prezlibs

Note: as you might imagine, my recent posts about the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library have prompted some inquiries as well as revealed some new information. Staunton may be a small town in Virginia, but the Library apparently has a wide reach when it comes to supporters, Trustees, etc. I am grateful to all who contacted me, and welcome any additional comments, public or confidential. As I chase down some of those (very promising!) leads, please enjoy this alternate topic.

–

I can’t thoroughly explore all of the following issues in a short form like a blog post. But I read something recently that resonated, and that is directly related to an issue I discuss in the book: the way that some presidential library museums focus more on the person, rather than the career, achievements, etc., of the former president.

For example, President Clinton’s museum is surprising, especially to visitors who approach it expecting it to be a certain way (a way they’re anxious to get upset about). They can’t wait to get in there and “challenge” all of the “personal stuff.” However, the Clinton Library dedicates less physical space and fewer words and artifacts to the person  Bill Clinton (as opposed to the Arkansas Attorney General, Governor, President and post-President) than any other NARA-run library.

On the upper level, there are three relatively small old-school glass museum cases that contain report cards and similar personal items (and a fourth for the First Lady). And that’s it. There’s no “log cabin.” There no uplifting or tragic setting of upbringing. No pseudo-psychological attempt to connect his later policies with his earlier personal challenges.

The museum (which itself is relatively small given NARA library standards) is about his official career and his administration’s goals. It’s wonky, it’s full of data and stats and quotes, but there’s not a whole heck of a lot about him.

The Reagan Library museum, on the other hand, couldn’t be more different. Take away the Air Force One Pavilion and the Oval Office and you’re left with very little about The President (yes, there are other exhibits that deal with aspects of his presidency, but they are very small, especially relative to the whole).

Everything else is about Ronald Reagan, the Person (or, perhaps, “Ronald Reagan, the Mythic Figure”). Either way, the museum is filled with things that were his - that he owned, that he used - that he touched.  Saddles. Desks. Remington sculptures. The booth in Chasen’s where he proposed.

They’re cast not simply as historical objects, but relics, imbued with both symbolic and literal meaning, just by having been His.*  Yes, there are claims about destroying Communism and restoring American pride (and inconvenient controversies have been quietly erased), but for the most part, the Ronald Reagan Library’s sole focus is Ronald Reagan. It not only promotes the Reagan Myth, it has established and helps to sustain the Reagan Cult. And for the majority of the people who take the trouble to visit, it seems as if that’s exactly what they want.

I mean, if you’d like to continue drinking the Kool-Aid, you have to have a place to refill your glass, right?

–

There may be a method - in fact, sort of the same method - to both approaches. The Clinton Library, which was planned in the aftermath of the Impeachment, focuses on accomplishments, skillfully avoiding character questions. The emphasis on the strengths of the Administration leaves the visitor with less to ruminate about the shortcomings of the man.

The Reagan Library does the opposite: it carefully avoids the statistics of the soaring national debt and ballooning deficits, the first-term recession, the rise of AIDS, homelessness, the growing income gap, the loss of manufacturing, the decline of the American auto industry, Iran-Contra, and the countless other issues which could muck up the otherwise celebratory theme of the permanent exhibit. The emphasis on the man helps the visitor forget about - that is, if they’re old and informed enough to have ever even heard about - the problems of the Administration.**

–

This post was prompted by an article in the New York Times (”Hussein’s Gun May Go on Display at Bush Library”). Read it, and then think about how the Bush Library will turn out. I’ve had many people - including other library officials, Republicans, even unabashed supporters of President Bush - ask me the same question.

They list the fiascos, the failures, the financial collapse, the ethical problems, the alleged crimes (including the war type), the decline of American power and prestige, and ask: how the heck do you build a $200 million dollar library dedicated to the last eight years? 

I think, in looking at the way other library foundations have created their museums, we have an answer. Given all that has happened since 2001, and the sound repudiation the American voting public gave President Bush in 2006 and 2008, it is astonishing that the Bush Foundation has raised more than half of that $200 million in less than six months. People who ponying up big bucks, and it’s not to celebrate any “accomplishments.”

I have a sneaking suspicion we’re in for another Cult Library.

In more ways than one.

–

* The restored Irish pub in the Air Force One Pavilion contains, under glass (as religious artifacts are often displayed) The Actual Glasses and The Actual Bottle that President and Mrs. Reagan used while on a goodwill visit to the pub in Ballyporeen, Ireland…set on The Actual Portion of the Bar With Which He Actually Came into Contact. First photo captured from the web site of the Ronald Reagan Library Foundation.

–

** As well as provides a national party with an seemingly unblemished altar upon which its new heroes may be anointed.

–

I hope that everyone enjoys the long weekend, and the celebration of our nation’s 233rd birthday.

Click here for a good story about the cracking of a code in Thomas Jefferson’s correspondence that went unsolved for more than 200 years. The decrypted message is certainly relevant this weekend!

I don’t plan to post anything new until at least Monday (when we’ll continue to examine the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library).

Among other things, that short hiatus means my friends in Delaware can take a well-deserved break (on both reading and billing!).   :)

–

Or, NARA’s Quo for a Presidential Library Foundation’s Quid
Or, Another Kind of Record NARA Has Kept Me From Seeing

Last month I read an article in the Dallas Morning News about NARA’s review of the plans for the George W. Bush Presidential Library. The fact of the article, as well as the manner in which it was written, reminded me that this is yet another part of the presidential library process unseen and misunderstood by the public and the press. For NARA, that can also mean yet another area where they favor the library foundations inappropriately - especially since they act with almost no oversight.

