U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–382 PDF 2009

NATIONAL ARCHIVES: ADVISORY COMMITTEES

AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 20, 2009

Serial No. 111–28

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERRY E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

DIANE E. WATSON, California

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

DARRYL PIGGEE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on October 20, 2009 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Fawcett, Sharon, Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, National

Archives and Records Administration; Martha Morphy, Chief Information Officer, National Archives and Records Administration; Robert

Flaak, Director, Committee Management Secretariat, General Services

Administration; and Christopher Greer, Assistant Director for Information Technology Research and Development, White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy ..................................................................... 18

Fawcett, Sharon ........................................................................................ 18

Flaak, Robert ............................................................................................. 51

Greer, Christopher .................................................................................... 47

Morphy, Martha ........................................................................................ 40

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 4

Fawcett, Sharon, Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, National

Archives and Records Administration, prepared statement of ................. 21

Flaak, Robert, Director, Committee Management Secretariat, General

Services Administration, prepared statement of ........................................ 54

Greer, Christopher, Assistant Director for Information Technology Research and Development, White House Office of Science and Technology

Policy, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 49

McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of North Carolina, prepared statement of ................................................... 14

Morphy, Martha, Chief Information Officer, National Archives and

Records Administration, prepared statement of ......................................... 42

(1)

NATIONAL ARCHIVES: ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND

NATIONAL ARCHIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Clay and McHenry.

Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Jean Gosa,

clerk; Frank Davis, professional staff; Yvette Cravins, counsel;

Charisma Williams, staff assistant; Anthony Clark, professional

staff member; Leneal Scott, information systems manager (full

committee); Adam Hodge, deputy press secretary (full committee);

Gerri Willis, special assistant (full committee); Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior counsel; and Chapin Fay and Jonathan Skladany, minority

counsels.

Mr. CLAY. Good afternoon. The Information Policy, Census, and

National Archives Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government

Reform Committee will come to order.

Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member will

have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed by opening

statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who

seeks recognition.

Without objection, Members and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for

the record.

Welcome to today’s oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘National Archives: Advisory Committees and their Effectiveness.’’ The purpose

of today’s hearing is to examine the National Archives’ use of Federal advisory committees. We will consider several important topics, including the statutory requirements of Federal advisory committees, the impact of the advisory committees on NARA decisionmaking, relevant developments in Presidential libraries, and compare NARA’s use of two very different committees.

The National Archives’ stated mission is to serve American democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our Government. As we will hear from our witnesses today, in order to help

them fulfill their mission successfully, NARA employs advisory

committees made up of outside experts and subject to the Federal

2

Advisory Committee Act. We will examine two of those committees

this afternoon, one for the Electronic Records Archives and one on

Presidential libraries.

Before we go to our witnesses, I would like to address the role

of advisory committees under FACA at the National Archives.

Presidents and executive agencies have utilized outside expertise

since George Washington’s Presidency, and Congress has exerted

legislative control over advisory bodies since 1842. Responding to

increasing concerns that Federal advisory committees were inefficient, inaccessible, and imbalanced, in 1972 Congress enacted

FACA, which requires that committee membership must be fairly

balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed, and the committee should not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest. Additionally, FACA requires nearly all committee meetings

to be open to the public.

This subcommittee is concerned about NARA’s Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries, both as regards its effectiveness at

this critical time for Presidential records and libraries, and in

terms of NARA’s compliance with FACA.

As we will hear from our witnesses, the Committee on Presidential Libraries is very different in important ways from most

Federal advisory committees, including another important NARA

Committee on Electronic Records Archives.

NARA claims that the membership of the Advisory Committee on

Presidential Libraries must be limited to representatives of the private foundation that build and support the libraries because they

have been deeply involved in the development of the various libraries and can speak with authority on issues that arise in connection

with establishing new libraries or administering existing ones.

Obviously, the expertise of the foundation is quite valuable, given

the rare world that they live and work in. After all, there are currently only 12 open Presidential libraries in the Federal system,

and understanding how to prepare for, build, maintain, and support one requires a very specific set of skills and experience. However, that the membership is so narrowly limited concerns this subcommittee in light of FACA’s clear requirement that committees be

fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented.

The advisory committee does not include any other relevant

stakeholders, historians, archivists, preservationists, curators, and

other museum performances, educators, researchers, whose experience, perspectives, and skills could greatly assist NARA.

Also troubling is the fact that the committee appears no longer

to meet. There are many serious issues surrounding the Presidential libraries, not the least of which are the current plans for

the next library for former President George W. Bush, and yet the

Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries last met in January

2006, almost 4 years ago. As far as this subcommittee knows, there

are no plans for the committee to meet again, even though NARA

continues to reauthorize the committee and appoint or reappoint

members from the private foundations.

The challenges faced by new and existing Presidential libraries

are not limited to fund-raising and construction. There are serious

questions of prompt and proper access to Presidential records; the

3

records management policies and practices of Presidential administrations and executive agencies; the care, preservation, and exhibition of priceless artifacts and other national treasures; the security of Presidential collections at the libraries and at other NARA

facilities; the role of the libraries in the education of our young people; the historical balance, or often lack of balance, within permanent and temporary museum exhibits; just to name a few.

It is this subcommittee’s hope that through our hearing today we

will gain a better understanding of NARA’s reasons for treating

this advisory committee so differently and will provide the National

Archives with some valuable information they can use in order to

make their advisory committees more efficient and effective.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Mr. CLAY. Now on to today’s topic. I will now yield to the distinguished ranking minority member, Mr. McHenry of North Carolina.

Mr. McHenry, you are recognized.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your

leadership.

Thank you all for being here today. I know it is not easy to make

the trek up to the Hill, but we certainly appreciate your time and

your testimony, as well as the written testimony you have already

submitted for the record.

We will also be exploring pretty important subject matter today

that goes often unnoticed, and that is Federal advisory committees.

As we will hear testimony today, in 2008, 49 Executive departments and agencies utilized advisory committees consisting of over

63,000 committee members serving on more than 900 committees

and providing advice to Government officials and employees.

These Government advisory committees are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA], as the chairman mentioned,

which was passed in 1972 as part of a good Government initiative.

As the chairman said, advisory committees go significantly further

back, obviously, than 1972, and Congress’ role in oversight of those

advisory committees is certainly important.

FACA requires that committee members be ‘‘fairly balanced in

terms of the point of view represented and the functions to be performed,’’ and the committee ‘‘not be inappropriately influenced by

the appointing authority or by any special interest.’’

FACA is designed to ensure both the even-handedness and transparency of Federal advisory committees. Moreover, FACA provides

for multiple tiers of oversight by the President, Congress, and the

GSA, which we will certainly hear from today, and the agencies,

themselves, which additionally we will hear from today.

It is in this oversight vein that we are here today to explore the

operations and efficiencies and efficacy, furthermore, of the advisory committees, giving advice to the National Archives and

Records Administration [NARA]. To that end, we will be hearing

from NARA officials responsible for the agency’s committees, the

General Services Administration, and the committees, themselves.

