Monthly Archives: August 2015

Humanization, dehumanization

Posted on August 29, 2015 | 3 comments

After I published “Truth Bomb,” I revised it to add in information about the Nixon records for which I once was disclosure review team leader. I asked of records at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA):

“I sometimes wonder whether the AOGP (“Watergate”) material would have survived and come into the custody of the National Archives, had it been subject to the traditional records management process in federal agencies and departments.”

Perhaps not, based on old news stories, what I know about how these things can work in worst case scenarios, conversations with records managers in the executive branch. When I subscribed to Recmgmt-L a decade ago, Rick Barry wrote there about unaccessioned records from the Watergate era, such as some held by the Internal Revenue Service.

I work at the nexus of records, archives and history. Listservs are not what they once were. I miss the perspective of corporate information pros, such as Paul L., who once worked at IBM. In 2005, I shared with Recmgmt-L this observation in a message he posted on the Archives & Archivists (A&A) Listserv. I liked Paul L.’s courage and insights into situations archivists or records managers can face.

“You see, a corporate archives mission can run the gamut from serving as a
purely historical, publicly [available] resource to a closed, internally-driven, intellectual property repository … there’s no one ‘right’ model.

Fact is, when survival is your number one priority, a corporate archivist does what the company says to do. Sure, you raise awareness within the company of potential issues that may potentially arise – ethical, legal, moral, etc.. And you hope you’re persuasive enough to carry the day. That’s what being an ethical archivist in the real world means.”

Listservs are aging forums in which to debate issues, learn, and share insights. There are other ways to engage. You look for where the thought leaders are, how they communicate and where, and join in. (Thanks, Kate Theimer, for showing me the way, during 2009-2010!)

That’s not to say there aren’t insights on Listservs. Reticence in writing for the record (“discoverable language” and message discipline). Inability to be candid about operational issues. Fear that outsiders might not understand conditions under which you work. Reliance on a public relations version of what your job entails. Am I talking about A&A and Recmgmt-L? Hillary Clinton? Karl Rove? That you can’t tell proves my point about what you can learn about human behavior.

Late on Friday, Peter Kurilecz shared one of his news links with A&A. I appreciate his selection. The content perfectly illustrates some of the points in my recent blog posts. And is a wonderful finale to this series. Peter’s link was to a commentary at the Wall Street Journal, which leans right in its editorial pages.

The WSJ writer used reductive framing in commentary on questionable actions by a former federal official. A straight news report of the wrongdoing (the official in question has fled the country) would have had impact. A broad brush wielded by a partisan put up a sign, “ignore me.” When the blurb offered to the Listserv includes the following, you know there’s no point in clicking the link to read on:

“You see, government workers don’t use private email because it is ‘convenient.’ They use private email to engage in practices that may be unsavory, or embarrassing, or even illegal. Let’s be clear about that.”

Essential elements which could have explained a broad behavioral spectrum, as when Suzanne Garment wrote thoughtfully about the Hilary Clinton emails, are missing in the WSJ blurb. Here’s how a pro rolls, in contrast to a partisan. That link shows what we face in Fedland, but may not be suitable for “Records and Archives in the News,” which uses a limited approach to records news.

At the start of the Bush administration, the late Eduard Mark, then Air Force Historian, raised red flags about the collapse of Federal records management. He asked of Federal historians, “whatever will our successors do?” The National Archives then was slow in acting on electronic records issues. I am glad to say that during David Ferriero’s tenure as AOTUS it now has leaped ahead.

As I wrote this week, “I now am happy to point to NARA’s thoughtful work in the presidential managing government records directive framework. I greatly respect David and the NARA team.” I was heartened to see so much adulting at NARA in the records management symposium I attended in February!

I especially liked the way the event brought together records managers, agency program officials, end users, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) officers for thoughtful, candid discussion. Records issues don’t occur in isolation; solutions can’t be found within silos. In fact, NARA FOIA officer Joe Scanlon, pictured with me in 2012, helped put together the symposium. I enjoyed chatting with Joe, with David Ferriero, and with Chief Records Officer Paul Wester that day.

Paul Wester has a delightful, eclectic Twitter feed. He tweets about running. About music. About gardening. And about his family. About leadership. And a wide range of issues relating to human behavior. The way he uses Twitter humanizes Paul.

I chatted with Paul in February about how he came to play the cello. As children, my late twin sister and I played the violin. As is Paul Wester, I’m drawn to the sound of classical strings. During the long walks I take after work, I listen to Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Mozart, Handel. On many photos I tweet of me walking past the National Archives, at lunchtime or in the evening, I’m listening to a symphony or opera.

Two years ago I heard Joshua Bell play at the Kennedy Center in Washington. I love the photo I took of him with a delighted young fan. His kindness towards children was wonderful to see. He is a superstar with many obligations, but his patience and generosity stood out as authentic.

I’ve seen that in others, too. When in 2011, I first attended an event in the Archivist’s Reception Room, I was excited but nervous. Others present outranked me or had high stature in Washington. When I walked into the room, David Ferriero greeted me. He held up my hand for the photographer and exclaimed, “Look at her blue finger nails. I like them!” The Big Dude (yes, he adopted my nickname for him) read the situation perfectly.

The room rang with laughter. I thought back on that moment when I saw Joshua Bell graciously greet concertgoers in 2013.

My blogging focuses on people issues as well as technical ones. How employees bond in the workplace. How effective collaborations occurs. I often think about the humanity of those whose records we bring into archives for researchers to study.

It is the ability to get to know each other as people on Twitter, on Facebook and at blogs that gives us opportunities older generations of information professionals did not have. Listservs properly limit discussion to professional issues. But we lose out when we don’t always get to know each other as human beings, as we do on Social Media. As you’ll see below, the consequences can be sobering.

On Twitter, I see peoples’ values, humanity, core character. I most admire courage, integrity, grit, resilience, insight, and personal and professional generosity. And I see so much light out there, it helps sustain me in Washington!

Social Media provides wonderful opportunities to identify architects of trust and emerging leaders: Jarrett Drake, Eira Tansey, Ashley Stevens (pictured), Sam Winn (speaking on panel), Brad Houston, Lance Stuchell, Rebecca Goldman. And rockstar archivists, such as @archivesnext, Kate Theimer.

You can tell a lot by who hogs the spotlight and who steps back and lets others shine. In 2012, I wrote about the need for professional organizations to become less risk averse, shed old ways and start using technology effectively (“You Mean Skinny Jeans Aren’t Business Casual? Dang!”). Kate and I readily agreed that the real diva in the post was her dog, Sadie. On Twitter and at her blog, @archivesnext highlights the work others (two-legged, four-legged!) do.

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) acted last year to make the A&A Listserv a safe place to discuss issue. I appreciate that. As I’ve described in recent posts, I looked for a long time for records experts who could partner with me on A&A. I tried out other forums, too, such as Recmgmt-L, for which the administrators in 2005 included Peter Kurilecz and Marc Wolfe.

When I unsubscribed from the records managers’ List after I was yelled at for mentioning my late sister, I posted good wishes in farewell:

“. . . . Some see a List as a room with many corners, where different people congregate, as Jeff does. Others take a narrower view of a List’s function.

There is no right way to do it, although it is considerate to take into account what the majority wants. . . .While one usually learns to conform to community standards within an office, faking it along the way in order to get along with the powers that be and to succeed, I hadn’t given much thought to the fact that some Lists, too, might require that. Of course, what is a mask for some is a natural style for others. . . .

I largely think my style doesn’t work here. . . .Most of you probably work with people of various Myers-Briggs types in differing functions and have to do enough adaption to irritating people during your workday, probably with some quiet gnashing of teeth. . . . I respect most for you for your knowledge, and urge you to keep in mind your strengths and good qualities. Quiet, sturdy confidence (although, of course, not arrogance) will take most of you a long way, I am sure! Newcomers or [veterans], may you find the success you deserve.

Take care, all!”

I learned this past January that not everyone online sees me the way people who know me in real life do. SAA removed a message publicly posted to A&A by Peter Kurilecz on behalf of Marc Wolfe on January 6, 2015. The sexual innuendo (all unwarranted) did not fit SAA’s Code of Conduct and List Terms of Participation. Eva and I barely knew Marc–only through workplace interaction at NARA, at that. We never had, much less contemplated, the types of relations he described.

I don’t know why Peter posted Marc’s dehumanizing comments to A&A. (Did he not read what he forwarded?) Had the situation been reversed, I would have declined or excised the PS and PPS before sending the note to thousands of subscribers of a professional Listserv. (It remained publicly posted on the web interface for only a day.) I’ve redacted the sexual portions about me and my sister, Eva, in the extract below.

Peter posted Mark’s message at 10:12 p.m. My only reaction at the time (the evening of Epiphany) was on Twitter.