Journalists who write about the libraries, especially those whose employer is located in the vicinity of a presidential library, seem to be more apt to accept NARA officials’ word at face value and not do much research themselves. They receive a NARA or foundation press release, “parachute” in to the story, (slightly) rework the release and call it an “article.” Because of this, and because of the lack of other readily-available information (especially anything that contradicts NARA), readers wouldn’t necessarily know that anything was wrong with the agency’s portrayal of the issue - I mean, the journalist’s portrayal of the agency’s portrayal.

Over the last few months, a newspaper in the city where the George W. Bush Library Foundation plans to build his library has illustrated this point. The Dallas Morning News - especially their Staff Writer/Intern at the DC Bureau - has published flattering (or at least uncritical) items about NARA (here, here, here, here and here).  Some of these seem to be “exclusives” as other outlets have not published stories on these topics. Might there be a direct pipeline from NL to the DMN?

–

The recent article refers to the statutorily-mandated design review phase.*  In my attempts to review the records of the Office of Presidential Libraries, this is one area that NARA has been particularly sensitive about, and has kept me from seeing the records by using a variety of maneuvers:

At first NARA pretended that they didn’t know what I was talking about when I requested records about the design review process.

Then, NARA said that they had already provided me with records about the design review.

They hadn’t, in fact… they conveniently confused (see #s 53, 54 & 55) the “design review process” with the site selection process, which happens earlier, and which was another kind of record from which NARA officials tried to keep me.

After I pointed out the difference in the records (see p. 2) - a difference that NARA should have clearly understood without me explaining it - they once again changed their excuse. NARA said that since they were releasing all of the Office of Presidential Libraries’ records to me, eventually, any records about the design review process would most likely be included; therefore, NARA determined that they wouldn’t have to respond to my direct FOIA request for them.**

Keep in mind a few things: I requested, specifically, records about the design review process for the Reagan, Bush (1) and Clinton libraries. The first of these libraries underwent the design review process beginning in the late 1980s.

Also keep in mind that when I met with Sharon Fawcett in April 2008, she told me she would give me a “finding aid” for her office’s records, so that I could request specific folders through FOIA. However, she made it clear that she would not allow me to review any records that were created after the early nineties. This, of course, includes the specific design review process records for the Bush and Clinton libraries - at least two thirds of the records I had requested through FOIA.

And, keep in mind that in the current nine-boxes-a-month process, NARA will not be processing any records from the Office of Presidential Libraries after the early nineties.

NARA refuses to grant me access to those design review records through FOIA, and refuses to grant me access to those records through the large production process. NARA officials lie about this, using one excuse after another. The end result is that records about how (or even whether) NARA performed its statutory responsibilities are kept, inappropriately, secret.

–

You may well ask why NARA would want to keep these particular records from public view.

NARA gets a bonus out of these blocking actions: not only do they keep me from reviewing their early records about the Bush (1) and Clinton libraries (and, probably the early days of the Reagan Library), they also keep me from records about some related controversies involving then-Archivist Don Wilson and then-Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, John Fawcett (at the time, Sharon Fawcett’s husband).

For example, evidence strongly indicates that Mr. Wilson provided the Bush (I) Foundation with a sweetheart deal, skirting the legislative requirements for the library’s financial endowment. The organization that builds a presidential library must provide NARA with an endowment according to a specific formula. It appears, from my initial research and interviews, that Mr. Wilson calculated that formula incorrectly. This allowed the Bush Foundation - the organization that began employing Mr. Wilson just a few months later - to provide an endowment several times smaller than it should have been, saving Mr. Wilson’s soon-to-be employers as much as ten million dollars (perhaps more).

If you’re thinking, “gee, it all seems to come back to just a few individuals and a few library foundations, doesn’t it?” - I agree with you. Contrary to my plans before NARA began blocking my access to their records, the analysis of these individuals and foundations now forms a good portion of my book.

–

* For more information about the design review, see this excerpt from NARA’s Architectural & Design Standards for Presidential Libraries, “22. Services available from NARA in the design phase.”

–

** In her belated response to my FOIA denial appeal, dated December 19, 2008, Ms. Thomas claims that since some binders marked “Clinton Drawings and Plans” were included in the boxes made available to me, NARA had provided me with documents relating to the design review process. There are two problems with this reasoning: NARA did not provide me with records relating to NARA’s part in the design review process; and I had requested all records from the design review process for the Reagan, Bush (1) and Clinton libraries, not a few drawings from the Clinton Library. The National Archives has a statutory responsibility to insure that all new presidential libraries offered to the United States meet certain standards and criteria. In terms of records, this should include documentation that demonstrates how NARA fulfilled their duties. The records should not be limited to some drawings submitted to NARA by a single private foundation that built one library. They should also include NARA’s own records of exactly how those responsible reviewed the designs for the libraries, and what, if anything, they did to ensure compliance. Despite Ms. Thomas’ attempt to describe the situation otherwise, these records were not made available to me.

–

Even though, to my knowledge, no one has publicly written anything about the fact that comments were not working on this site, I wanted to let you know that they now appear to be enabled. As I explained in an earlier post, I had technical difficulties that deleted most of the earlier comments. Unfortunately, it looks like those may be gone for good. I’ll keep trying to recover them; I have several backups of the database that I’ve been examining, without luck. At the very least, I’ll be going back through earlier posts, making sure that they’re all enabled for new comments. That might take a while, but the more recent posts seem to be working now.