It is up to us as Members of Congress to ensure that NARA’s advisory committees, which are often made up of members outside of

Government, are living up to the good Government standards set

forth under FACA.

The National Archives, much like advisory committees, in general, is an agency that conducts invaluable work, that is certainly

true, but not always with the highest level of public scrutiny, as

often important agencies are lost to public scrutiny. Perhaps because of this lack of transparency and sunlight, the agency has suffered multiple egregious security lapses as of late.

13

Mr. Chairman, while I believe that the recent National Archives

security breaches represent a much more urgent call for appropriate oversight hearings by this committee, as we have previously

had—and I appreciate your leadership on that—I look forward to

today’s testimony so that we can ensure our advisory committees

are acting in a balanced and transparent manner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Patrick T. McHenry follows:]

14

15

16

17

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. McHenry, for your participation in

this hearing and in previous hearings, and your cooperation on

these issues. It is one thing that I think you say about this subcommittee is that we do work together and that we do understand

the importance of these issues. So thank you for your service.

I would now like to introduce our panel.

Our first witness will be Sharon K. Fawcett. Ms. Fawcett is the

assistant archivist for Presidential Libraries. In that position she

provides policy, direction, and oversight of the 13 Presidential libraries administered by the National Archives and Records Administration. Ms. Fawcett began working at the National Archives in

1969 as an archivist on the staff of the Lyndon B. Johnson Library.

Ms. Fawcett is the committee decisionmaker under FACA for the

Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries.

Welcome today at this hearing, Ms. Fawcett.

Our next witness is Martha Morphy. Ms. Morphy is currently the

chief information officer of NARA. She is responsible for all NARA

information technology projects, including the acquisition of

NARA’s ERA system, a system that preserves and provides longterm access to uniquely valuable electronic records of the U.S. Government and transitions Government-wide management of the life

cycle of all records into the realm of e-Government. Ms. Morphy is

the committee decisionmaker under FACA for the Advisory Committee on Electronic Records Archive.

After Ms. Morphy we will hear from Dr. Christopher Greer. Dr.

Greer is currently assistant director for information technology research and development at the White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy and was previously Program Director for the Office of Cyber Infrastructure at the National Science Foundation.

Dr. Greer is a member of the Advisory Committee on Electronic

Records Archives.

Our final witness will be Robert Flaak. Mr. Flaak is currently

the director of the Committee Management Secretariat, an organization that monitors and reports executive branch compliance with

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and is also Deputy Executive

Director of the Office of Policy Initiatives at the General Services

Administration. He previously served as the Deputy Executive Director of the Office of Administrative Policy and Office of Government-Wide Policy of the General Services Administration and as

the head of the committee operations staff, and later Deputy Director of the Science Advisory Committee at the EPA.

I thank all of our witnesses for appearing today and look forward

to your testimony.

It is the policy of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to swear in all witnesses before they testify. Would you all

please stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in

the affirmative.

I ask that each witness now give a brief summary of their testimony. Please limit your summary to 5 minutes. Your complete

written statement will be included in the hearing record.

I have just been informed that Ms. Fawcett and Ms. Morphy

have been replaced as committee decisionmakers of their respective

18

committees as of yesterday morning. We will let the record reflect

that.

Ms. Fawcett, you may begin, please.

STATEMENTS OF SHARON FAWCETT, ASSISTANT ARCHIVIST

FOR PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND

RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; MARTHA MORPHY, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION; ROBERT FLAAK, DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE

MANAGEMENT SECRETARIAT, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND CHRISTOPHER GREER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

STATEMENT OF SHARON FAWCETT

Ms. FAWCETT. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, I

want to thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today

on NARA’s use of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries was established by the

former Archivist of the United States Don Wilson in 1988. The

committee last met on January 26, 2006.

Former Archivist Don Wilson tasked the committee to provide

advice to the Archivist on matters relating to the Archival Museum

and public programs of the Presidential libraries. The original

membership was composed of representatives of each of the foundations or families that had developed an existing Presidential library. It was intended that the membership expand when new

Presidential libraries were created, and so it did. The meetings

served as a forum for the discussion of issues relevant to NARA

and the Presidential foundations.

Over the 21-year history of the committee, it provided the Archivist advice and recommendation in a number of areas, including

the need for additional Government resources to support core programs; comments on a 1995 report on the relationship between the

Presidential libraries and their support foundations; the responsibility for funding renovations, exhibits, and programs in Presidential libraries; ideas on marketing strategies for Presidential libraries; whether the National Archives Trust Fund Board should

re-examine its trust fund investment strategy in order to increase

returns on investments; and whether NARA should consider the

possibility of allowing dual compensation for library directors who

also served as executive directors of library foundations.

After the 2006 meeting, Archivist Allen Weinstein did not convene subsequent committee meetings. Representatives of the foundations, not the advisory committee, have chosen recently to meet

among themselves to discuss issues of common interest and concern. Foundation and/or family representatives convened together

at a Washington, DC, hotel in April 2008. Archivist Allen

Weinstein and I were invited to provide an update on NARA and

library activities following an evening reception, and we did so. We

did not attend any of the discussions the next day, though it is my

understanding that these discussions focused on budgetary issues,

19

including funding for core archival processes, digitization, and information technology.

I was asked to address whether NARA has received all the information from this advisory committee needed to properly evaluate

the proposal for the planned George Bush Presidential Library.

Neither Archivist Carlin nor Archivist Weinstein used the committee to evaluate new library proposals. NARA developed architectural design standards in 1999 which govern the design, building,

and acceptance of a Presidential archival depository.

The Archivist invited representatives from the George W. Bush

Library Committee to meet with the advisory committee in January 2006. At an informal lunch following the meeting, the library

directors and members of the committee provided suggestions on

best practices and mistakes to avoid. My office compiled a summary of the advice for the Bush Library Committee, which I have

provided to you.

The Archivist encouraged the Bush committee to visit some of

the Presidential Libraries and meet with library and foundation

staff, which I believe they did.

As NARA laid out in our report, Alternative Models for Presidential Libraries, our relationship with library foundations is complex. The Government’s role is to run the library, which involves

preserving the collections, processing the records for public access,

and working to ensure that the historical content of exhibits and

education programs reflects an objective perspective of the Presidency, even as the private foundations have carried the major financial responsibility for funding our exhibits and programs. Exhibits today, which incorporate cutting edge technology and dramatic design elements, are costly, as much as $10 million to design

and install a new permanent exhibit. Five library foundations have

recently funded or are currently raising money for new permanent

exhibits.

While there are many positive benefits to the unique relationship

NARA has with the foundations, the foundations and NARA’s view

of our stewardship responsibilities are not always aligned. Presidential libraries serve a broad constituency of users who hold divergent views on the priorities and mission of Presidential libraries.