Eva is dead but I wish she had been spared what happened on A&A. We were so close. She loved Christmas, as you can see in photos from 1994 and 1989. Eighteen months after being diagnosed with melanoma, she died December 16, 2002. The condolence letter my mother and I received from the Archivist of the United States is here.

My twin’s memory lives on at NARA in those whom she supervised and mentored. Chief Operating Officer Jay Bosanko. Insider Threat Program Manager Neil Carmichael. Joe Scanlon. You see Neil, Joe, and Jay (at right) with Eva (their boss) in 1994.

Most of all, Eva’s memory lives on in acts of kindness–given, received, reflected. A supervisory archivist in the records declassification division, Eva was the coordinator for the move of national security classified records from Archives 1 to Archives 2 in 1994. A tremendous responsibility. She and the laborers and drivers partnered well, they made a good team. At Christmas 1994, she reached into her pocket and gave them gifts of $100. each.

A few days later, one of the laborers handed her a wrapped package. She opened it on Christmas Eve. As the photo above of her at home shows, Eva was delighted when she unwrapped the box with the clock inside. She wished he hadn’t spent the money–working together on an important federal move was enough. Yet she understood why the man did what he did. Eva had a loving heart and great empathy for all with whom she worked.

Eva is long gone. But I still have the clock, as the photo from 2011 shows. Sometimes, when I come home from work in Washington, I look at it and smile through tears. A reminder, in a gift received, of the beauty of the human heart.

Look for the light. It’s out there, all around.

3 Comments

Posted in archival issues, People issues

Truth bomb

Posted on August 26, 2015 | 2 comments

In a tweet from a session at the Society of American Archivists conference last week, @redactthat quoted AOTUS David S. Ferriero. She tweeted of Session 304, David’s conversation with Kathleen Roe: “.@dferrerio: “I often think the only way we’re going to get this right is if the RMs in the agencies are NARA staff.” #s304 #saa15.”

@archivesnext tweeted from the same session, “that’s been discussed in the past-having all RMs in agencies be NARA staff.”

A truth bomb from the Big Dude.

My degrees are in history. I think of records created within the government, in corporations, in the academy, in terms of why and how an official creates them. Or not. Of short and long-term uses of records. And of how human beings act throughout the records life cycle. I think in terms of incentives and disincentives that affect what makes it into archives. And I think in terms of the public trust–and stewardship.

I worked as an employee of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) with records administered under federal and presidential records statutes. On the archival side, I specialized in determining what could be released from the then-secret Nixon White House tapes, including statutory release of “abuse of governmental power” (AOGP) information.

There were many challenges. Former NARA official Tim Naftali later would say this about an exhibit based on White House materials for which I once was disclosure review team leader. Thanks to David Ferriero, whom I know in person, I was present to hear Tim say:

“People like Maarja, Bill Cunliffe, who did the right thing or tried to do the right thing. And people in other parts of our agency–David Paynter. These are heroes. The Watergate story is about a lot of different heroes. Some of the heroes were in government, like George Shultz who said no. And some of the heroes are the archivists who also said no and they protected materials and that’s why we could do this exhibit. If it had not been for the generation before ours, this exhibit would have been impossible.’”

Many scholars, such as Luke Nichter and Douglas Brinkley, pictured with me at NARA last year, have benefited from our work. I greatly appreciate Luke’s comments about past and present NARA archivists, as well as David Ferriero’s remarks, at the book lecture for The Nixon Tapes last year.

On the records side, my duties included making site visits to agencies to appraise federal records to see which were eligible for transfer of physical custody and title to the National Archives. Most federal records are temporary and can be destroyed within the creating entity after an authorized retention period ranging from a few years to a longer time. Some warrant permanent retention and accessioning into NARA.

I sometimes wonder whether the AOGP (“Watergate”) material would have survived and come into the custody of the National Archives, had it been subject to the traditional records management process in federal agencies and departments.

There is much more emphasis in public discussion forums on “what should be” than on the fascinating, highly human, spectrum of “what is.” I occasionally tweet requests to records managers I follow for suggestions for blogs that discuss the records life cycle candidly. But I’ve found little out there.

Earlier this week, I asked on the Archives & Archivists Listserv for the educators’ perspective. I’m curious as to what GSLIS educators draw on in discussing what makes it into archives from creating organizations and what does not. These issues go way beyond what is possible to discuss at SAA, ARMA, NAGARA, or CoSA.

As I noted in my Monday blog post about archival silences, there are built-in impairments up and down the chain of command in every records creating entity. In Fedland, CorpLand or UniLand. The records of the highest ranking officials have considerable historic value. The people within the creating entity whom end users rely on to handle the records and to decide which go to NARA are subordinate to them. Clearly, there are potential conflicts. Subordination can be an element in corporate settings, too, as an IBM employee explained eloquently in a message shared on two listserv about survival as a priority.

Directly or indirectly, the people at the top can affect decisions on all matters affecting records. This includes revealing the existence of unscheduled records, or not. The accuracy of declared short-term use attributed to “business units.” Or long term use for institutional knowledge. Self-assessments. Message discipline in what subordinate officials say about record keeping in public.

Former acting NARA head Trudy Peterson addressed the potential impact of impairmets from her perspective in an article she wrote in 2004. As noted, she pointed to the Kissinger case I often raised on A&A and its sister info pro forum (Recmgmt-L) ten years ago. Trudy wrote in 2004:

“Another consideration in defining public records is a clear statement of who is the official who has the authority to determine what is a record within the scope of the definition. One of the issues that was raised in the Kissinger case discussed above was who has the authority to determine what is a record. If the head of an agency is the authority, then confronting a powerful individual—such as a departing head of the agency–seeking to walk off with records is very difficult.

Additional difficulties arise if the application of the definition of records is left in the hands of the agency head. First, if the agency head determines that certain materials are not records, the archivist may have no authority to inspect, examine and appraise them, no matter how significant the archivist may believe the materials to be.

In one instance when I was [with] the US National Archives, an agency first proposed a records schedule disposition of a series of records but then withdrew it from consideration saying the materials were not records. There was nothing that the staff of the National Archives could do, because the Archives did not have the legislated authority to define what is a record. The result is a diminution of the archivist’s ability to protect records of historical value.

Second, if the agency wants to throw away certain documents but the records law says that records can only be thrown away with the permission of the national archives, the easiest way around this control is to declare that the particular items that the agency wants to destroy are not records. This can result in the loss of important parts of the nation’s heritage.

Third, if the access law and the records law use the same definition of records, a decision by the agency that materials are not records means the access law does not apply and disclosure can be avoided. That diminishes the right of the public to know what has transpired in government.

In all these instances, the motivation for the agency head to declare material NOT record is strong. The archivist, on the other hand, has a much broader view of records across the government and a longer time perspective on the potential uses of the records. The best practice is to establish legislatively both the definition of the records and the authority of the archivist to apply the definition to records.”

The National Archives is a non-partisan agency which strives to do its mission in an objective fashion. But in the agencies and departments, no records manager can describe him/herself as an independent actor.

This is obvious–and is structurally impossible in any bureaucracy, private or public sector. In corporate, academic, and governmental settings, records retention scheduling naturally involves negotiation. This creates the potential for hidden hand or direct influence from the top that affects records issues.

How that plays out is impossible for RMs anywhere, in Fedland or outside it, to air out candidly. You can’t do from within a federal agency what you can’t do within a corporation or at a university. These are universal problems.

It doesn’t surprise me that conference presentations by archivists–and the real-time tweets and post-conference blog posts–often are richer, more textured, and in some cases more candid, than those at records management events. It’s not just a matter of employer message discipline although that is a situational element, to varying degrees, in all conference presentations.

Archivists have a keen awareness of the importance of access, of sharing knowledge, of openness. They focus on the public. But these are just the elements that can chill records creation and lead to questionable acts at the beginning of the life cycle.

The technological challenges in records management are huge. They receive considerable attention from information professionals. The psychological impact less so. Yet understanding the impact of dehumanization of executives–and critics’ refusal or inability to place themselves in their position–is a part of working out record keeping solutions. We hear a lot about the impact of the computer on record keeping since the late 1980s. There’s near silence on the chilling impact of the subpoena.

This is why I caution records managers to use former federal lawyer Jason Baron’s presentations (and the now ubiquitous documentary, The Age of Discovery), with care. Play the legal discovery card wrong and a records manager can adversely affect knowledge (as opposed to information) within a federal agency, corporation, or university.

As Trudy Peterson noted, materials can be declared non-record and outside the reach of those seeking disclosure. A high-powered executive may tell a subordinate records officer, “Oh, those aren’t meeting minutes. They are just notes I took for personal use so I can remember what was said. They’re non-record. No need to schedule them. Much less treat them as archival.” Yes, there are corporate counsel. But they, too, are subordinate officials.