–

I welcome all comments. When completing the form, you will be asked to provide not only your name, but an email address as well. That will not be published, but may be used to contact you should any questions arise, particularly about your identity (I don’t want to publish comments from someone purporting to be someone else). You do not have to supply a website, although the form provides space for you to do so. If the new filter thinks your comment might be spam, you will be asked to complete a “captcha” question to verify you are not a bot.

–

As this is my personal blog, and not some group-sponsored public forum, I have some modest rules. First, you have to post under your own name. I just won’t approve a comment, whatever its content, without knowing who’s making it. To borrow a phrase from Sam Seaborn, the character from The West Wing, “When I write something, I sign my name.” In my considered opinion, that’s a real, real good rule to follow.

If you feel that you cannot (should not?) make a comment under your own name, I would counsel you to examine why you think you should not. From my experience, it’s generally one of three things: either you’re a proxy for someone else (perhaps, say, officials from your agency?); you want to “ring and run” without taking responsibility (like the characters in the West Wing episode above, whom Sam fired for doing just that); or you want to write something that might get you into trouble at work.

If it’s the first, I’m not going to facilitate that kind of sleazy PR; let your superiors do their own work.

If it’s the second, we’re probably all better off not reading your comments anyway, right?

And if it’s the third, I’m sorry I can’t help. Each of us accepts limitations on our actions as a consequence of our employment. For example, there are issues - some related to my research - about which I cannot comment while I remain in my current job. And, I don’t want anyone to put themselves at risk just to write about something on a narrowly-read blog such as mine.

–

Of course, this is not the only forum where one may comment on my work: there’s a whole world-wide web out there. If you choose to do so elsewhere, I would hope you have the common courtesy to make your remarks, either about me, the content of my postings, or the blog itself, unambiguously, so that they, like mine, may be evaluated on their merits. Thinly-veiled criticism masked as simple, sincere questions shames those who employ such tactics, and they do not allow the target the fair opportunity to respond.

To my knowledge, no one has done so in regard to me or my blog. However, on other sites, I have seen some sad, obsessed people make snide, indirect comments about others with whom they think they are feuding. That kind of unprofessional comment - couched just enough to appear innocuous, but which sends a private message to a select few - ends up harming the commenter more than their target (especially if that target isn’t really aware of the comments). I don’t want this blog to become a haven for that kind of disreputable approach, much less for the kind of self-absorbed, irrelevant and ultimately meaningless blather that characterizes so much of Web commentary. If there’s nonsense on this blog - and there very well may be, from time to time - it should be only from me. :)

As a rule of thumb, if you have something to say - especially some kind of accusation or criticism - have the courage and decency to make it plain, in public, and under your own name, whether or not you choose to do it here.

–

I reserve the right to publish, or not publish, any comments. Rather than edit them - which would be unfair, I think - I will either publish them in whole or not at all.

I will only withhold comments that meet the following criteria: no identifying information (or identity information that cannot be verified); crude or otherwise inappropriate language; extraordinarily lengthy remarks and/or whose main point strays considerably from the topic of the post; or those whose sole purpose is to grandstand on a completely different topic. If I choose to publish a comment, its author is solely responsible for the content.

–

Even when comments were working, I only received a handful of them. I hope that these simple rules do not dissuade anyone from submitting comments, as I appreciate receiving them (especially as comments to posts, rather than as private emails, which I receive in far greater numbers; there seem to be many interested readers who do not feel they are able to comment publicly).

I appreciate, clear, honest, direct feedback/criticism, as well as sincere questions - from those who are able to do so as themselves, publicly.

–

As I have explained in earlier postings, this blog explores, among other things, my personal opinions about the job performance of certain public officials, such as current and former leaders of the National Archives and Records Administration. When I refer to specific information, such as actions, documents, dates, published quotes, etc., and offer my opinion about them, I am expressing my personal beliefs - my own views - about them and the individuals in question.

Mr. Wilson was not only a high-ranking government official, but is someone who, in his official capacities, has sought the opportunity to make public appearances, publish articles, and be quoted in the press, discussing his past achievements and future plans and goals. In the post below, I offer my personal opinion on this subject.

–

In two recent posts (Don Wilson is Back - Sort Of and Don Wilson as Archivist of the United States: Part I), I wrote about the inexplicable decision by the Board of Directors of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library to select Don Wilson (one of their own members) as the new President of what was once a well-regarded institution. As I promised, I will continue to explore this subject. It has the potential to not only impact Staunton, but the federal presidential libraries, too. I will go into greater detail in my book; for now, though, a few thoughts.

–

Over the past twenty years, the National Archives - especially presidential records and libraries - have become politicized. The private foundations that build and support the libraries have played a major role, as have the presidents themselves. But so have certain NARA and library officials, chief among them Don Wilson.