I have long thought that the advisory committee representing

these multiple stakeholder groups could provide the Archivist with

advice on a broader range of issues; however, it is also important

for the Archivist to have a forum in which to discuss important

issues of concern to the National Archives with the foundations

who provide substantial support to the libraries.

In late 2004 I discussed the issue of membership with Archivist

John Carlin. Archivist Weinstein held two meetings of the committee. He and I discussed whether to make changes to the membership of the committee. In December 2008 the Archivist designed before making any decision about the future of the committee.

Earlier this year, Acting Archivist Adrienne Thomas considered

not renewing the charter; however, as Carlin did previously, she

decided to leave the decision to the next Archivist of the United

States, and therefore elected to renew its charter for another 2

years.

20

Family members, former associates of the Presidents, and foundation members from the committees where we have libraries have

served on the committee. It is my understanding that FACA does

not bar an agency from establishing a limited purpose advisory

committee with a more focused membership such as this one. The

library foundations are an important partner, and the Archivist

needs to be able to meet with them individually and as a group.

The FACA-established committee provides an open and transparent way in which to conduct these meetings. The next Archivist

will need to consider the important question of whether to keep

this advisory committee as it is currently constituted and/or establish a new committee with a broader membership to provide more

divergent feedback and advice to NARA on its Presidential libraries.

Thank you. This concludes my oral statement. I will be pleased

to answer any of your questions about the advisory committee.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fawcett follows:]

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Ms. Fawcett, for your statement.

Ms. Morphy, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF MARTHA MORPHY

Ms. MORPHY. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, I am

here as the designated Federal official for the Archivist Advisory

Committee on Electronic Records Archives. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on the National Archives and

Records Administration use of the Federal Advisory Committee

Act, and specifically the Advisory Committee on Electronic Records

Archives [ACERA].

ACERA was established by then Archivist of the United States

Allen Weinstein in 2005. This committee meets twice a year in

April and November, and information about the meeting and the

meeting minutes are available at the National Archives Web site.

The last meeting was held on April 29, and 30, 2009. The costs for

that meeting were approximately $9,300, which included travel,

per diem, and supplies.

Since its creation, this committee has scheduled nine meetings

and met eight times. The ninth meeting will be held on November

4th and 5th of this year.

Archivist Weinstein established the committee to serve as a deliberative body to advise the Archivist of the United States on technical, mission, and service issues related to the Electronic Records

Archives [ERA]. This includes but is not limited to advising and

making recommendations to the Archivist on issues related to the

development, implementation, and use of the ERA system. ERA is

an information technology system being built to support the preservation of and access to electronic records that are complex in nature, diverse in format, and exponentially increasing in volume.

The challenge that NARA faces in the area of electronic records is

one that is shared throughout the Government and the private sector.

The original ACERA membership consisted of 18 members considered to have particular expertise, knowledge, and interest in

electronic records. Today’s membership consists of 17 recognized

experts and leaders with active interest in records management,

electronic records, information technology, and research in Federal

and State governments, academia, and the public and private sectors.

The meetings serve as a forum for the discussion of issues relevant to NARA and the Electronic Records Archives, and are therefore not strictly structured to only provide formal recommendations

or findings. The meetings are also an opportunity for NARA to

communicate to and to seek feedback from the committee on

NARA’s strategic plans, the state of the Electronic Records Archives, the newest releases and developments of the ERA system,

and any electronic records challenges encountered since the previous meeting. Committee members often add value to the meetings by discussing their own projects and activities that are relevant to electronic records and information technology.

Over the 4-year history of the committee, it provided informal

recommendations and advice on the architecture and design of the

ERA system and approach to processing Freedom of Information

41

Act requests for the Presidential electronic records, a review of the

Hitachi Content Archive Platform to be used for processing records,

a review of the Global Digital Format Registry initiative, discussions of the pros and cons of a Federated Electronic Management

Model, and a review of the requirements for public access within

the ERA system.

The November 2009 meeting agenda includes an overview of

NARA’s Center for Advanced Systems and Technology, a presentation on the use of ERA in Presidential libraries, strategies for

communicating ERA progress, and a discussion of NARA’s conceptual framework for digital preservation.

In my letter of invitation to this hearing, you also asked for my

views on this advisory committee and if there was anything that

should be done to improve its service to NARA. It is my opinion

that this advisory committee is useful and necessary to the Archivist of the United States at a time when preserving and providing

access to the growing volume of Government electronic records is

made even more challenging by the rapid changes in technologies

that create those records.

Government does not have all the answers to these challenges,

but thankfully with ACERA we have a diverse group of experts

who are willing to give their time to help us stay focused on feasible, cost-effective, and, most importantly, far-sighted solutions.

I am personally thankful we have ACERA, and I do not see any

need for changes to its charter. It is my hope that the new Archivist will find this a useful forum, as well.

Thank you. This concludes my statement, and I will be pleased

to answer any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Morphy follows:]

42

43

44

45

46

47

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Ms. Morphy, for your statement.

Dr. Greer, you are next up for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GREER

Dr. GREER. Good afternoon. My name is Chris Greer, and I am

a member of the National Archives and Records Administration’s

Advisory Committee for the Electronic Records Archive. I thank the

chairman and the ranking member for the opportunity to meet

with you today.

I am here today representing myself as an individual member of

the ACERA. I have been an advisory committee member since

2007. I am a scientist by training and was a faculty member at the

University of California Irvine for more than 18 years before joining the Federal Government. I have been an employee of the National Science Foundation since 2003, where I recently served as

senior advisor for digital data in the Office of Cyber Infrastructure.

I am currently on assignment from NSF to the Office of Science

and Technology Policy, where I serve as Assistant Director for Information Technology, Research, and Development. I also co-chair

the Inter-Agency Working Group on Digital Data of the National

Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Science.

Your committee has asked witnesses to describe their advisory

group’s purposes, uses, and effectiveness, so let me describe each

of these in turn.

First purposes: the ACERA is charged with serving as a deliberative body to provide advice to the Archivist on technical, mission,

and service issues relevant to the development, implementation,

and use of the Electronic Records Archive. The operative word in

this charge is deliberative. The committee’s central function is to

analyze ERA issues, weigh options, and evaluate solutions. The

committee’s deliberations are typically intense and engaging.

Next uses: the committee is used to air ideas and opinions on

strategic, technical, and implementation issues. My experience is

that NARA uses the committee to probe the full spectrum of ERA

issues. Recent topics have ranged from design concepts for the reference architecture through standards adoption and supported formats to details of the project time line and work status.

The committee typically uses an action items mechanism rather

than formal recommendations, reflecting a spirit of partnership and

an emphasis on real progress. Each meeting generates 5 to 10 action items, and the resolution of these items is tracked in the minutes.

Finally effectiveness: in my opinion, five factors have allowed

ACERA to be effective. First, NARA places a high priority on the

committee. The Archivist or acting Archivist and ERA project leadership attend nearly the entire 2-day meeting and actively participate in debate and discussion.