Why obstruction can happen is hard to discuss, judging by the conference presentations I’ve heard. Why it happens is easy to understand. It goes against human nature to throw your deliberations open for cherry picking. Or to place recorded thoughts at risk of demagoguery while you hold a position in government, in the academy, anywhere.

Unfortunately but understandably, many of those whose actions historians seek to understand react to dehumanization by shielding their humanity in records they create. They learn to write in what lawyers call “discoverable language.” As Michael Beschloss has said, they hide. The result is greater opacity, more distance, more risk of dehumanization.

If you look at public discussions by records managers, you’ll find a lot of discussion of information governance. That’s good. Getting the records, legal, IT, and information security elements right is extremely important for temporary and permanently valuable records. I respect those looking at the challenges.

But I’ve seen very little candid discussion about what affects the small percentage of records that are permanently valuable. Or knowledge. Or historians. Or about long-term arcs. And the impact of using contractors rather than permanent staff for records duties. The very elements the National Archives and Records Administration understands so well.

Search for the term archivist in some public forums and you’ll see more formulaic putdowns of archivists than acknowledgment of chains of dependency or alliance and partnership. That’s the acknowledged element that led to my leaving Recmgmt-L.

A thread in 2006 in which I defended archivists and pointed to my late sister as an exemplary public servant caused disruption. Leaving Recmgmt-L seemed like the considerate thing to do. There were other reasons, some derived from my offlist conversations with female lurkers, which I passed on to one of the Recmgmt-L administrators as I unsubscribed.

As I noted on A&A this spring, I now am happy to point to NARA’s thoughtful work in the presidential managing government records directive framework. I greatly respect David and the NARA team.

I still read Recmgmt-L from time to time, to see how info pros view current issues. I see almost no discussion of cultural elements that affect the records life cycle. Listservs (A&A and Recmgmt-L) seem best used to answer process questions. On employment, LIS education, or in reacting to news stories, few subscribers post as mid-level managers might, much less executives or chiefs or heads of large organizations. And even fewer as bridge builders seeking to reconcile “this works for me” and “this doesn’t work for me.”

Earlier this year, a class of information science students introduced themselves on Recmgmt-L and said their instructor had asked them to monitor the List. Soon after that a subscriber complained about news links. It didn’t lead to a discussion of what affects record keeping, merely a “stop your whining” defense of posting news links. A missed teaching opportunity for the community members.

To the extent Recmgmt-L draws responses to news links shared, there’s little display of what I like to think some subscribers actually do on the job. Learning about environmental conditions in what news items describe. Displaying sensitivity to cultural elements that affect record keeping.

Missed opportunities.

For some who speak on the issues, the focus is on one’s own shoelaces. The posted comments may start and stop with “in my workplace, I am prohibited from doing this.” That an official in Washington works in a very different environment than lower ranking employees rarely is acknowledged, much less the complex elements (which go well beyond known responsibilities–ah, Washington!) that affect it.

Insights into the psychology of the C-Suite largely are missing. The human beings behind the news stories–including records management colleagues and archivists and what they face–are missing. And the solutions offered–“put people in prison” or “get them to take their medicine” or “here are Information Governance solutions” or (to use a shorthand term) “Jason Baron”–do not offer a holistic, deep examination of incentives and disincentives.

What’s missing are the sort of complex elements that (drumroll please!) NARA staff understand.

2 Comments

Posted in archival issues, NARA, People issues, Workplace issues

Diverse voices

Posted on August 23, 2015 | Leave a comment

Following the conference tweets from the Society of American Archivists (SAA) annual conference this past week is a reminder of our diversity and what we have in common, too. For me, that Twitter can be chaotic is part of why it feels so real, so vibrant.

In a conversation about Twitter last year in an older forum, a subscriber asked how do you find all the tweets on a topic. What hashtags to search. I thought to myself, “You don’t. There are no guarantees. Not everyone uses hashtags consistently or frequently. There are many spontaneous, random, serendipitous actions. It’s an uncontrolled experience. It mirrors life. And that’s the beauty of it.”

Because I was #SAALeftBehind, I read tweets from those I follow in my regular feed but also checked tweets from everyone who was using the official hashtag (#saa15) and the unofficial one (#saa2015). There are many reasons why some people used the latter, instead of the one SAA listed on its website.

One archivist laughingly tweeted that she was used to working with 20th century records in her work. So she automatically added an indication of century. Ah, yes. The balance thing–focus on 140 characters or historical context!

The best public service archivists and librarians think in terms of the user experience. Seeing how people tweet shows how individual we are but also what we have in common not just in our jobs but our interests. Kate Theimer (@archivesnext) beautifully conveyed the zeitgeist when she tweeted over the weekend, “My not-so-surprising takeaway from #saa15: it’s great there there are so many archivists passionate about so many different things.” She added, “The thing you’re passionate about may not be the thing I’m passionate about, but I’m glad we’re both trying to do something. #saa15.”

Including session numbers in tweets gave me context, as when @roselovec noted in one of he tweets, “Another reminder that access, knowledge, & history mean different things across cultures. Western values don’t always apply. #s406 #saa15.” I found it illuminating and inspiring to read the tweets about archives and about records management from the perspective of academic, corporate, and government employees.

Twitter is more public facing than the Archives and Archivists Listserv and Recmgmt-L, which have web presences and on-the-record content but largely are known to subscribers only. Yet I appreciate the greater candor on Twitter during #saa15 and the efforts to keep it real.

I’ve been thinking about what to do about continuing to engage on A&A. One subscriber has referred in public to my posts there as having nothing to do with archives. Others appreciate the range of issues I raise. I post on A&A about managing people in libraries and archives, mitigating burnout, workforce issues. And what affects the very human choices made by records managers, records creators, archivists, and researchers throughout the records life cycle.

Some of these are difficult topics to air out, especially if they involve complex, and in worst-case scenarios, harrowing, balancing acts. Decisions by subordinate officials (which covers most subscribers to A&A and Recmgmt-L). Including the choices records managers must make in juggling the need to be (or state publicly they are) in regulatory compliance while also being compliant to demands voiced, handed down, or implied to them by superiors in corporate, academic, or government workplaces.

Looking back at the year I subscribed to Recmgmt-L (2005-2006), some of my messages look like markers for events and actions covered in the news almost a decade later. That wasn’t my intent then, I wasn’t there to lay down markers that largely were not picked up but would stand out unexpectedly later. Given my NARA background–I worked in the 1970s and 1980s with records, archives and history–I largely sought (but didn’t really find) discussion of difficult challenges.

One I remember raising 10 years ago on Recmgmt-L was what to do as a records manager when a powerful Federal official such as Henry Kissinger decides to walk away with records that belong in government custody.

Or otherwise takes actions that adversely affect records status or retention scheduling and disclosure, as Acting Archivist Trudy H. Peterson described in an article she published in 2004.

How do you juggle as a subordinate (1) being compliant with demands of superiors who have vested interests in the contents of records with (2) being in regulatory compliance, at least outwardly?

Or, even more complicated, what to do about the chilling effect, which affects knowledge, although not necessarily information? (Passing down knowledge to successor officials or into the archives presents different challenges than information governance because it involves actions not taken as well as taken.)

In many ways, I was prescient. That can be an uncomfortable position on a Listserv, although I made it clear I respect those who strive to work with integrity under sometimes challenging conditions in RM. (Preserving knowledge and disposing of temporary records properly in Fedland are important for civic literacy and understanding of national history, good and bad, alike.) I understand the reasons and recognize why there are major silences in public forums, online and at national and regional ARMA and NAGARA events throughout the nation.

Our experiences differ, depending on who is part of our Twitter community. For me, knowing individuals on Social Media provides more context than if I knew them on professional Listservs. The scope of communications has fewer limitations so you learn more about the human beings behind the names. I read tweets about what they don’t teach you in library school, about #impostersyndrome, about employment and labor issues, and, to the extent people feel free to share them, challenges on and off the job. They help humanize my Twitter community. You learn to spot architects of trust and respond accordingly.

You get to know people as individuals doing complicated jobs. And to understand functions more so than through the cheerleading or marketing in which professional associations sometimes engage. Early in my blogging, I pointed to SAA, ARMA and history associations feeling remote for me at times, despite my caring deeply about archives, records, and history.

To its credit, since then SAA has used Social Media and member surveys effectively. As it has become more transparent and candid and open, I’ve come to feel closer to it. And Kathleen Roe was an outstanding president during 2014-2015. I second what Jackie Dooley tweeted last week as she posted the photo at right, below: “What a woman! IMO @KDRoe122 is one of our all-time greatest SAA presidents. Bravissima!”

