Anna Kasten Nelson

The public documents commission: Politics and presidential records

Abstract The history of the Public Documents Commission and the Presidential Records Act begins with the events of the closing months of the Nixon Presidency. In order to assume control of the Nixon records and tapes. Congress quickly enacted the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. Title II of the Act established the Public Documents Commission. It was thought that careful study by this Commission would lead to carefully developed legislation concerning presidential records. However, for reasons inherent in the organization of the Commission, it unfortunately had only a peripheral effect upon the legislation. The Commission was subject to casual decisions by the Ford Administration and dominated by its Chairman, Herbert Brownell. Its history is one of division and disagreement. The final result was the submission to the President and Congress of two reports—a majority report and an alternate report signed only by one commissioner and the chairman. As a result, no leadership was exerted to ensure the passage of a thoughtful Presidential Records Act. Impetus for legislation came from an interested member of Congress who had had no affiliation with the Commission and little knowledge of the body of material it had gathered. The Act finally passed into law through compromise with a White House more concerned with its own records than the far reaching effects of the legislation.

The Outsider as Insider: Reflections on the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board

FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS, one of the most pervasive and effective ways to control history has been through the control of the information in government records. Classified national security records, a product of the Cold War, have been closely held in spite of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the various Executive Orders regulating their declassification. At best, secrecy has led to inaccurate history; at worst, it has led to countless conspiracy theories. Researchers have fought to open historically valuable government records through legislation, courts, and public outcry. But because few historians had security clearances, they were at an even greater disadvantage than their colleagues in other fields. Academic historians have always been on the outside of an impenetrable wall, frustrated by their lack of influence and thwarted by their lack of power. I was one of those outsiders. For almost twenty years I stood at the barricades to fight for access to historically valuable information. I was on every access committee sponsored by the major historical associations;

Government Historical Offices and Public Records

The formation of the Federal Resource Group of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (NCC) has led to publication of the first extensive survey of government historical offices and their functions.1 It will come as no surprise to those who examine the results of this survey that over 70 percent of the historical offices reported that they write formal institutional history, or that over 50 percent also write annual reports for their agencies. What may surprise both historians and archivists is that 70 percent of the offices reported that they also evaluate current agency records and select them for preservation, while over 80 percent prepare and maintain chronologies and bibliographies. In other words, many government historical offices are deeply committed to preserving and providing access to the records of the federal government. This NCC survey of historical activities confirmed the information obtained in a different fashion through private interviews and public testimony by the National Study Commission on Records and Documents of Federal Officials (Public Documents Commission). Summarizing the information gained by this commission thus provides an excellent means of amplifying the results of the NCC survey while illustrating to both historians and archivists the important inter-relationship between the writing of institutional history, the keeping of records, and the accessibility of those records to scholars. The following discussion will include only those offices concerned with records and documents. Many other historical offices such as, for one example, the office in the National Park Service, are important to their agencies and the public; but their concerns lie outside the scope of this study.2

Caught in the Web of McCarthy ism: Anna M. Rosenberg and the Senate Armed Services Committee

Anna Rosenberg, an ardent New Dealer and friend of President Roosevelt, was appointed to the position of assistant secretary of defense for personnel and manpower in 1950. She was nominated at the height of the Korean War and the opening of the era of McCarthyism. Unlike others, who were unable to withstand the accusations of disloyalty during the confirmation process, she survived and had a distinguished career in the Defense Department. This article is about her battle for confirmation before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The 1985 Report of the Committee on the Records of Government: An Assessment.

The Report highlights the problems of administering government records in the age of electronic information. It notes fragmentation in information policies governing the records of Federal agencies and the failure to coordinate these policies. The recommendations of the Committee were designed to point the way toward devising solutions, rather than specifying them. In spite of widespread interest in the Report it has had very little impact since its release in March 1985.