Second, the committee is consulted at each major project phase.

The committee meets twice each year, a frequency that is about

right for this multi-year project.

Third, ACERA is given the opportunity for full deliberation. Each

meeting is conducted over 2 days, providing the time needed to

tackle complex issues in a thoughtful manner.

48

Fourth, the committee is given the information it needs to provide informed advice. Briefing materials are complete and candid,

and we get an honest look at all sides.

Fifth, ACERA is used to address questions of substance. Briefings focus on challenges, options, and implications rather than on

defending a preferred choice. NARA leadership and staffers, alike,

engage in honest debate and demonstrate a willingness to change

course in response to a compelling case.

Because of these factors, I have found ACERA membership to be

valuable and rewarding.

I hope these comments are helpful, and I am glad to answer any

questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Greer follows:]

49

50

51

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Dr. Greer.

Now we will hear from Mr. Flaak.

Mr. Flaak, 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT FLAAK

Mr. FLAAK. Chairman Clay, Mr. Ranking Member McHenry, my

name is Robert Flaak. I direct the Committee Management Secretariat at GSA. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today

to discuss the important role played by Federal advisory committees in the work and missions assigned to the executive branch

and, in particular, for NARA’s advisory committees and the two in

particular that have been mentioned already.

During previous testimony before this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity on occasion to discuss how GSA

and executive branch agencies and departments manage their responsibilities under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. I have

also included that material in my prepared testimony, which I have

submitted to you, so therefore I am not going to repeat those in my

oral statements, but I want to cover the questions that you had

asked me in your letter.

At NARA, just as any other executive department and agency,

the agency committee management officer has responsibility for the

implementation of FACA on behalf of the agency’s head. Within

NARA, individual designated Federal officers work with the CMO

to implement the act’s requirements at the committee level, and together the two of them are responsible for ensuring that NARA’s

compliance with FACA, GSA’s regulations and guidelines, NARA’s

internal operating procedures, and any other applicable statutes

and regulations are adhered to.

As both you and the ranking member both mentioned, FACA is

quite detailed in specific procedures, and it does mention the requirement for balance in advisory committees. You both quoted section five of FACA in that membership of advisory committees is to

be fairly balanced in the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by committees.

Now, FACA doesn’t say much more about it than that. That is

about as much as the statement exists. We have incorporated additional language in our regulations in 41 C.F.R. 102–3 on balance,

and we specifically state that in the selection of members for the

advisory committee, the agency will consider a cross-section of

those directly affected, interested, and qualified, as appropriate, to

the nature and functions of the committee. We also apply additional guidance in our regulatory package that lets agencies evaluate other ways of selecting and balancing their committees.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter to me you asked specifically about

these two NARA advisory committees, the Advisory Committee on

Electronic Record Archives and the one on Presidential Libraries.

Both of these were established as agency authority committees, and

as such they are discretionary and they report to NARA. The Advisory Committee on Electronic Record Archives was established in

2005. Its most recent charter was renewed in August of this year

in 2009. It has 16 members, all of whom are special Government

employees.

52

According to data submitted by NARA in our shared management system, which is our online FACA data base, from fiscal

years 2006 through 2009 the committee met twice each year and

expended an average of about $38,000 each year. Cost figures for

2009 are still tentative pending reconciliation of that data through

our annual comprehensive review.

According to its charter, the committee serves as a deliberative

body on technical, mission, and service issues related to electronic

record archives, as Dr. Greer mentioned.

I might point out that as a deliberative body I have noticed this

committee does not typically use a formal recommendations mechanism. That is to say we don’t see formal recommendations listed in

our data base. We do see, though, in the minutes that are online

for this committee a number of action items that are identified in

the minutes, as Dr. Greer mentioned.

The Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries was established by NARA in 1988. Its most recent charter was renewed in

July 2008, with 12 members who are representative members. That

charter is still active. It is a 2-year charter. It will expire next summer.

According to data submitted to us by NARA, the committee has

not met during fiscal year 2007, 2008, or 2009, and, as mentioned

earlier, they did meet in 2006.

NARA does report one recommendation issued by the committee

during its lifetime in our system, and, again, that is the information that has been received by my office.

According to its charter, the committee is to advise the Archivist

of the United States on matters relating to the archival, museum,

and public programs of the Presidential libraries operated by the

NARA and advises the Archivist on policies, procedures, programs,

objectives, and other matters relating to the effectiveness of the

Presidential library system.

Mr. Chairman, you had also asked me to address the degree to

which NARA’s advisory committees process gives NARA relevant

information that it needs to conduct its business. I have to say that

is a little difficult for us to determine at our distance. You did hear

some of that from Ms. Fawcett earlier regarding her committee.

GSA does rely on Executive departments and agencies like NARA

to provide real-time data throughout the year and to wrap it up at

the end of the year and verify it on their committees, and so we

can verify that information by the close of the fiscal year.

In looking at advisory committees, though, from our perspective,

we can estimate a committee’s value to an agency in a couple of

ways. One, if the committee is meeting frequently. Is the committee used a lot by the agency? Does it get a lot of opportunities to

participate with the agency and the public? The number of recommendations issued by the committee and whether or not, most

importantly, those recommendations are adopted by the Federal

agency. Finally, if we get feedback from the agency through our

desk officer program in my office. Last, since these committees in

both cases have been renewed on a regular basis, from our perspective it would appear that NARA finds them both to be beneficial

and will continue to renew these.

53

I am not sure whether the Presidential Library Committee will

change as a result of the change in the Archivist. That is a matter

up to the agency to decide. I defer certainly to NARA on that.

Mr. Chairman, that ends my oral statements. I would be happy

to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flaak follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Flaak. I appreciate your insight and testimony.

Let me start with Ms. Fawcett. In light of the broad and serious

challenges facing Presidential libraries and the fact that they aim

to serve many different kinds of groups and individuals, can you

continue to justify limiting the membership of the committees solely to representatives of the private foundations?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, I don’t think in the end that is my decision.

It would be the decision of the next Archivist. As I said in my testimony, we are interested in what other stakeholder groups have,

and NARA reaches out on a consistent basis to talk with those divergent stakeholders. We held meetings of public interest groups

with regard to the alternative models report, and our thoughts and

recommendations, changes we might propose to the Presidential

Records Act. As a result of that meeting, we chose not to propose

certain changes to the act.

We meet regularly with educators, and we meet with historians

and other special interest groups. Each of the individual libraries

reaches out to many of the groups in their communities. They work

with local school boards and local school districts in developing curriculum packages for visits by school children to the various libraries. So there is much that is done by NARA to continue to reach

out to all of these groups.

On the other hand, you know, having a way and a forum in

which to meet with the foundations is a strength and provides a

useful forum for the Archivist when he chooses to do that. Archivist

Carlin, for example, used the meetings that occurred during his

tenure to focus on the issue of funding programs in Presidential libraries and to get the foundations to understand the necessity of

their stepping up to the plate to provide for the exhibits and education programs and public programs that make a library a viable

and vibrant entity. I think that very use was very helpful.