While some of the seeds were planted much earlier - say, in the fight over Richard Nixon’s records, or even the creation, out of thin air, of the deliberative process privilege in Kaiser v. US - NARA became a full-fledged political entity during Mr. Wilson’s tenure as Archivist.  Just read the Senate report about his abysmal conduct as Archivist, or any of the contemporaneous articles about his apparent quid-pro-quo with the first President Bush.*

Mr. Wilson’s illegal attempt to transfer 5,000 presidential computer tapes to the control of President Bush might have been his most blatant political move, but his “political” career began long before the Bush Administration, or even before his nomination as AUS by President Reagan. Indeed, even though the initial press reports at the time of his nomination in 1987 portrayed him as simply an historian-turned-archivist, Mr. Wilson long mixed his professional work and politics. In my opinion, it was his political connections - translating into assurances that the Reagan Administration were appointing someone who would “play ball” - that garnered him the otherwise improbable nomination. Years before he became AUS, when he applied for what was supposed to be a nonpartisan federal position, Mr. Wilson included both “professional” and “political” references (more of the latter, though).**

In this puff piece from 1988 about Mr. Wilson in the New York Times (written by Martin Tolchin, later one of the founders of Politico.com), the author notes that the nomination was seen as “nonpolitical” - and then goes on to write, “Not that Mr. Wilson, a native Kansan, lacked political clout. His nomination was supported by the two Senators from Kansas, Bob Dole and Nancy Landon Kassebaum, both Republicans.” It was supported by a wide variety of politicians - a wide variety of Republican politicians, that is. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, Mr. Wilson was sworn in as Archivist of the United States by then-Representative Dick Cheney.

In the same piece, the author writes, “Mr. Wilson wants to increase the nation’s awareness of its historical heritage. ‘I hope to raise the visibility of the archives,’ he said. ‘I hope to make the American people more aware of the archives’ role as keeper and publicizer of our nation’s heritage.’ ”

Well, he certainly did that. He really helped to publicize the National Archives. As a result of his mismanagement, poor judgment, and politically-motivated decisions, Mr. Wilson raised the profile of the National Archives across the country…just not in a positive way. It’s taken the entirety of the time since Mr. Wilson left NARA in disgrace - and will take even longer - for the agency to slowly climb back towards nonpartisan respectability.

–

In subsequent posts, I’ll look at Mr. Wilson’s unprecedented - and in my opinion, quite inappropriate - direction of the site selection process for the George H.W. Bush Library, whose private foundation he then ran. I’ll also examine the possible - probable - consequences of the Wilson Library Board’s terrible decision to hire Mr. Wilson.

–

* Just a few of these articles: 

George Lardner Jr.  (1993, March 13). Eleventh-Hour Covenant: Lost Memory Computes to Gain for Bush. The Washington Post.

Archivist Says He Talked to Bush About Job Before Deal on Tapes. (1993, March 3). New York Times.

George Lardner Jr. (1993, March 3). Archivist Was Sounded Out In December on Library Job. The Washington Post.

Archivist Says He Did No Wrong on Bush Records. (1993, February 18). Los Angeles Times.

Giving Away the People’s Property: The federal archivist’s action on White House tapes brings demands for an investigation. (1993, February 18). Los Angeles Times.

Labaton, Stephen.  (1993, February 17). Inquiry sought on archivist who made deal with Bush. New York Times.

George Lardner Jr.  (1993, February 17). Lawmakers Ask Probe Of Archivist’s Actions On White House Files. The Washington Post.

Archivist Resigns to Take Bush Job. (1993, February 14). New York Times.

Archivist Gave Bush Control of Tapes, Will Run His Library. (1993, February 13). Los Angeles Times.

Lardner, George Jr.  (1993, February 13). U.S. archivist to quit, run Bush library. The Washington Post.

–

** I’ll go into more detail about that in the book. I think it shines some light on the path that led not only to Mr. Wilson’s nomination as AUS, but his selection as Executive Director of the Bush Library Foundation.

UPDATE appended below.

First, Happy 75th Birthday to the National Archives! I extend congratulations to all NARA employees, past and present, especially the hundreds of staffers whom I have had the pleasure to meet in the course of my research for this book. You are all doing very important work, and we all owe you a debt of gratitude for your dedication, professionalism and commitment. Thank you.

–

John Dean was invited to speak this week at the federal Richard Nixon Presidential Library. Some - including a few who have actually been to the Nixon Library - have weighed in on whether or not they think he should have been invited, whether or not the private foundation that originally built the private Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace should be up in arms about it, and even whether or not Mr. Dean’s appearance requires others to be invited in order to provide “balance.” I would like to offer a few comments, and a few corrections.

Regardless of which portions of the physical plant in Yorba Linda have been deeded to the federal government and which were retained by the private Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation, there is no “private” Nixon Library any longer. There is one institution, and it’s operated by the federal government. Given how badly the “system” of presidential libraries is managed by NARA, I am sure that the government staff at each library, including the Nixon, appreciates any kind of donations to support its mission. But no one organization or individual, not even a former president or his family, has a special or superseding claim on the operation of any presidential library, no matter how much money they donate (or donated).

OK, that should probably read “ought not to have a special or superseding claim”; we all know how Sharon Fawcett improperly favors former presidents, their heirs, and the private foundations. That doesn’t mean that she should, only that she does. That’s not the way the statutes are written, and it’s certainly not the legislative intent of the Congress. Also as we all know, some of us are continuing to work, in public and behind the scenes, to correct that. Not the legislative part; that’s clear. The other part.

–

In any case, the Nixon Foundation did two very nice things: they raised the money to build and initially operate the library, and (eventually, once the money sort of ran out) they deeded the library to the federal government - which now operates it. While the federal government should certainly solicit and carefully consider the opinions of all stakeholders when making decisions about exhibits, public programs, educational efforts and the like, the Nixon Foundation should not have any sort of “veto” on any of the decisions.