Some of the tweeting during SAA about archival silences and erasures was powerful because a group of archivists was taking direct action, also. I described in my last blog post the project that Jarrett Drake led to document the black community’s experiences (#rightingtherecord) with the police in Cleveland. And in the prior post, (“Fully Human“) about Jarrett’s session at SAA (below). I greatly admire his work inside and outside the archives profession, including education and outreach efforts with prisoners. He is one of many bright lights in our #archives community.

Jarrett, Jennifer S. (@CyclinArchivist) and I chatted on Twitter this evening about balance. How to handle the work we do in the paying jobs we hold in positions of privilege and our personal and professional obligations to the less privileged. Jarrett expressed conflicted feelings about how he was handling the balance. And his unease at taking a day of rest, of being unproductive, on Sunday.

I responded that self-care leads to more effective other-care. Jennifer observed that there’s a reason instructions tell us to put on our own oxygen masks before helping others. (Well said.)

We chatted about pacing yourself, of not always knowing what to do and how. I said we work with Strategic Plans, rules, regulations on the job. That it can be liberating to embrace the chaos outside the job. (That’s not to say workplace interactions can’t be chaotic or, as I’ve found during my career, sobering or scary.) To spontaneously act as opportunities present themselves, outside formal structures. And to be forgiving of ourselves, when things don’t go as planned. Or when we take a day of rest!

Jarrett’s candid reply was perfect–that there was plenty of chaos as he and other archivists (including @sam_winn) worked on the Cleveland police and community project. To try to document perspectives on abuse (verbal or physical) and a wide spectrum of diverse and very human needs. Working as a pathfinder on new projects can be daunting yet exhilarating. I respect and admire Jarrett and those who supported him. Seeing people act with courage and integrity is part of what I mean when I point towards the light in the archival community.

The SAA tweets last week reminded me of diversity in our workplaces and jobs and why we often say, “it depends” and “it’s complicated.” L’Archivsta conveys both phrases in her post, “SAA 2015: Thinking About Access.” She notes, “Keeping in mind the perspective of end users is absolutely appropriate, but we need to remember that some of the people documented in our holdings have claims that may be even more compelling. ” Ideally, we can broaden the scope of and increase the diversity of the voices in the archives. And work out access issues to the maximum extent possible.

Context is important, here. As I noted on A&A recently, we can document collection policies. How records management works, what affects the official record, may have knowledge gaps. Sometimes there are later revelations, such as the sobering actions Jarrett Drake described in “Insurgent citizens: the manufacture of police records in post-Katrina New Orleans and its implications for human rights.” Others may remain forever opaque, or subject to speculation but no evidence based conclusions or dispositive findings.

I’m a longtime reader of L’Archivista‘s blog. I thought about it in 2010 as I debated whether to start my own. It’s hard to go back psychologically five years and remember why I hesitated to start a blog. So much has changed since then! I’ve reconnected with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and gotten to know in person, like, admire and support AOTUS David S. Ferriero. I’ve broadened my interests, up, down, sideways! Where you stand, what you see, really makes a difference.

I’ve found peace on the issues that led me to start my blog. And I’ve moved on in so many ways! I’ve laughingly tweeted that I should change the name of my blog to Maarja NARA, as I write about a range of archives issues.

Sam Winn, whom I was thrilled to meet at SAA last year, tweeted on Friday, “I was a very introverted, socially awkward, anxious kid. Mom told me ‘one day you’ll find your ppl & thrive’. And I did. #saa15.” Several of us tweeted back that we could relate to that! Honesty and candor can bring great results. Some of the best discussions I’ve seen in Social Media (including at David’s AOTUS blog) have been about “being human, being ourselves,” and how to thrive as an Introvert in an Extrovert world.

Last year, after attending SAA in Washington, I wrote about how energized I felt. Thanks to the wonderful tweeting this year, I feel some of that in 2015, too, despite not being able to attend. I’ve ordered the conference recordings and will be able to hear the formal sessions included among the audio files. And I’m grateful for the ongoing opportunities in my large archives and library community for the “exchange of information and sharing of concerns,” to quote David Ferriero’s “Burnout at the Reference Desk.” There’s no better way to mitigate burnout, overcome discouragement, than to expand my view and listen and learn from others!

Years ago, I wrote about being together but alone. But more and more, it feels like alone but together. And that’s a beautiful place to be!

Leave a comment

Posted in archival issues, People issues, Workplace issues

Climate, change

Posted on August 22, 2015 | 3 comments

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) held its annual meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, this week. I’m a #SAAleftbehind due to family obligations. But I’ve been enjoying reading the tweets with the #saa15 tag on Twitter. And some of the #fakeSAA tweets are hilarious. A few really hit home! (“‘It depends’: 60 minutes of no concrete guidance whatsoever.”)

Many of the actual SAA tweets beautifully convey a sense of community. Within the profession as a whole. Within individual affinity groups. I’m heartened by tweets about insightful discussions of difficult issues–archival silence, erasures, technological challenges, collaborative efforts, outreach, user experiences, records management–and especially records management crises. I appreciate efforts to keep it real regarding archives. And yes, it’s complicated.

There have been poignant moments this week in Cleveland during the SAA annual meeting. Princeton archivist Jarrett Drake (whom I respect and admire) described a black man who left one of the neighborhood centers where archivists were gathering “righting the record” observations on violence and relations with police in Cleveland. The day was rainy off and on. The man gave away his umbrella to protect the archivists and the community members with whom they were talking outside the facility. Jarrett tweeted, “That’s love.” Yes.

He pointed to the nuanced and diverse spectrum of experiences shared with the archivists during the unofficial, independent #rightingtherecord project in Cleveland this week. Some of the citizens interviewed pointed to the impact of verbal or physical violence by police. Others, including a black man who had been robbed at gunpoint, observed that his neighborhood needed more police.

Jarrett added that this was why he didn’t read the thread on SAA’s Archives & Archivists (A&A) Listserv last week as did subscribers who described #blacklivesmatter issues as “both” sides. (I discussed one of the issues that came up in that thread in my last blog post, “Fully human.”) I tweeted in reply to Jarrett that A&A could be a challenging place to find nuance and discernment in discussion of complex issues. I find the reductive framing that some (not all!) A&A subscribers use limiting at times.

Among the agenda items for the August meeting of the SAA Council was new Terms of Participation for the A&A listserv. I’ve come to view the situation more as “what might have been” more so than “can this change?” Here’s why.

As in postings under then-SAA President Danna Bell’s June 27, 2014 blog post about the A&A Listserv, many of the survey comments SAA received this summer centered on a single issue. The topic? News links shared without context or annotation by Peter Kurilecz. Peter is a longtime records manager and ARMA member who has worked for decades in the private sector and as a contractor at various locations.

Why and how we turn to A&A is individual. Nowadays I see the headings to Peter’s news links on the web interface of the Listserv but usually skip reading them. I’m most interested in professional analysis and shared experiences. As a historian and former employee of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), I focus in my messages on the nexus of history, archives and records. Other subscribers enjoy Peter’s news stories about historical finds or features on individual archivists in various institutions.

As I’ve noted in recent blog posts, I came to find the content in Peter’s links about the Federal government to be uneven. Some of the reporting is ill-informed. And some of the advocacy writing is unfair, silly, or counter-productive to seeking solutions to records and archives issues yet hard to describe as such on A&A.

Peter once observed years ago on the List that he almost never agrees wih me. We have looked at some records and archives issues differently over the years. However, a decade ago, we used to exchange cordial offlist messages from time to time.

I remember sending Christmas greetings to him ten years ago; we chatted about A&A and joked about virtually sharing a glass of sherry. Our private contact stopped soon after George W. Bush left office. (I describe some of our last contact at the end of this post.) This past January, I realized that book had been closed for good.

Online, Peter and I continue to frame some issues differently. This summer, Kurilecz pointed in a public Social Media conversation to “the problem with liberals. they want to argue while conservatives want the facts and to learn all sides.” A moderate and Independent myself, I have friends across the political spectrum. But I know no people anywhere whom such broad brushwork fits.

Last year, Peter publicly offered an interlocutor on Social Media this take on reporting on a records issue: “you’re probably reading the NYTimes and WashPost while watching CNN and MSNBC. they are all in the pocket of the administration. a bunch of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil folks.” He added, “I don’t like the NYT overall because of its reporting.”

I was not a participant in these conversations, which took place in public among others. I read them months later. Peter’s framing was not new to me although I disagree with it. I’ve read similar assessments of news media by various posters in other settings, such as political web sites and newspaper comment boxes. I don’t find the New York Times to be in “the administration’s pocket” and subscribe to it, as I also do The Washington Post and The Washington Times.

I agree with SAA’s restrictions on political speech on A&A. But avoiding the political means some differences in how subscribers view news links or the nature, purpose and funding of advocacy websites can’t be aired out in full on the List. That includes interpretations of what constitutes journalism on the Internet.