On the other hand, the foundations gave feedback to the Archivist, and I think members of the committee might be surprised to

know how interested the foundations are in ensuring that NARA

has the resources for core processes. Processing declassification was

a very important issue to these foundations. They wanted to see

the Presidential records open. They wanted to see records declassified. I think, as a result of their urging, the urging of many other

stakeholder groups who talked to NARA, Congress did see fit to

provide us with additional resources for processing Presidential

records. We added 15 new archivists in the Presidential Records

Act libraries, and we have the largest staff of archivists ever at the

George W. Bush Library.

So I found the committee has been useful.

Mr. CLAY. So you do think we need to have historians, archivists,

preservationists, researchers, curators, educators, and others?

Ms. FAWCETT. I think it is very important to hear from all of

those groups, and NARA reaches out to them.

Mr. CLAY. Do you think they should be on the boards?

Ms. FAWCETT. I think that is fair. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thought to have them on board on this committee, and that

is why Archivist Weinstein and Archivist Carlin and I both discussed the membership. But for various reasons it didn’t occur. I

66

became Acting Archivist for Presidential Libraries just before John

Carlin left the agency and just before Weinstein was sworn in.

Archivist Weinstein held two meetings of the committee, but I

think that his particular style, he preferred a more individual oneon-one relationship with the foundations, and so he sought to interact with the foundations more on a one-on-one basis. I think that

may have been one of the reasons why he had so few meetings of

the committee.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Do you think they should meet regularly?

Ms. FAWCETT. I think it is useful for them to meet regularly. Yes.

Mr. CLAY. OK. When you reach out to other stakeholders, as you

mentioned, are the contacts subject to FACA?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, it depends. You can have a single-purpose

meeting with other stakeholders and not be in violation of the

FACA. We work very closely with our general counsel’s office when

we set up any of these kind of meetings to ensure that we are in

compliance with the FACA.

Mr. CLAY. You take recommendations from the different stakeholders, right?

Ms. FAWCETT. We listen. Yes.

Mr. CLAY. OK.

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes.

Mr. CLAY. OK. And that all comes into the decisionmaking process under FACA?

Ms. FAWCETT. It becomes part of our decisionmaking process as

we listen to people one-on-one or in small groups. We are not meeting with them on a regular basis on any one subject.

Mr. CLAY. Ms. Fawcett, has any of the following items occurred

since the last meeting of the advisory committee? I’ve got a list

here, so I want to ask you to respond.

Ms. FAWCETT. OK.

Mr. CLAY. Has NARA accepted any Presidential libraries into the

system since you last met?

Ms. FAWCETT. When was Clinton?

Mr. CLAY. Would it be the——

Ms. FAWCETT. Clinton was already in the system since we last

met. No. Yes, we have—the Nixon.

Mr. CLAY. Nixon.

Ms. FAWCETT. The Nixon Presidential Library was accepted into

the system in July 2007. Excuse my memory blank here.

Mr. CLAY. OK. So that is pretty major. That is pretty major, correct, to get a new library into the system?

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes, it is.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Has any Presidential library undergone or announced plans for major renovations to their physical plant such as

expansions or other kind of capital improvement projects?

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes, we are working on capital improvement

projects in several Presidential libraries. Currently, Roosevelt and

Kennedy. On dock are Johnson——

Mr. CLAY. And that is pretty significant, too, I mean, to go

through a major renovation is pretty significant?

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes, but we don’t depend on the advisory committee for advice on those renovations. NARA has architectural and

design standards that govern the renovations of these buildings.

67

We work closely with our preservation staff, our facilities staff,

with the library where the renovations are being considered.

Mr. CLAY. OK. All right. Let me go to Dr. Greer or Mr. Flaak.

There seems to be many areas where NARA’s reporting is either

incomplete or incorrect in the FACA data base. Is the agency responsible for providing accurate, up-to-date information for the

public?

Mr. FLAAK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The agency enters the data into the system, which is a public facing system. The

data is entered in in different ways by different agencies. Some

agencies, the DFOs, the designated Federal officers for the individual committees, enter the data. In other cases, the community

management officer, themselves, reserves that right to themselves.

In any event, the agencies do it. They verify the data toward the

end of the year during our annual comprehensive review process,

which is ongoing right now through the end of next month. And

then we work with them to verify that data at the end of that process.

Mr. CLAY. Why should we be concerned about compliance with

information reporting requirements of FACA?

Mr. FLAAK. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. CLAY. Why should we be concerned about compliance with

the information reporting requirements of FACA in this instance?

Mr. FLAAK. If the agency is reporting incorrect information, then

either the Congress, ourselves, or other interested parties don’t

have an accurate understanding of what that committee might be

doing, how much money they are spending, or how they are operating their committees.

For the current fiscal year that just ended, 2009, the data is still

I would call it in raw form because it doesn’t get verified until the

end of the year. But if you look at previous years, 2008 and prior,

that information has been verified by the agency and is complete,

and therefore should be accurate.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Thank you for that response.

In talking about accuracy, I received a response from Archives

yesterday pointing out six discrepancies in information that they

supplied to this committee. One of them was on how to classify

members of the advisory committee, as special Government employees or as representatives. Then they say we’ve changed the

designation for these members in our 2008 report, and now they

are all correctly listed as representatives instead of special Government employees. They talk about appointment type. Have you seen

this letter?

Mr. FLAAK. I saw it this morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. And it is six different areas that they had to correct.

What do you think of this? This is pretty going by the seat of their

pants pretty quickly here, aren’t they?

Mr. FLAAK. Well, it is always good to get the data correct, but

it is nice to have it right in the first place.

Mr. CLAY. Eventually you get it correct.

Mr. FLAAK. We’d like to think so, but there is a lot of agencies

and a lot of advisory committees out there, and checking each of

these over individually takes time.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

68

Mr. FLAAK. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, on the representative issue that you mentioned a moment ago, back in 2004 the Government Accounting Office, now the Government Accountability Office, did a review of the membership balance issues. I believe you

are aware of that——

Mr. CLAY. Yes.

Mr. FLAAK [continuing]. And directed that both GSA and Office

of Government Ethics step up their process on ensuring that members were correctly designated on Federal advisory committees,

whether they be representative members of special Government

employees. We have worked on that process with agencies back

from about that time in the mid-2004–2005 timeframe.

For this Committee on Presidential Libraries it would appear to

be appropriate that the members be representative members. Why

they characterized them originally as special government employees, I don’t know. But the change as it took place over the last couple of years was correct, and it was the correct direction for it to

go.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response.

Ms. Morphy, how important is the Advisory Committee on Electronic Records Archives to you, to the ERA, and to NARA?

Ms. MORPHY. As I stated in my testimony, very important.