From my understanding, the federal government was supposed to have a greater ability to control the use of the entire Nixon Library than at any other presidential library. From watching the first two years of operation under the federal government, this has not seemed to be the case. Since the handover in 2007, the Nixon Foundation has brought in baldly partisan speakers - some on the extreme fringe (of both politics and propriety). And they didn’t bring them to a private institution: they brought them to the federal Richard Nixon Presidential Library. It doesn’t matter in which eerie simulacrum the events were held, they were held on federal property. Having these events at a presidential library bestows the government’s stamp of approval…which is why so many different kinds of events are not allowed at most presidential libraries (but not all libraries…and except for the events the foundation wants to hold itself).

–

The people who feel the need to continually point to what they consider to be the “separation” between the supposedly-NARA archival function and the supposedly non-NARA museum and public programs are incorrect. It’s interesting how often some with archival backgrounds or interests completely misunderstand presidential libraries as a whole. Some believe that anything other than archival functions are handled exclusively by the foundations, freeing NARA from the “entangling mess” of politics, legacy, etc.  They’re wrong.

One cannot divorce a presidential library’s archives from its museum (or its speakers series, or its educational program, or its temporary exhibits). It simply is not a dichotomy, with NARA on one side (the “good” archives) and foundations on another (”we don’t know from exhibits, that’s the foundation’s responsibility”). NARA is ultimately responsible for everything - everything - at a presidential library under its control.

One of the interesting things about this mistake - one that some seem to make over and over - is that historians who have performed original research in one or more library make it far less often than others. These historians seem to have a different perspective on the role of the libraries. Clearly, that doesn’t prevent some historians from being wrong about this. However, the ones who have spent time actually researching records and visiting the libraries’ museums and programs, to see what passes for public history there, understand that there is no real separation.

NARA [is supposed to] run(s) all aspects of the presidential libraries. And in most libraries, they do. The fact that in many cases the foundations provide financial assistance for exhibits and other programs doesn’t mean that NARA also doesn’t provide funding for these items - especially during a long-term overhaul of the permanent exhibits. Even though Sharon Fawcett and others within NARA pretend that museum exhibits are paid for solely by outside “private” funding, they know that the federal government pays a good portion of the cost of creating and renovating permanent (and temporary) exhibits. This is through the extensive involvement of the NARA employees at the libraries (and now, within Central Office NL) who design, plan, execute, promote and teach from these exhibits. Among other issues, in the book I will examine the so-called “successful” “public-private partnerships” between NARA and the foundations.

I have found that most people who blindly defend NARA against the very real and accurate charges of helping to whitewash history, polish presidential legacies, and cooperating with political organizations to promote a partisan viewpoint conveniently grab onto this false dichotomy in order to explain the problems away. It’s as if they believe, “Yes, the foundations are sometimes political, and often seem more interested in promoting the president than in neutral history, but that’s OK, since that’s their role…and since NARA isn’t part of it, there’s no issue.”

NARA isn’t only part of it, they’re the main enabler. The Nixon Library is a clear example of what would happen if the federal government didn’t accept the donation of these libraries once they have been built. No matter how much money is initially raised, or the popularity of the individual president in question, there is no way that a private organization could properly fund, staff and maintain the libraries on their own. The Nixon Library didn’t acquiesce and seek admission to the federal fold out of some vague sense of non-partisan duty to the country; they were going under, and there was no other way out.

Without the staffing, funding, assistance - and, most importantly, the imprimatur - of the federal government, none of the presidential library foundations would be able to do what they do now (or even a fraction of it). From the least-well funded to the ones that are flush with hundreds of millions of dollars, each library foundation relies on the federal government, not the other way around. Without the federal government (and the American-public-owned content in their archives), these would be little more than the curio rooms FDR initially envisioned (no matter how large the rooms actually are). The “coverage” that the government provides to the foundations is this: the libraries not only hold and display our history, the federal government sponsors and runs them; how could they possible be, then, imbalanced and political?

–

The John Dean controversy is a perfect example of what ought to be happening at federal presidential libraries: public history. Open discourse. Something meaningful outside the generous legacy-polishing in which the libraries engage.

Inviting Mr. Dean - especially Mr. Dean - is a great idea, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that the Nixon Library (indeed, any federal presidential library) should not be a place solely for Nixon worshippers and apologists. That the Nixon Foundation got upset, protested the invitation and tried to get it canceled only illustrates this point. Their objection seems to have been that John Dean was inconvenient to their narrative. He doesn’t fit in to the otherwise strictly-controlled game plan: from the foundation’s point of view, you may only speak at the Nixon Library under two circumstances: you have nothing but great things to say about Nixon or you have nothing but bad things to say about Democrats.

The Nixon Foundation even accused the Library of “irrational and unbalanced” programming. In the past, the Foundation has invited (among many others) Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, James A. Baker III, Dan Quayle, Dennis Hastert, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Mike Deaver, and Dennis Prager to speak. They never provided a “counter speaker” for those individuals, who are not anything close to being known for balanced, professional analysis. Perhaps this is because the foundation felt that it wasn’t necessary, as their job is Nixonian myth-making, not historical “balance.”

There seem to be two problems that the Foundation has with this speaker - no less qualified to speak there, and no less controversial, than their pro-Nixon/anti-liberal roster: they’ve tried for years to make Mr. Dean the fall guy for Watergate (and Mr. Dean, as well as the documented facts of history, have made it somewhat inconveniently difficult for them to do so); and, he left the “fold” and dared to criticize conservatives/Republicans.

It’s not just that someone who isn’t a Nixon acolyte has been invited to speak at (what once clearly was, and is fast becoming less than) the Nixon Shrine, it’s who in particular has been invited.