Whether one is operating under a ToP or not, arguing over framing rarely is productive. However, subscribers’ inability to push back against each others’ appraisal of what constitutes useful context-free journalistic content contributes to tension on A&A and always will. I believe that is one reason why SAA worked with Peter to set up an offsite Google page for sharing unannotated “Archives in the News.”

The survey results SAA released earlier this month show Peter’s continued perception that “numerous archivists who are politically conservative will not post responses to postings that they disagree with politically for fear of ruining their careers.” He mentioned climate change as one such issue. As with his observation in 2009 that SAA and A&A constitute a “hostile work environment,” pointing to fear of ruining careers shows sobering perceptions of the larger SAA community.

I asked last month on A&A for input from conservative subscribers on Open Government and presidential records issues I had posted about to the List from 2001 to 2009 but received few reactions. Every setting is different, online as well as IRL. I wish politically conservative, moderate, and liberal records professionals could work together as harmoniously on A&A as my friends and I once did at the National Archives and Records Administration. And as my NARA and Fedland friends still do, when we discuss archives and records issues.

Newer subscribers to A&A don’t know the Peter Kurilecz who once shared lengthy observations, instead of mostly news or Google links, with the Listserv. In 2007, during a Republican administration, a reader on A&A asked what records managers on Recmgmt-L were saying about missing Bush White House emails. Peter replied on April 13, 2007, in part:

“….here is what all seem to agree on

1. this a classic example of the current politics of destruction that
seems to have taken hold in Washington

2. (and this is the key) Can any of us say that our email policies and
procedures are being followed 100%

3. There is a gotcha mentality within the Beltway. I’m sure there are
many on this list who honestly believe that the current administration
set up the dual system for nefarious purposes. its all the evil
machiavellian Karl Rove who did it. But as others have pointed out the
system was set up to comply with the Hatch Act.

I pointed out that in all likelihood the WH failed to properly train
individuals on what their responsibilities were and what they were to
do. Someone else pointed out that this might mean having an attorney
looking over the shoulder of everyone, so they could determine whether
to keep the email or not.

I asked the question ‘can anyone on the list honestly say that their
email management would stand up to the scrutiny of a Congressional
inquiry?’ If you can then more power to you, because i can tell you
that there are folks on this list and the recmgmt-l list who can not
even manage the instructions that come with their subscriptions.”

Since Barack Obama became President, Kurilecz mostly has shared third-party links rather than his own or other records managers’ assessments of environmental and cultural elements that affect record keeping. As a result, newer subscribers to A&A largely know him as the news link guy.

Early in the Obama administration I reached out privately to Peter and offered this advice. I linked to his 2007 analysis of the Bush situation and asked if he saw that assessment of the issues as systemic, regardless of the party controlling the White House or Congress.

He didn’t respond but I offered a suggestion: “why not share on A&A your own thinking on foundational record keeping matters and systemic issues in Washington. Or summarize info professionals’ views, as you did in 2007. Rather than sharing news links with uneven reporting and then asking why archivists were not discussing them?”

Too late now, of course, but I would like to have seen him act as a bridge between Recmgmt-L and A&A, as he did at times during the Bush administration.

I explained that in my view, looking at issues systemically would serve him well as a records manager and as a political conservative on a Listserv he had described in 2009 as hostile to him. Now, during Obama’s second term, that remains my view. The sharing of original observations is what I believe SAA sought from all of us with its request in the 2014 ToP for context with news links. Context-free content could be seen in the offlist Google group Peter agreed to set up a year ago.

Peter and I eventually just went our separate ways. I regret that he stopped sharing his own or ARMA colleagues’ unofficial but individual professional observations on records issues after 2009. I would like to have heard on A&A about his learned or observed experiences at Enron and IBM, to the extent he could have shared them.

While gathering links takes some time and effort, anyone, even someone with little professional experience, could have done that for us on A&A. Sharing individual perspectives might have led to interesting chats in recent years among A&A subscribers about working with corporate, academic and Federal records. All constitute “the real world,” of course. Too late to lay groundwork now that would have taken years of sustained effort after 2009.

It is sharing differences and commonalities that makes #saa15 seem so vibrant and rich. A different climate than the Listserv. A&A is what it is. I’ve come to view Peter’s news and Google links simply as one subscriber’s appraisal of what to share. We all can share our own different, annotated news links and some of us do.

I respect SAA for seeking community feedback in 2014 and 2015. It’s time for me to leave the what-might-have-beens behind. I’ve tried to encourage other information professionals to correct unfair reporting of archives or records issues by the side they support politically, as part of “living dangerously.” To emphasize the professional, de-emphasize the political, in framing issues and representing themselves. But I don’t see the List dynamic changing.

Systemic, cultural, and environmental reasons for records and archives issues continue to interest me. Why there are challenges in Washington deserves nonpartisan examination. That some of the news links now in A&A’s archives did not have that in their content and elicited no discussion is history now.

Over successive administrations, we Feds have read and continue to see so much that is partisan or stupid or harmful from outsiders. It is easy to demagogue records and archives issues. I am grateful for those who eschew that on Twitter or blogs. (Not everyone does but many people I follow do.) And I look towards the light with gratitude. We need well-informed, useful, practical, realistic, non-partisan solutions. Hard to come by. But all the more precious when we do!

3 Comments

Posted in archival issues

Fully human

Posted on August 13, 2015 | Leave a comment

The reasons for why we do what we do as archivists range from the sobering to the joyous. Motivation can stem from determination to preserve the narratives of dismaying, grim or tragic actions. Ensuring the “documentation of difficult times and events.” Expanding the scope of human experiences chronicled in archival records.

Archivists Bergis Jules, Jarrett Drake, and others will be speaking about “The Secret Life of Records” in a forum at the Society of American Archivists Conference on August 20, 2015. We need more such discussions.

Bergis Jules’s powerful blogging about #blacklivesmatter last weekend (Ferguson) and in June (Charleston) looks at opportunities and obligations to preserve perspectives erased, blocked, overlooked or under-documented and under-represented in the past. But when I posted to the Archives & Archivists (A&A) Listserv about his blogging this week, I received some pushback. So I explained, largely as in the next few paragraphs, my perspective on studying history. My further thoughts follow my paraphrase of the Listserv post.

As a historian and former archivist, I benefit from studying the records that state entities preserve. Their actions affect the lives of countless citizens. But I apply contextual sophistication. A good example would be J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI during the period of the civil rights era, the Vietnam war, and other events during the Cold War. Only some records remain; many others were destroyed.

We historians greatly value insights into behind the scenes details, whether we study controversial events or routine ones. But an organization’s records largely reflect decisions and actions by its officials and employees. You’d have to look elsewhere for other perspectives. Sometimes, there is information asymmetry, an imbalance in what was recorded or preserved.

Working with the official record requires assessment of many elements. What supporting documents exist for assertions made in reports. What the chain of custody in the creating department or agency was for records necessary to determine what happened. (Sometimes, no conclusory records were created. At other times, they were but were not preserved.)

Sometimes what is kept and transferred into archives is closer to the what and how of what happened than at other times. As in so much, “it depends.” The chilling effect, reticence, destruction, any number of things can affect historical knowledge.

Even with well-maintained, reliable official records (yes, some entities do better than others), I would need to go beyond them to understand other perspectives. As David A. Horowitz observed in a thoughtful essay about the craft of the historian, we look at the terms of the debate.

Those other perspectives now are displayed, at least in part, on Social Media platforms. If you relied only on materials transferred into archives through management of official records, you would miss those perspectives. In the past, you couldn’t reconstruct them well, due to archival silences.

Twitter is an amazing window into perceptions within communities. Diverse communities. But especially people whose voices and experiences in the past were erased from full consideration in historical narratives. Who don’t show up in traditional grassroots activism (much less astro-turfing).

Twitter enables the preservation of voices which in the past never made it “into the archives.” Just as a historian would do oral history interviews with activists in the 1960s to see how ongoing events looked to them, as well as government officials, what Bergis discusses will enable historians to see “in real time” how events looked in August 2014 and June 2015. To those “on the ground.” To those following reports of what was happening. To those searching for community.

There is nothing to prevent anyone who uses Twitter from curating his or her own archives about any current events, here or abroad. Select your hashtags, give it a try. The tools Bergis points to are available to anyone. Turning to Twitter for #blacklivesmatter is not a zero sum game. It’s addition.

The circumstances we ourselves experience can be sobering or joyous, as I found in working as an employee of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Over time, for complicated reasons, we may feel both, one reaction affected by the other. So much is interconnected.

Glimpsing even small parts of others’ experiences can be inspiring. Last fall I wrote in “Hailing frequencies open” about Ashley Stevens:

“Ashley and I enjoy geeking out about history, as I described in a post where I also talked about the contributions of Darren Cole, another NARA employee. In “Color Palettes: Archives and Records” I thanked Ashley for the insights and honesty which help me stay mission-focused in Washington.”