Whenever you are doing a large information technology project, you

are very, very focused on doing that project and trying to meet

deadlines, and it is always good to have an external opinion to

make sure that our focus continues to be correct, and ACERA certainly has provided great guidance to us, and, based on the action

items that we have received, we have made some changes in terms

of the direction that we have gone with the system.

Mr. CLAY. Do you meet so often and for so long because of the

complexity of the issues or because of the diversity of the membership views or both?

Ms. MORPHY. I think first the complexity of the issue. Actually,

both. The membership, because they are from both the private and

the public sector, from universities, people who have an interest in

electronic records as well as information technology, when you have

people with those skills all in a room together, the discussion really, really does get to a level to really help us make determinations

on the direction the system should go.

Mr. CLAY. Can you give me a specific example or two of how the

committee’s advice or assistance has improved the Electronic

Records Archive?

Ms. MORPHY. I think from my own experience in the area of public access, this is an area that I am very interested in. At our last

meeting in April we provided a presentation on the direction that

we were going toward public access, something that we are building right now, and the advisory committee offered several suggestions that we accepted and that have been added to our requirements, and also offered some possibilities in how we might share

the development of the prototype with them as we go forward.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that. Do you think the committee could

have provided NARA with such assistance if it were comprised only

of individuals directly involved with NARA and only representing

one general area of the ERA?

69

Ms. MORPHY. No, not at all. Having the blend of people who have

different experiences and come from different organizations has

really—and some of the things that they have experienced in terms

of doing projects just have enhanced our ability to build ERA.

Mr. CLAY. Very good to know. Thank you for that.

Dr. Greer, in your experience as a member of the Advisory Committee on Electronic Records Archives, does the committee as a

whole or individual members of the committee provide assistance,

guidance, or advice in any other forum or by any other means than

the committee’s meetings?

Dr. GREER. Mr. Chairman, the question is: are there other mechanisms that are used to provide advice to NARA on ERA?

Mr. CLAY. Yes, I guess it would be e-mail communications, letters.

Dr. GREER. There are, of course, materials that go out in advance

of each meeting to provide background for the members and scheduling issues, things like that. Otherwise, there is not a lot of formal

back-and-forth.

Now, we are all of us involved in areas of digital preservation

and access, and so we certainly run across one another individually

and talk about general technology issues in the course of events.

Mr. CLAY. Here’s the point: do you think the committee could be

effective without meeting as a group or if it did not meet for several years at a time?

Dr. GREER. In the case of the Electronic Records Archive, which

is a very broad scope project which is moving forward in a landscape of changing technologies, I think the only way to keep up in

this particular instance is through regular meetings where people

get together and have an active debate over things that don’t have

a single solution.

Mr. CLAY. OK. You said in your statement that the committee

membership is diverse, providing a breadth of perspectives; however, one could argue that because the committee’s work covers a

very specific area, NARA’s Electronic Records Archive, that the

membership should be limited only to those with direct experience

in such a unique field, and only from the experience with the National Archives. Do you think the committee could be as effective

if its members were limited in this way?

Dr. GREER. The Electronic Records Archive, again, is a complex

project that has the issues of ingest from the various Federal agencies, permanent preservation and access, in its archives function,

and access to a wide variety of communities in order to make that

information have value to the public. Because of that breadth of

issues, I don’t think any one person or group, interest group, could

cover all of that.

So I think in a case of ERA, which is quite a unique project in

NARA’s history, the breadth of the project demands a group that

has considerable breadth.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that testimony.

Ms. Fawcett, the membership of the Advisory Committee on

Presidential Libraries consists solely of individuals who represent

the private foundations that build and support the library; is that

correct?

Ms. FAWCETT. Private foundations or family members.

70

Mr. CLAY. Or family members. OK. Are these foundations completely separate from the Presidential libraries and the National

Archives?

Ms. FAWCETT. They are completely independent institutions,

501(c)(3)’s.

Mr. CLAY. OK. For instance, do any foundations receive anything

of value from any Presidential library and/or NARA? Do we fund

them? Do we give them any resources?

Ms. FAWCETT. Prior to the passage of the amendments of the

Presidential Libraries Act in 1988, when foundations provided a library to the Government the Government then, in return, allowed

them to use some space within the library, so a very few of our libraries actually house foundations within their space. After the

amendments to the Presidential Libraries Act, that space is separate and apart from the National Archives. So yes, that would be,

I suppose, a benefit to the foundations.

Mr. CLAY. So NARA covers the space, the utilities, computer

equipment, Government phone lines?

Ms. FAWCETT. Not the computer equipment, not the staff. They

cover the space and the utilities, but not the computer equipment

or the staff.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Whose telephones are they? Are they Government

or——

Ms. FAWCETT. It varies. I think in most cases it is their own system, but in some cases they do use our telephones.

Mr. CLAY. How about furniture?

Ms. FAWCETT. They gave the furniture in the first place, so they

get to use it.

Mr. CLAY. How about office supplies?

Ms. FAWCETT. They buy their own office supplies.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Government e-mail addresses? No?

Ms. FAWCETT. There are a couple that use the NARA-net system,

which is our internal system. Most have left NARA-net because

they don’t like the security requirements so they have their own

systems. But I don’t do think at—I think the Ford Library Foundation uses a NARA mail account.

Mr. CLAY. Does NARA have memorandums of understanding

with these foundations for the goods and services the Government

provides?

Ms. FAWCETT. We have joint operating agreements with the foundations. When they turn over to the Government a library, we have

a joint operating agreement that outlines the tenets of our relationship.

Mr. CLAY. And then does NARA calculate the value of these

goods and services, and is NARA compensated in all cases?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, NARA is compensated through the funding

of programs, etc. For example, the Johnson Library Foundation occupies a couple of offices and a little reception space in the library,

but that foundation provides over $1.5 million a year in support for

processing staff, exhibits, public programs, etc. So yes, NARA does

receive something in return for the foundations being able to use

that space. They raise money on behalf of the library.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Other than vendors who are paid for their products and services——

71

Ms. FAWCETT. I am sorry? Other than who?

Mr. CLAY. Than vendors.

Ms. FAWCETT. Vendors.

Mr. CLAY. Vendors, who are paid for their products and services

and groups that rent the facilities for a fee, are there any other organizations that receive anything of value from any Presidential library and/or NARA? Any other groups that receive anything of

value that they don’t pay for?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, for example, we put on education programs

for classrooms around the country, and so classes of students come

to the library, experience our theater of decisionmaking, and there

is no charge for that service.

Mr. CLAY. That wasn’t what I was looking for.

Ms. FAWCETT. I don’t know what you are——

Mr. CLAY. That is educational. I don’t know how you put value

on that.

Ms. FAWCETT. I can’t think of any group that is receiving free

services from NARA.

Mr. CLAY. OK. The private library foundations are the only ones

who receive anything of value from the National Archives then?

Ms. FAWCETT. And only a very limited number of them have offices in our space.

Mr. CLAY. OK. All right.