The Director of the Nixon Library, Tim Naftali, is doing what he promised he would do, from even before he started work there officially (I first interviewed him in October 2006, nine months before the Nixon Library was turned over to NARA): to move past the “tribal squabble” and towards true history.

The very fact of Mr. Dean’s invitation is part of the counterpoint that Dr. Naftali has brought to his work. Until now it’s been very much an imbalance; Mr. Dean’s appearance isn’t something that needs balance, it’s something that begins to bring balance.

On the issue of speakers and other public events, the presidential libraries are either very balanced in terms of perspective and range of topics, or they’re political, and their choices reflect their bent. There is really no library that’s in-between. In my opinion, the Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan and Bush (I) libraries are political in their invitations, and project a particular political point of view. The rest, while certainly promoting the idea that their president was great, do not regularly offer similar political programming.

The political libraries rarely offer non-partisan speakers (or even partisan “balance”) and the non-political libraries rarely present controversial figures. The reason we’re even hearing about this - the reason anyone is making a fuss - is because it happened at a political library, but the speaker’s politics aren’t quite what the foundation ordered. The last time anyone made a big fuss about a speaker at a presidential library was when Nancy Reagan invited Senator Edward Kennedy to speak at the Reagan Library. That, too, was the result of a political library crossing its normally strict Republican boundary and offering a place for someone considered by the faithful to be anathema. That was different in another way, too; the Reagan Foundation was the sponsor (with many special guests of the foundation in attendance, though not necessarily in accord with the Senator). Most of the protests for that event came from outside the foundation.

–

Kudos to Dr. Naftali…this is part of what he was hired to do. And It’s the kind of thing I have been waiting (patiently) to see ever since he (and NARA) founded the Nixon Presidential Library.

In my opinion, it shows what’s possible, despite insistent foundations and despite political pressure and despite obsequious NARA leaders.

It shows the other libraries a different way - one that’s navigable, one that’s meaningful, and one that won’t ultimately cost them the support of the foundations. Where else would they go?

And it shows they found the right person for the job. Please, please: keep up the good work.

–

UPDATE: I hadn’t noticed it before, but in an article in the OC Register from Wednesday, June 17, there’s a quote that’s too good to be true. Sandy Quinn, the Assistant Director of the Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation, says, in his reasoning for why John Dean was not an appropriate choice to speak at the Nixon Presidential Library, “He’s disgraced and has been disbarred.”

Mr. Quinn actually said that.

I wonder whether Mr. Quinn recalls that another attorney, also disgraced and also disbarred, spoke at the Nixon Library. Many times.

Probably not the best argument to put forth in this particular situation, don’t you think?

–

After a few posts this week, I’m going to a modified schedule. I’ll most likely post no more often than once a week (some weeks not even that much) for the next few months. While sharing what I find is tremendously rewarding (not to mention relatively effective in promoting change in a federal agency) I have a lot of work to do on the book, as well as several articles I’ve promised editors.

You must be wondering if that will be enough for you.   :)

Whether you’re a NARA employee or official, an historian, an archivist, an interested reader…or a private IP attorney, a friend/colleague of a NARA litigator, keeping track of what I write*…you should get your fill.

I’ll post plenty of items over the coming months, including updates on outstanding questions I’ve asked recently, more documents from my research and a variety of interesting photographs from the library museums. There might be additional congressional hearings, a few news stories about the libraries, one or two NARA personnel announcements, and, once the Administration makes public whom they’ve chosen as their nominee for AUS, I’ll add my two cents about the individual.

As always, thanks for your continued interest.

–

* When you’re the worst federal agency in which to work, you’re bound to have more leaks than the average workplace - especially when the main problem for staff is poor leadership. If you think your supervisor is doing a bad job - or, worse, acting inappropriately - you might be more likely to “talk.”  And it’s surprising: it’s not always someone talking about people above them in the hierarchy, or even someone you’d think would be sympathetic to your cause.

Some unsolicited advice for NARA officials: you might want to think about being more discreet, especially when asking outside attorneys for help on the Q.T. If you’re trying to “get” someone, losing the element of surprise and alerting them makes things that much more difficult, don’t you think?   J

Usually, I work my way into a post, explaining what you may need to know to understand an item or topic before I get to my main point. Today, I’ll work backwards: with the Archivist’s Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries, I believe the National Archives is wasting tens of thousands of dollars and misusing the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The Advisory Committee (established in 1988 by notorious Archivist of the United States Don Wilson), hasn’t met in three and a half years - even though NARA claims that it meets twice a year. The Archivist keeps renewing the Committee, and NARA budgets at least twenty thousand dollars a year for it, but it doesn’t meet (not officially, at least), it doesn’t issue any findings, and, according to NARA, has only made a single recommendation - in the entire twenty-one year life of the committee.

Worse, the Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries - with such a title, one would expect a balanced mix of stakeholders, including historians, researchers, museum professionals, archivists, records managers, public historians, teachers, local interests, etc. - is instead made up solely of representatives from the private foundations that build and support the presidential libraries. No one else has ever served (or may serve, according to the Committee’s charter).

These are the same representatives who often meet, together with the directors of the presidential libraries, at the biannual meetings NARA does hold. I wonder if this Committee was founded simply to defray the costs of traveling to these meetings, at the same time avoiding the strict openness and reporting requirements of federal advisory committees?

And if they budget the amount, but don’t spend it (because they don’t “officially” meet), what do they do with that money?