I looked in my post at my friends at NARA and at people I know on Twitter:

“. . . .What they have in common is insight into the human heart, an essential element in reaching others. And a fearless beauty of expression. Such as that which Jarrett M. Drake expressed last night, when he tweeted that he hadn’t eaten since 8 a.m. Friday morning:

“The students fed me. Their words. Their knowledge. Their humanity. It’s enough to feast on, and I am thankful for every bite.”

A tweet like that can lift my spirits so high after a week at work in Washington! And I thanked him for helping me.”

What happens in the lives of others can energize us professionally. Self-care is important, too. I’ve described here where I turn when I feel dispirited. What I do when I’m feeling some of the reactions described in “Burnout at the Reference Desk.” Why I “walk towards the light.”

In January, Kathleen Roe, President of the Society of American Archivists (SAA), eloquently described her work at the New York State Archives with members of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) nations that had been forcibly relocated. The records held in the archives described disturbing events. So a shaman offered to do a blessing ceremony for the archival staff “to counteract the negativity.”

Such gestures point to the light filled side of the reaction spectrum, the beauty of the human heart.

Why we react as we do may seem ineffable. Take a reaction from a user of records held by NARA. This quote by Dan Falcon posted by the National Archives Education team on its Facebook page caught my eye on July 30. (NARA does wonderful work with Social Media, sharing the contents of records, highlighting the contributions of diverse staff, and telling its own story, as well.) Reading this was a moment of great joy for me.

“I know that they told us we weren’t discovering these documents, but that’s what it felt like. We’re not the first people to see these, but…everything is so new to you, that you feel like you’re the one discovering the records—it’s a pretty special feeling.”
– Primarily Teaching participant Dan Falcon

I’ve been working with archives and records and history for a long time. You’d think I’d be jaded and immune to reading such a reaction by a teacher. But I’m not.

Last week, I mentioned that quote in a message I posted to the A&A Listserv.

“I recently re-read a blog post I published December 3, 2014, “The Gifts We Give.” Many of my blog posts are about ‘archives transcendence’ although I am, of course, aware of many challenges surrounding the profession.

I’d like to hear from you about what ‘keeps you going.’ In times of burnout, as I discussed last year in writing about “Burnout at the Reference Desk.” Or under other circumstances. And of course, if you’re a manager, and have employees in your care, it helps to understand their spoken and unspoken needs.”

I don’t know what the future of A&A is as a forum administered by SAA. (I’m less optimistic about it as of this writing than I was earlier this summer and am in wait-and-see mode.) Yet my theme remains the same, wherever I engage with my professional community.

I mostly interact with fellow archivists, librarians, and information professionals on Twitter, at blogs, on Facebook. Sometimes, just seeing a beautiful avatar, as Meredith Lowe Prather’s, helps me relax. My librarian and archivist friends won’t be surprised to hear that the name of the cat is Dewey!

In asking about inspiration, I explained on A&A

“If you read my blog, you know for me inspiration comes from a combination of the professional and the personal. Knowing good people at NARA, and other cultural heritage institutions, whom I respect and admire. Appreciation for a wonderful community, IRL and online. . . .Seeing reminders of why what we do matters.”

Twitter is where I first met Ashley Stevens, whom I wrote about recently when she met AOTUS David S. Ferriero. (A wonderful moment–David and Ashley, two archivists I know in person, like and admire, finally had a chance to meet!) And grew to know Maureen Callahan (pictured with me at SAA last year), Rebecca Goldman, Bergis Jules, Eira Tansey, Jarrett Drake, Brad Houston, and others who inspire me–the fabulous Kate Theimer above all.

The findings of a recent Pew Research Center study that many younger people use Social Media to build and maintain, rather than destroy, relationships resonated with me although I’m older than the people surveyed. I learn so much about professional and personal values, shared ethos, individual choices, just watching or partaking in Twitter conversations.

A common theme in talking about motivation is a desire to make records available. A year ago, I sat in the McGowan Theater at NARA with friends and colleagues and listened as historians Luke Nichter and Douglas Brinkley talked about their book of transcripts of The Nixon Tapes, 1971-1972. Volume two, The Nixon Tapes, 1973 is due out next month. Hearing good people you know exchange thanks during a discussion of scholarly research in materials you helped make available is wonderful.

I learned a lot not just from the Nixon records that I reviewed for disclosure or restriction but also from being in a transitional situation. Nixon entered the White House believing he could treat his presidential records as personal property. Instead, a law passed in 1974 while Watergate investigations still were ongoing made them government property. And placed them in our care at the National Archives.

I’ve been working with records and history since I took my first Federal job in the 1970s, even before I joined the National Archives in 1976. I’ve seen records issues from the bottom up and from the top down. Including in the White House. Advising staff on what they were to turn over to the National Archives. Packing records.

Wrapping artifacts while sitting on the floor of the Oval Office. Moving pallets of boxes from the East and West Wings to staging areas for transfer into National Archives’ custody. Telling the postal service employee he needs to get his truck out of the way, fast–the tractor trailer we are about to load is turning into West Executive Avenue right now.

But that’s not what I think about when I walk through Washington after work. Instead, it’s the moments of courage and discovery by others that I’ve described here that stay with me. Admirable acts by those inside and outside government who are working so generations that follow us can better understand the past.

We need to do better understanding each others’ humanity. Wherever and however we work. In looking at his blog at a controversy over emails exchanged among University of Illinois officials, Timothy Burke observed of college administrators:

“Imagine anyone in the role that [the executive] plays, anyone at all. Pick someone with your exact convictions. Pick yourself. Are we really expecting that the person in that role ought to listen judiciously, patiently and indiscriminately to every single person on their faculty with perfect equity and equanimity?

We seem to desire leaders who are able say bluntly what we ourselves cannot or would not say and to mobilize institutional power with executive force in ways that we cannot and also desire leaders whose job it is to serve as a kind of infinitely passive psychic dumping ground, to receive every grievance and grudge within the institution without blinking. To decide what we know we can’t decide and to have never decided any such thing and to disavow any intent to make such decisions.

To me that’s another kind of managerialism: the administrator as something other than fully human, needing to perform a professionalism that removes rather than connects them.”

We can control our actions as archivists to some extent. What researchers do with the materials we make available is up to them. My experiences have heightened my empathy and deepened my understanding of what enriches narratives and what diminishes them. Let’s do what we can to understand, then mitigate or counter dehumanization. Everywhere.

Leave a comment

Posted in archival issues, People issues, U.S. History

The extent of our civilization

Posted on August 5, 2015 | Leave a comment

If you search for #ArchivesIn5Words on Twitter, you’ll see highly diverse contributions over a two-month period in June and July 2015. The hashtag comes from one of a series of Calls to Action by Kathleen D. Roe, President (2014-2015), Society of American Archivists (SAA). The theme of her presidency is Living Dangerously for Archives in advocacy. Kathleen is a thoughtful leader whose vibrant presence is visible on Twitter, at the “Off the Record” blog, and on the SAA website.

The posting of an advocacy statement by SAA at “Off the Record” blog during Kathleen’s tenure drew a comment that is worth sharing here. It conveys the vibe of the professional association that Kathleen has had in her care during the last year.

“Congratulations and thanks to President Kathleen Roe, the SAA Committee on A&PP and Council, and others she consulted on this well-written, balanced, and careful statement re an issue that does indeed raise important archival issues but could easily become inflammatory and inappropriately political without such care and balancing of the applicable facts.”

Of the Calls for Action during the Year of Living Dangerously for Archives, several caught my eye. One was the challenge to describe archives in 5 words. (A five word limit! So not Maarja-style. Which is exactly why I tried it out!) Others included A Seasonal Toast to Archives and Why I am an Archivist. I participated in some of Kathleen’s SAA challenges, including for Christmas last year at my blog (“The Gifts We Give“).

As often is the case, I wrote part of that December 3, 2014, blog post in my mind during a walk after work. I walked through Washington on a cold, rainy evening made beautiful by seasonal decorations, such as the wreath at left, but also by my thoughts of archival transcendence and community. Cherished family memories also were in the mix. The period between Thanksgiving and Epiphany is precious to me because my twin sister, Eva, so loved Christmas.

Eva’s memory lives on at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), where she’s pictured in her Archives 2 (College Park) work unit in 1996. I see her legacy–she was smart, kind, thoughtful, giving–in members of her team who still work at NARA now. She mentored, coached, and started so many of them (including Jay Bosanko, now NARA Chief Operating Officer) on the road to successively greater responsibilities and promotions. That’s Jay at left with Eva and the NARA team she supervised at a Christmas luncheon in 1994, when he was an archives-technician!

By drawing on my own experiences–and those of Eva and others I’ve known and know now–I easily shared responses to some of Kathleen’s Calls for Action. My words just flowed. But in a couple of cases, I was unable to offer contributions, for various reasons. The extent to which other archivists and information professionals participated in the challenges varied, too. Not surprising, given how diverse the archival community is.