Mr. Flaak, these private foundations have financial relationships

with the National Archives. Does the fact that the leadership or

other representatives of these foundations serve on the advisory

committee present any conflict or the possibility of a conflict of interest?

Mr. FLAAK. Mr. Chairman, I can’t speak to the relationship between the foundations and NARA, but with regard to the membership on the advisory committees, whoever that representative is

from each foundation to the committee, under the guidelines put

out by the Office of Government Ethics, representative members

are not subject to conflict of interest rules. So, while there may be

an appearance issue here, from a legal standpoint, Office of Government Ethics would not apply conflict of interest rules to those

individuals.

Mr. CLAY. All right. Thank you for that.

Ms. Fawcett, has any representative from the George W. Bush

Library Foundation been invited to join the committee formally or

informally? If so, who are they and when did they join the committee?

Ms. FAWCETT. We invited the Library Committee to attend the

2006 meeting, but because we haven’t had a meeting since then no

formal invitation has been extended to the George W. Bush Library

Foundation to have a member of the committee, so the answer is

no, we have not.

Mr. CLAY. So you are waiting on the new Archivist to invite

them?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, at such time as the new Archivist or at such

time as we would have a meeting, then we would look to have a

representative name from that foundation.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Do you know who that person would be, who the

contact person would be with the Bush Library?

72

Ms. FAWCETT. I know who I would contact at the Bush Library

Foundation to make a suggestion. Whether that person would be

the member or not, I don’t know.

Mr. CLAY. Would you like to give a name?

Ms. FAWCETT. Mark Langdale. He is the CEO of the foundation.

Mr. CLAY. All right. Thank you for that.

Allen Weinstein was the most recent Archivist of the United

States, but the advisory committee was established long before his

tenure. How many meetings were held after Professional Weinstein

began his tenure as Archivist?

Ms. FAWCETT. Two.

Mr. CLAY. Two. Do you know if Professor Weinstein supported

and made use of the advisory committee?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, at the two meetings held with Professor

Weinstein, there was much discussion of marketing Presidential libraries and funding for education programs and IT initiatives.

There was concern expressed by the foundation members that the

libraries didn’t have sort of the IT infrastructure that they needed

to do far-reaching projects, digitization, etc. So there was that discussion, and then there was the discussion of creating a marketing

plan for Presidential libraries, which my office later worked on and

completed a marketing study.

Mr. CLAY. And do you think the next Archivist of the United

States should support and make use of the committee?

Ms. FAWCETT. I haven’t talked to Mr. Ferriero, so I don’t know.

I would certainly recommend that he think about how best to use

the committee for whatever, however he is going to approach the

issues in Presidential libraries. I think there are ways that the

committee can be helpful, or there are ways that, depending on

what his goals are, that other types of committees could be helpful.

Mr. CLAY. How often do you think the committee should meet?

Ms. FAWCETT. I think once a year, as a practical matter, is useful.

Mr. CLAY. Should membership be open to individuals outside of

the private library foundations?

Ms. FAWCETT. I think that is something for the Archivist to consider. It is his committee. But I wouldn’t object.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Flaak, in your testimony you said that the FACA regulations

state that in selecting members of a committee the agency will consider a cross-section of those directly affected, interested, and qualified. Does the Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries’ membership, limited only to those appointed by the private foundations,

meet that criteria?

Mr. FLAAK. For a committee like this one—and this is a discretionary committee, Mr. Chairman—it is up to the agency that is

supporting this committee to make a decision on who should be on

that committee. However, it would appear that this committee

might be better served by broadening its membership.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that opinion.

Mr. FLAAK. There are certainly complex relationships between

this committee and the agency.

Mr. CLAY. And that could possibly require some legislative direction for an agency in this case?

73

Mr. FLAAK. The agency could either make that decision on their

own, or they could be directed to do so, certainly.

Mr. CLAY. I see. Under FACA, should the members of the Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries be classified as representatives or special Government employees?

Mr. FLAAK. The current membership who are representing the

foundations should be classified as representatives, which they currently are.

Mr. CLAY. OK.

Mr. FLAAK. If there were additional members who are experts in

various fields, I would suggest those probably would be classified

as special Government employees.

Mr. CLAY. And that was changed yesterday.

Ms. FAWCETT. Excuse me. Our charter——

Mr. CLAY. I am asking him. All right.

If a member of the committee is classified as a representative,

does FACA require a conflict of interest check or any other kind of

ethics-related screening?

Mr. FLAAK. Mr. Chairman, FACA is pretty silent with regard to

ethics requirements, but I know Office of Government Ethics would

not require an ethics check on a representative member.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Ms. Fawcett, for many years members of the

Presidential Libraries Committee were designated as SGEs. In

1999 they were all changed to representatives, even though NARA

continued to report them as SGEs for almost 10 years. When these

members were designated as special Government employees, did

they complete the proper requirements for reporting conflicts of interest?

Ms. FAWCETT. In 1999 our counsel, Chris Runkle, determined

that, after I think it was an OGE audit, that these should be classified as representatives, and it is so reflected in our charter. The

fact that our committee management staff failed to correctly note

on the FACA data base that they were representational, I think

that is problematic for us, but the fact of the matter is the charter,

itself, declares that for the purposes of representation they are representational members. It was a mistake in the FACA data base.

The charter is clear. The OGE audits are clear. The decisions have

been clear since 1999. Prior to that I couldn’t tell you.

Mr. CLAY. Wow, that is 10 years. That is almost 10 years of an

oversight, as you call it.

Ms. FAWCETT. I am sorry.

Mr. CLAY. No real explanation for that?

Ms. FAWCETT. I have no explanation of why the committee management staff, which is not a part of my office, reported it this way.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Mr. Flaak, 11 of the 12 members of the Presidential Libraries Committee have no fixed terms of appointment,

and 5 of the 12 have served for around 20 years. Is either common

for Federal advisory committees?

Mr. FLAAK. In general, Mr. Chairman, no, that is not common behavior. Most advisory committees rotate membership terms of

maybe 2 or 3 years and for the most part, keep members no more

than perhaps 6. But there are exceptions, and this may be one of

them.

74

Mr. CLAY. OK. For Dr. Greer or Mr. Flaak, the President has recently encouraged agencies not to reappoint lobbyists to Federal

advisory committees citing the need to introduce fresh points of

view. Do you think that service on an advisory committee for 10

or 20 or more years should also be discouraged in order to add new

perspectives?

Mr. FLAAK. I think there are a couple of factors that go into advisory committee membership. One is continuity of understanding of

the issues, so sometimes it is good to have somebody who serves

on the committee for a fair amount of time. But at the same time,

it is good to give new opportunities to other people to participate

and get a broader perspective on what the issues are. So I think

there is room for both.

Dr. GREER. I would second that. There is an issue of continuity,

particularly on a multi-year project like the Electronic Records Archive. Understanding some of the architectural decisions that were

made early on and the intention there is very helpful. So I would

say a mix is appropriate.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that.