The Act isn’t a criminal statute, and there’s little there in terms of oversight and enforcement. The General Services Administration can’t do anything to compel compliance - but Congress can (and, I hope, will). In just a casual examination of the records, one can find several procedural violations of the Act committed by NARA officials.

–

When we think of how badly the presidential libraries are mismanaged - mired in controversy, stuck in decades-long backlogs, pushing out a steady stream of historically-inaccurate propaganda - and we see how much money - private, local, state and federal - is being spent on them, we should wonder who’s benefiting from all of this. It certainly isn’t the American public.

When we consider NARA’s half-hearted attempts to “reform” them, and the incompetent people chosen to “lead” them, we should ask why there isn’t more input from the individuals and groups who really should be the beneficiaries of the libraries. Instead, NARA keeps it a “closed loop” - receiving advice and recommendations from the same - and at times, only - people who truly benefit.

–

According to a recent CRS report, Federal Advisory Committees “are created as provisional advisory bodies that can circumvent bureaucratic constraints to collect a variety of viewpoints on specific policy issues…These committees are often created to help the government manage and solve complex or divisive issues.”

According to this web page on NARA’s site, “In November 1988, the Archivist of the United States formed an Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries.

• Each of the twelve advisors represents one of the Libraries and materials projects.
• The committee meets bi-annually and makes recommendations to the Archivist for improving the Libraries’ functions.“

Since 1988 the Archivist of the United States has renewed the Committee as being “in the public interest due to the expertise and valuable advice the Committee members provide.”  Click here to view the most recent Charter for the Committee (a Word document).

In April 2008, Sharon Fawcett, the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, told me that the Committee has not met in “some time.” According to the Federal Register - where advance public notice of all such meetings must appear - the Committee last met on January 26, 2006, more than three years ago. And yet, on July 21, 2008, then-Archivist Allen Weinstein renewed the Committee, writing that “…NARA will use the Committee’s recommendations in its implementation of strategies for the efficient operation of the Presidential libraries…”

NARA budgets at least $20,000 a year for travel for the members of the Committee and for NARA staff. As they have not met since 2006, I do not know if NARA spends that money on something else (in the end-of-the-federal-fiscal-year scramble known as “use it or lose it”) or if it just gets unspent (possible, though highly unlikely, in our federal budget system).

Or, perhaps, NARA uses the money on Committee meetings, but pretends they are not actual Committee meetings, and so doesn’t open them to the public.

According to the Federal Advisory Committee Database, the Committee provides the Archivist of the United States with “advice and suggestions for new approaches and new programs to be undertaken by existing Presidential Libraries, and with guidance in the development of new Presidential Libraries.”

The statute requires that membership must “be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.”

The NARA page lists the current members as follows (connections to each library added):

• F. Forbes Olberg (Hoover Presidential Library)
• Milton Kayle (Truman Presidential Library
• Caroline Kennedy  (Kennedy Presidential Library)
• David Eisenhower (Eisenhower Presidential Library)
• Robert Lipshutz (Carter Presidential Library)
• James W. Cicconi (George H.W. Bush  Presidential Library)
• Ambassador William J. vanden Heuvel (Roosevelt  Presidential Library)
• Stewart Etherington (Eisenhower Presidential Library)
• Tom Johnson (Johnson Presidential Library)
• Martin J. Allen, Jr. (Ford Presidential Library and Presidential Museum)
• Fred Ryan (Reagan Presidential Library)
• Skip Rutherford (Clinton Presidential Library)

Based on interviews and publicly-available documents, I think that the list is out of date, and has been for some time. The terms of seven members listed in the report from the fido.gov database have already expired this years, so even that list is out of date.

-

Here are some unanswered questions (but don’t hold your breath waiting for a response from NARA):

1. Why hasn’t the Archivist or the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries called a meeting of the Advisory Committee in three and a half years?

2. Since the Committee effectively no longer meets, why does the Archivist keep renewing it - as recently as last summer?

3. Has NARA spent the money it allocates to the Committee over the last four years? And if so, on what?

4. Why, contrary to the statute’s requirement to provide balance in the membership, is the Committee comprised solely of representatives of the private (and sometimes political) foundations?

5. Is NARA, as clearly appears to be the case, not interested in receiving, in a consistent and organized manner, the recommendations of all other stakeholders and individuals and organizations of interest in the presidential libraries?

6. Why, if the Committee is in the public interest, has it only made a single recommendation in its entire twenty-one year existence? What was that single recommendation?

7. Have all or most of the Committee members met in any form, at any time, since the January 2006 meeting?  If so, why was this not called as a formal meeting of the Committee, and therefore made open to the public?

8. Is the reason that the Committee has not met for so long because FACA requires the meetings to be open to the public, and information about the meetings to be publicly-available - and the Committee prefers to meet behind closed doors?

9. Does the Committee meet regularly anyway with NARA officials (such as during the biannual private meetings of presidential library directors), but in secret, and without disclosing their activities?

10. As it appears to believe with regard to the statutes governing records management and regulations governing archival practice, does NARA believe that it is also exempt from the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act?

-

As you can probably tell by now, the examples of the ways that NARA - especially the Office of Presidential Libraries - flouts the law, and federal regulations, and good management practice - are virtually endless. I’m going to keep documenting them here, and in the book, while hoping someone takes responsibility and fixes these serious problems.

Really? At the Ronald Reagan Library? 