My eclectic Twitter feed and participation on the Archive & Archivists (A&A) Listserv remind me of how different the archival experience can be. Especially now, when more and more knowledge is shared online, not just in the reference room with walk-in researchers. And of course, not everyone works directly with the public. Mission contributions vary greatly, from “backroom” projects work to conservation activities, technological support, and exhibit design and preparation, just to name a few.

Since re-subscribing to the Archives & Archivists Listserv last June, I’ve posted to it links to some of Kathleen’s blog posts and Calls to Action. I’m encouraged by engagement on the List these days and glad to see more voices contributing to the discussions. Especially younger members of the profession, including students, job seekers and early and mid-career professionals.

In a good discussion on job search tips on A&A in February 2015, Abraham Miller offered some thoughtful advice.

“One of the biggest pieces of advice I have is to keep your ear to the ground and think of how you can use your information management skills. Can you wrangle data for a scientist’s data repository? Can you do research in a development department on big donors? Do you have the skills to sell a RIM programme?

c) Also in response to Keir McCoy’s question – one of the skills that I thought of as undervalued in school was management. If you have project management skills and people management skills, sell those! Sell your emotional intelligence! I keep a copy of Emotional Intelligence 2.0 on my desk. It reminds me sometimes to step back and think about what I am thinking and how I am communicating. When I am hiring a candidate, even if the job description doesn’t specifically mention management or communications, these soft skills will put a candidate over the top for me.”

He mentioned that he and Rebecca Goldman, one of the people who inspired me to start my blog, would be part of a panel with Stefanie Maclin-Hurd about “Embedded Archivists: Archivists Outside the Archives” at the joint Spring meeting of New England Archivists (NEA) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference (MARAC). I very much appreciate Miller’s thoughtful representation of the records and information management (RIM) side of the archives and records spectrum.

Since most of my interactions with archivist-records managers–Brad Houston, Eira Tansey, and Fedland friends–occur on Twitter or face to face over lunch rather than A&A, Miller’s willingness to share advice on the Listserv stood out for me. I’m especially glad to see Brad as an educational partner in SAA’s RM efforts. As I noted in a blog post two years ago,

“Seeing how people are dealing with digital preservation and access issues is one of the more interesting parts of my Twitter feed these days. I especially liked Brad Houston’s “Everyone’s a Mechanic” Records Management Round Table Prezi in March. Yep, @herodotusjr had me right at the beginning with his lack of pretense when he said, “This is a good thing! This is a scary thing!” And then there was the inclusion (of course!) of a cat. When I can laugh and learn at the same time, it truly is a #win.”

Abraham Miller’s contributions stood out for me in February because of his emphasis on hybrid functions. Job seekers benefit from hearing about the diverse situations in which library school graduates find work. Although a few other records managers subscribe to the A&A List, conversations in the forum focus more on archival issues, as one might expect for a List administered by SAA.

One veteran RM largely shares news links and third-party commentaries on A&A, as he has for over 20 years. When I first started engaging on the archivists’ listserv in the late 1990s, I thought he might become an online conversational partner for me. But his learned professional experiences largely were and still are opaque to List subscribers like me.

People contribute in different ways. What fills some needs leaves others unfilled. As a very specialized-niche blogger, I’m keenly aware of that! Nixonara isn’t for everyone, which is why I appreciate those who do stop by and read it.

I would like to have learned more about work in the corporate world, a different environment than the one in which I’ve spent my Fedland career. I even tried Recmgmt-L for about a year.

I never really gained insights into any of the corporate professional experiences of the info pro behind the news links on the A&A Listserv. That’s a loss, one I finally just came to accept, regretfully, in recent times. Now, younger info pros whom I’ve gotten to know on Twitter, through blogs, or in person in Washington help me broaden my vision, instead.

In 1997, in my early days on A&A, I was looking for Listservs where historians, archivists, and records managers could chat and learn from each other. I never found so eclectic a space, although I tried out various places, including H-Net. But I still want to read long-form thoughts by practitioners willing to discuss real world experiences. I occasionally put out calls on Twitter for suggestions for records-related blogs or essays I can read. To some extent, I’m reflecting my background. The multiple-mission aspects embodied in the National Archives and Records Administration.

During my career, I’ve worked on records appraisal, records retention scheduling, change management, processing, reference service, and as a researcher, the end user part of the records life cycle. I occasionally discuss on A&A the challenges stakeholders face at different points in the life of records.

I blogged about Miller’s comments in “Out there and in the community.” I found his holistic approach practical and useful on a topic where no two people are in exactly the same situation. This applies on the job as well as during the job search. The ability to communicate with impact and collaborate with others is important. And, of course, there are online platforms to showcase such skills.

I especially liked seeing Abraham Miller mention emotional intelligence. Some of the challenges at the beginning of the records life cycle are daunting because competing elements are in play. Some must be intuited; not all the risk elements are spelled out. Emotional intelligence gives you an edge in situations requiring cultural sensitivity. There are no templates. More so than in some other professions,” it depends” is a common answer in discussing records, as well as archives. The situations are that individual.

The ability to customize is important not just in archives but also records management. Misplay the electronically searchable information issues a lawyer such as Jason Baron emphasizes in A Decade of Discovery and you may end up with Decades of Knowledge Gaps! Lawyers may offer competing advice. Put as little in writing as possible. Make sure we can find information required in discovery.

The C-Suite official briefed on ESI issues may nod and say, “yes.” And then quietly look for ways to reduce his or her electronic footprints. Workplace relationship building–up, down, sideways–can make the difference in crafting balanced, sustainable, and defensible solutions in such situations. Abraham Miller was right to emphasize the need to manage the people side as well as the project side. Students and job seekers benefit from hearing such advice.

There’s a lot to navigate between the decision to create an electronic record (or not) and the knowledge of past actions that we point to in archives. The risk aversion that results from the threat of litigation and subpoenas. Increasingly complex technology issues. The short-term thinking busy program officials may display. The need to think in long arcs in terms of institutional knowledge. Soft skills matter as much as certification and technical proficiency.

Miller modeled the hybrid qualities that I believe are necessary to succeed as an “archivist outside the archives.” Being a bridge builder is part of the needed skill sets. I noted in my February blog post a paper Joan Mann once wrote about the value of hybrids, people who understand technology (the IT side) but also the users of services.

“Competitive behaviors can lead to winning small battles but losing overall. . . . the better, more generous way, to look at yourself is to acknowledge that others are experts in their fields, too. Or as I noted in one of my blog posts in 2012, to consistently strive not to one up, but to help everyone in the enterprise do better, yourself included.”

I feel special affinity for Kathleen Roe. As director of New York State Archives, she is in charge of records management and archival services to state agencies, local governments and historical repositories throughout the State. And she has wonderful sensibilities, which she has shown in her own Year of Living Dangerously for Archives.

One of the quotes Kathleen shared online during the last year was from Arthur G. Doughty. He said, “Of all our national assets, Archives are the most precious; they are the gift of one generation to another and the extent of our care of them marks the extent of our civilization.”

Thank you, Kathleen, for your wonderful service. You brightened my days on Twitter, on the SAA website, and with some of your thoughtful and generous comments on A&A. The extent of your care for archives and archivists, both, has been a beautiful gift to many. Not just now, for us, but also in the future, for those who follow.

Leave a comment

Posted in archival issues, People issues, Workplace issues

It’s highly individual

Posted on August 2, 2015 | Leave a comment

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) holds its annual meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, August 16-22, 2015. This is the first of a series of posts about SAA, professional association, and leadership. I’m looking in this kickoff post at information and professional identity. I’ll focus in a future post on SAA President Kathleen Roe, whose courageous call for archivists to “Live Dangerously for Archives” and insights I admire and respect.

On Saturday, I provided contextual information on the Archives & Archivists (A&A) Listserv about some issues in the news. I observed that Fedland archives, history and records issues are more subject to demagoguery than similar issues in corporate or academic settings.

I noted how rare truly candid, realistic discussions of records issues are in any setting. And pointed to a June 2005 quote from a corporate information pro that I’ve found notable. The writer showed courage in addressing candidly in a public forum important ethical and environmental issues that can affect information and knowledge.

I’ve long believed such issues need to be explored by practitioners and educators. This was a theme of some of my postings at Recmgmt-L during the year that I tried out that forum. In fact, I linked in 2005 on the Recgmgmt-L to the corporate archivist’s A&A posting. I found the writer did information professionals a great service in opening a door often kept closed.

