the essential records of governance about which historians are rightfully clamoring for access have not been, and are not now, being created in the context of how to make them permanently accessible. To answer the most pressing questions of declassification and access to permanent records requires historians, archivists, librarians, and the public in general to focus on what we currently save and how to save it permanently.  When we do that, at least, the future of history will be secure. In  the meantime we will battle to preserve and make accessible that which by luck and design survives of the archival record.

Edward C. Papenfuse
Chair of the OAH Committee on Research & Access to Historical Documentation
Maryland State Archivist and former NHPRC Commissioner