Does this mean that the phrase “stop reliving the sixties!” may no longer be used by conservatives?  That they now think it’s a good thing?   :)

This reminds me of the town meeting scene in Field of Dreams:

Annie Kinsella: Terence Mann was a voice of reason during a time of great madness. Where others were chanting, “Burn, baby burn”, he was talking about love and peace and prosperity. He coined the phrase, “Make love, not war”. I cherished every one of his books, and I dearly wish he had written some more. And if you experienced even a little bit of the sixties, you would feel the same way, too.

Beulah: [indignantly] I experienced  the sixties.

Annie Kinsella: No, I think you had two fifties and moved right into the seventies.

–

There are some who think Reagan had three fifties and moved right into the eighties.

–

Longtime readers know about my large FOIA request that NARA has been processing since last September. They process a certain number of boxes per month, and I can review them at their Archives II facility in College Park, Maryland.

Archivists, historians, and researchers also will know about the process of signing records in and out. Reference slips are completed by the requester for the records they wish to review; once the boxes have been pulled, the researcher initials them to indicate that they have checked them out, including the date and time. When the researcher returns the boxes, they initial them again, with the date and time they have returned them. At that time, the researcher indicates whether they wish to hold the records for later review or to have them refiled. All of this is done to ensure that the researcher who checks out the records is properly held responsible for them during the time they are in their possession, and that they will be available to the researcher if necessary.

This is an important part of the research process, and the procedures protect both the requester and the institution. While records are in the possession of the researcher, they are legally responsible for their care. Should the records be damaged or go missing, the reference slips will indicate who had them, and during what time period. In all archives where I have performed research, including NARA and the presidential libraries, this process is taken seriously.

When I request records at Archives II that have been pulled or set aside for me, I am required to show my NARA-issued identification card before the staffer will pull the reference slip; I am required to initial the slip before the staffer retrieves the cart with the records. When I return the cart of records to the reference desk, I am not required to show my identification, which is logical (as well as practical in a busy research room). I am in possession of the records, which means, if the procedures were followed properly, that I signed them out properly. When I bring the cart to the desk, I am given the reference slip again, where I must initial, with the date and time, and indicate whether I want them held or refiled.

–

With this large FOIA request, I may request, in advance, to have up to eighteen boxes waiting for me in the staging area, and then I can access them in person, one nine-box-cart at a time. So that the proper procedure can be followed, when I request boxes in advance, someone from NARA completes a reference slip for the boxes - although they do not sign or initial them as me. That’s important.

NARA has waived the limitation on how long the boxes may remain in the staging area before they must be refiled. For normal, accessioned records, this regulation ensures that no one researcher monopolizes records at the expense of others waiting to see them. Since the boxes NARA is preparing for me are the result of a FOIA request, no one else may use them until I have completed my review; therefore, while it is generous of NARA to waive the limit, it’s not interfering with any other researcher’s work to keep the boxes available to me for a long period of time.

Over the last several months, we’ve worked out a few glitches and miscommunications with the procedure, and I had thought it had been settled. I have not been able to get to Archives II for quite some time, but I assumed that the boxes would be available when I got there. I’d have to check my notes to learn the last time I was there, but not in the last four or five weeks, if not longer.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I got an email this week from Jay Olin, NARA’s Deputy FOIA Officer, stating that I had marked boxes for refile on May 21, 2009 at 9:50 am.

I wasn’t at Archives II at any time on May 21, 2009, nor, I believe, at any time in May.

Attached to the email were scans of two reference slips showing the boxes marked for refile, the date and time, and my initials. I didn’t mark them. Ever. Someone else, pretending to be me, marked them.

This is disturbing, and I lay out my concerns in a letter to NARA I sent today.

–

Heck, this could be as simple as some NARA staffer having similar initials to mine, and just refiling on their own initiative. Maybe that’s what happened, but Mr. Olin incorrectly thought that it was me and my initials. That’s unlikely, but possible.

I have no problem with someone changing the procedure, and refiling the boxes. Perhaps they needed the room in the staging area (something that Mr. Olin had indicated earlier could be a problem). If that were the case, then someone with the proper authority should have made the decision, and certainly not by using my initials. Also, I should have been notified.

And, I believe, if this were the case, I would have. If someone at NARA felt that the boxes should be refiled, I believe, from recent experience, that they would have done so properly - without making it look as if I had actually initialed the slips - and that I would have been notified by Mr. Olin or someone else.

This is why this is so disturbing: not only did someone improperly mark the slips with my initials, but Mr. Olin thought I had done so. To me, this indicates that it was not because the space was needed.

It seems as if someone else has access to the records, pretending to be me.

If that sounds paranoid, or an over-reaction, I could understand - if you haven’t been reading this blog. One of my concerns has been that, facing my well-documented criticisms, under pressure from officials to blunt or counter it (which I’ve been able to establish with NARA’s own documents), someone from NARA might accuse me of something improper - such as mishandling of records. I have taken great care to avoid even the suggestion that I would do so, and perform all of my research at Archives II in a windowed room, under the direct supervision of staff as well as a dedicated video camera. However, if someone else has access to the records but makes it look like I had them, then anything is possible.

In my letter today, I have asked NARA to look into how this happened and to inform me of their findings. I hope it’s just someone at NARA improperly marking my initials in order to be able to refile the records. But someone obviously did it, and well enough to convince Mr. Olin that I in fact had done it. And that’s unacceptable.

Oh, and by the way - once again, not only is something not proper at NARA, it’s also not competent - my initials are “AJC” not “AHC” - as the person claiming to be me marked on the slips.