Ms. Fawcett, as NARA claims in its official justification, the advisory committees’ assistance has been particularly useful in discussions of future financing of the libraries and the relationship between the libraries and their support organizations. If this is the

case and these major events have occurred and continue to occur,

why have you not called a meeting of the committee in almost 4

years?

Ms. FAWCETT. That is not my responsibility to call a meeting of

the committee.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Whose responsibility is it?

Ms. FAWCETT. It is the Archivist of the United States.

Mr. CLAY. Have you advised the Archivist to call a meeting

maybe?

Ms. FAWCETT. We have discussed having a meeting and he chose

not to have one.

Mr. CLAY. OK. He chose not to have one. OK. And in the last

4 years have you tried to schedule a meeting or recommended that

the committee meet?

Ms. FAWCETT. In the last 4 years have we tried to schedule a

meeting? No, we have not scheduled a meeting in the last 4 years.

As I said in my statement or in answer to an earlier question, I

think Archivist Weinstein was more comfortable meeting one-onone with the foundations and he chose that path and met regularly

across the Nation with individual Presidential foundations to discuss issues, budget, governance issues, etc.

Mr. CLAY. Has any member of the committee requested that you

call a meeting within the last 4 years?

Ms. FAWCETT. Not that I recall.

Mr. CLAY. In your testimony you said that members of the advisory committee communicate with and make recommendations to

NARA without formally meeting. You also say that these members

or other representatives of the library foundation have begun to

meet and to invite NARA officials to participate in at least a part

of those meetings. Do you have any concerns that this seems to indicate that the representatives of the private foundations are operVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:45 Feb 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54382.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
75

ating outside of the reporting and transparency requirements of

FACA?

Ms. FAWCETT. Since our only role at that meeting was to deliver

a fairly perfunctory report on NARA activities, I think that the

foundations have every right to meet among themselves to discuss

issues of concern to them. There were, I think, 32 or 33 members

who came to that meeting, of which—and I had an attendance list,

so I know who came—there were 5 or maybe 6 who had ever been

to an advisory committee meeting, so most of the people who attended that meeting were not advisory committee members.

Mr. CLAY. OK. But, I mean, look at the process here. They

are——

Ms. FAWCETT. We didn’t govern the process, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. They are calling the meetings and then NARA is participating. Could it be——

Ms. FAWCETT. NARA’s participation was very, very brief.

Mr. CLAY. OK. It is really blurring the lines here.

Ms. FAWCETT. And we didn’t participate in any discussions.

Mr. CLAY. OK.

Ms. FAWCETT. We participated in no discussions.

Mr. CLAY. OK. We are blurring the lines here of what is proper

and transparent, I think. It really calls into question what we are

trying to achieve here.

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, we didn’t intend to blur any lines of transparency.

Mr. CLAY. Well, I am telling you what it is starting to look like.

Late yesterday we received a letter from NARA explaining errors

and discrepancies in the reporting of information about your committee. How did that series of errors over the course of several

years occur, and how were they identified?

Ms. FAWCETT. In preparation for this hearing, I actually became

aware that there was this FACA data base. Over the years my staff

would be asked periodically—specifically the designated Federal official on my staff, who was not me—would be asked to supply certain information, and he would be asked specific questions, and so

we supplied that information.

But it turned out that we weren’t asked all the information that

is in the FACA data base, so therefore certain errors occurred. We

had not reviewed the data base until recently, and mae culpa for

not knowing of its existence and reviewing it on a regular basis to

make sure the information was correct. But we will take corrective

action, and I am sure that in the future that all the designations

are appropriate and correct and timely.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response.

Mr. Flaak, there seem to be many areas where NARA’s reporting

is either incomplete or incorrect in the FACA data base. Is the

agency responsible for providing accurate, up-to-date information

for the public?

Mr. FLAAK. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Flaak, why should we be concerned about compliance with the information reporting requirements of FACA?

Mr. FLAAK. Well, when inaccurate information is reported, it is

reviewed by many outside sources. It is the source of newspaper arVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:45 Feb 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54382.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
76

ticles, it is the source of mis-information. It results in hearings like

this one.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. I just don’t know. Maybe

it is me, but I just think, you know, this system of Presidential libraries is very troubling. It is not well connected and transparent.

I think that NARA needs to do a better job of being open and having a process that is open and that is more public oriented and

more open to the public and is just—I am very uneasy about what

we have discovered over the last couple of months of inquiry.

Ms. Fawcett, I look forward to the new Archivist coming in an

explaining to us just how we will proceed as a Government with

our relationship with Presidential libraries. It is kind of willy-nilly

now, this whole process, and it is not clear. And we ought to be

able to clearly define it in this new era of open Government and

transparency, and I would like to see more openness from NARA

on how we administer Presidential libraries or the relationship

with those committees and the libraries.

Ms. FAWCETT. We made numerous suggestions in the alternative

model report on how to have a better governance relationship with

the Presidential foundations. I would be happy to refer you to that

report or leave you with a copy of it.

Mr. CLAY. OK.

Ms. FAWCETT. We identified five particular models for the future

for Presidential libraries that would cost less. Not all of them cost

less, as it turned out, but model one, which was some variation of

the present system, suggested that the Presidential libraries scattered across the country bring value to the country. The Presidency

is the one office elected by everyone, and to have libraries established across the country where citizens have access to them mates

the Presidency to these communities where many citizens, students

benefit.

But the libraries, as I said, the relationship between library foundations and NARA is complex, and it could be more open and it

could be better and it could be better established through a governance relationship that is stipulated either through NARA regulations or in statute. I agree completely with you that there are more

things we can do. We have worked hard to be as open and transparent as we can. We meet regularly with people. We have not attempted to foster any secret meetings. We do meet individually

with foundations.

I travel to the libraries and visit the libraries and while I am

there visit the Presidential foundations, encourage them to work

with the library directors on programs and exhibits and to gain, to

have a more appropriate, a more nuanced historical perspective in

the exhibits, and I am really pleased to say that we are seeing that

happen as new exhibits are being planned.

I appreciate the chairman’s concern and I know I will take that

concern to the Archivist as we discuss the future of Presidential libraries, so thank you for your concern.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response, Ms. Fawcett. You know,

public Presidential libraries do bring a value to the public. Personally, I have visited several.

Ms. FAWCETT. I am glad for that.

77

Mr. CLAY. My children enjoy every one that they visit. We house

one in Missouri, the Truman Library, in Independence. I think all

of them bring value to the public.

This hearing has indicated to me that we need to have some

clearly defined rules and statutes for which these libraries are to

operate under, and the sooner the better.

Ms. FAWCETT. Right. I refer you to the paper we wrote on alternative models that has several suggestions.

Mr. CLAY. Please share that with committee staff.

Ms. FAWCETT. I think the committee staff may have a copy, but

I am happy to leave another one with them.

Mr. CLAY. All right. That will be fine.

That will conclude this hearing. I want to thank all of you for

your participation in this today. Thank you and God bless you.

Ms. FAWCETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