Information asymmetry affects reactions to news reporting and commentary. Any number of barriers affect the ability of “the crowd” to correct news links, whether the reporter or op-ed writer is biased, writing as a partisan, or simply misinformed or lacking in awareness. I noted in my post to A&A on Saturday that “Given the sketchy public information [we share] in our own multi-platform information forums, we shouldn’t be surprised that many news stories don’t reflect fully the complexity of the different worlds in which federal, academic and corporate records professionals work.”

The amount of misinformation about Fedland out there astonishes me at times. To its credit, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) now takes a thoughtful, proactive approach to some of the problems. It recently has issued excellent press releases that correct reporting on Federal Records Act issues.

In the past, the agency was low-key and not very proactive, as Kate Theimer and I noted during 2008-2009. Years ago, I pointed at Kate’s blog to the occasional messages that external affairs official David McMillen posted to A&A during Allen Weinstein’s tenure as Archivist. Much has changed since then. NARA now uses Social Media to share widely information about its holdings and the agency itself.

I appreciated McMillen introducing himself to me at SAA’s 2006 conference in Washington. This occurred in a random encounter at the conference hotel as I walked to a session. You see him with me in 2012 in a photo someone took in the Archivist’s Reception Room, after I reconnected with NARA.

In 2006, I was surprised that McMillen recognized me from the information on my name tag. He then told me he got to know me through A&A, as AOTUS David S. Ferriero–whom I’ve come to know in person and like and support–later did, as well. Ferriero established an Office of Strategy and Communications in 2011. You see McMillen’s successor, Meg Phillips of that unit, in the NAGARA CoSA luncheon photo I used in my post last week about Ashley Stevens.

Prior to 2010, many of my messages to A&A were very long. There were a number of reasons for that. One was my need to rely on indirection and third party quotes on some Washington or Fedland issues I couldn’t air out directly. (That still is a problem for me at times.) I understand why that annoyed some List readers. Yet I also appreciate those who understood what I was doing and why. When you “put yourself out there,” you need to be prepared for a range of reactions. Insert one of my favorite phrases: “what happens is highly individual!”

I once laughed at how Rebecca Goldman referred good-naturedly to a longer message posted to A&A as “approaching Maarja-length!” She and Kate Theimer were two of the bloggers who inspired me (thank you!) to start Nixonara. A blog is a better place for me to share long-read musings. Blogs enable us to share more than Listservs. In a subsequent post, I’ll look at the effective use Kathleen Roe has made of “Off the Record” during her term as SAA president.

This weekend, the Washington Post’s magazine included a Q&A with journalist Elizabeth Drew. Some of the questions covered political issues outside the scope of this blog. But two centered on an issue I’ve raised on A&A in the past. How do you assess the news links shared on Listservs, Twitter, and other platforms? The spectrum is wide, ranging from thoughtful analysis to partisan trash talk. Since we in Fedland are more at risk of demagoguery than others in our community, I find Drew’s responses worth sharing.

Asked about reporting on the “abuses of governmental power” generally known as Watergate, Drew looked at the rise of the 24 hour news cycle, cable tv, and the Internet.

“I’m very glad we didn’t even have cable. Because of the sheer overload and all the more passing along of rumors. There was a certain hysteria even then, and — it sounds like the Pilgrim days — all we had were the morning and evening papers and Walter Cronkite. That was it. Imagine if cable were doing 16 hours a day and Twitter, too. You wouldn’t have time to follow all of that. And you wouldn’t have time to think.”

I didn’t read Drew’s Q&A until after I posted to A&A my wall of text musing about context and news stories. I concluded my Saturday Listserv message with an observation that reflects my academic training (historian) and some of my lived, learned, and observed experiences as well as what I’ve head from experts I know in various fields.

“The life cycle of records, from appraisal, to retention/destruction scheduling, to FOIA review, to disclosure review in archives, even what we share in forums (blogs, Twitter, Listservs), can be affected by actions that are individually subjective or by turf battles and environmental or cultural circumstances. The Federal environment is complicated yet news coverage sometimes falls short. This is why I offer a [suggestion], as I have so often here, that List readers take the long view. And in some cases, be patient and let news cycles play out a bit before forming judgments, especially when there are competing forces at play.”

The final question to Elizabeth Drew in the Washington Post’s Q&A was, “Does journalism have time to think now?” What she said about journalism applies to readers as well as reporters:

“It depends on what the job is, and it depends on who the journalist is. You can take the time. You can say, ‘Wait a minute, what does that mean? And why is that person saying that?’ That’s a fundamental question that we always have to keep in mind. Why is he or she telling me this? It’s more of a problem now because there’s so much coming at us. But you have to learn to sort it out and still ask yourselves the same question: What is really going on here?”

In thinking about what to write in this blog post, I considered what, if anything, to say about a message posted to A&A from a subscriber named Peter, a frequent poster of news links and third-party commentary. He shared this as part of a response to a thread about the announcement of proposed revisions to the List’s Terms of Participation:

“. . . . hyperlinks lets see only one individual posts messages regularly with shortened hyperlinks mmmmm wonder who that could be. has that individual ever used the link to send people to a website they wouldn’t want to see? oh yeah a conservative newssite, g*d forbid that someone see or read something that challenges there beliefs.”

In 2009, when Peter complained that A&A and SAA constitute a “hostile” environment, I posted an alternative view. But over time, for a number of reasons, I stopped engaging in threads where he and others discussed partisan websites.

I strongly disagreed with an op ed from The Washington Times posted to A&A July 29, 2014 about NARA, Ferriero, the Obama adminstration’s electronic records management reform initiatives and the Federal Records Act. But I kept my opinion to myself, viewing the op-ed a classic pitch in the dirt by a partisan columnist.

I’ve seen assessments from the right and left over the years that are off the mark. But the speculation in that 2014 column was notably egregious. Seeing such a column become a permanent part of the A&A archives gave me an appreciation for SAA’s later request that posters not share links without context.

Beyond that, I’ve come to look at curation and selection of news links as an exercise in content appraisal, an area in which I and many other archivists also have some experience. Instead of focusing on the negative (the harm done by trash talk in right or left leaning commentary), I’ve taken my dismay at the Washington Times’ column as an opportunity. I curate my own links these days, offering A&A a holistic commentary of records and archives issues–as I see them in Washington. That various people offer different links is not surprising, given the wide range of experiences among federal, corporate and academic archivists, records managers, and historians.

It IS highly individual, after all! And there are opportunities for all. What we make of them lies in our hands. And I am glad I resubscribed to the Listserv in June 2014. I no longer use #thatdarnlist to describe it, as I once did with some ambivalence. Except for an incident in January–illuminating yet dark–my experiences on A&A since June 2014 have been uplifting, even joyous. I’ve discovered some wonderful people among those who respond on and offlist to my links and musings. I’ve found great new blogs to read, as I noted in “What sings to you.” Discovered experts in areas about which I want and need to learn more.

This weekend I read an interesting essay from a historian about what he learned from Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, whom he visited in prison. The scholar observed,

“. . . .I realized that my best shot at conveying the essence of Hunt’s worldview was to let the subject speak for himself. This involved something of a transformation for a ‘radical’ historian who had joined the chorus of [Nixon White House] critics. . . .Yet Hunt taught me that even one’s opponents could be capable of honesty, humility, and intellectual vigor. I began to appreciate that historians served best not as parties to particular disputes, but as thoughtful and even empathetic observers who explained the terms of debate. In the end, I would come to realize, the craft of history offered the chance to develop general insights and broad perspectives on the paradoxes and ironic contradictions of human culture.

The lessons learned from my encounter with Howard Hunt would penetrate my subsequent scholarship. . . .At the same time, Hunt’s unreconstructed conservatism conveyed the warning that personal and political alienation, however compelling a theme in literature and the creative arts, made a poor start for effective politics. Without a degree of respect for those outside one’s immediate reference group, I would come to realize, professed agents of change, whether left or right, faced imminent marginalization. Mobilizing the American people required the ability to sustain an optimistic faith in their capacities.”

A year ago, I wrote in “The gorgeous, the brutalist” a beautiful quote shared by the fabulous Kate Theimer. “Your life follows your attention. Wherever you look, you end up going.” Kate is a wonderful example of a thought leader and force for good in the profession. Thanks to her efforts, some people again will be able to attend SAA 2015 in Cleveland who otherwise might not. And the Cleveland Animal Protective League is benefiting, as well! The quote she shared speaks to my heart. There is so much beauty out there, if you look around. Even in Washington!

Steve Jobs once said,

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become.”

As another thought leader observed earlier this year, do good, say thank you, give back. I can only add, “Find your own way. Do what you can!”

Leave a comment

Posted in archival issues, NARA, U.S. History, Workplace issues

Monthly Archives: August 2015

Humanization, dehumanization

Truth bomb

Diverse voices

Climate, change

Fully human

The extent of our civilization

It’s highly individual

Recent Posts

Email Subscription

Why Archives Matter

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Archives

August 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Jul				Sep »
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31