Interviewer(s): Ted Hull
Interviewee(s): Thomas Elton Brown

Ted Hull: This is an interview with Thomas Elton Brown, recorded September 12, 2006, at [Adelphi, Maryland], the home ofTed Hull, who is serving as interviewer today. Tom, let me start with letting you know that we have a copy your vita, so I don't think unless there's something that doesn't come out in this interview that you'd like to highlight, that will become a part of the Assembly's Legacy Project package.

Thomas Elton Brown: OK

Ted Hull: But the first question I wanted to ask you was about your educational background and how you came, that, your educational background influenced your decision to work at the National Archives.

Thomas Elton Brown: OK. I went through graduate school at Okie [Oklahoma] State University. My major was American history; my di~sertation was on the Catholic church in Oklahoma during the 20th Century. When I got the Union card, i.e. the PhD, I went looking for a job. Through the help offaculty members at Oklahoma State, I ended up at a term-by-term assignment I contract at Grand Valley State Colleges, now Grand Valley State University, at Allendale, Michigan. While a TA [teaching assistant] at Oklahoma State, I had helped a history of science professor start a course which used computerized instruction. Part of this was keying --using a keypunch machine --to key in responses that kids, the students, gave to tests and to do some demographic studies on who was taking this experimental course. So at least I knew what a code was and what a field was. While I was at Grand Valley, I continued to look for a [permanent] job. The same professor who was a go9d friend of Charles Dollar [Director, Machine-Readab~e Archives Division, August 1974- 1981] said that Charles was looking for people. At that time you had to have a master's degree in American history to become an archivist at the National Archives. And so Alex Ospovat arranged for an interview with Charles --for me to come and talk to him. When I came to talk to Charles, at least I knew what a field was. Charles and I were not elose at Oklahoma State. When I arrived for the interview that morning, he said "You realize, Tom, that if it's up to me, I'm not going to hire you." I said "Oh, OK." And he said "We'll go through the interview process that I've established to select candidates. And then I have arranged for you to go through the interview process with Presidential Libraries this'afternoon because Presidential Libraries has a very good track record of hiring quality people." I went through the interview with the Machine-Readable Division, had lunch with Charles and Jim O'Neill who was Deputy Archivist [James O' eill, Deputy Archivist, 19:XX - 19.XX; Acting Archivist of the United States, 1979- July 1980], and then went down [to the main Archives Building] to go through the interview process with Presidential Libraries. I knew I had the job at Presidential Libraries: I was talking to -- oh I forget the name of the head ofPresidential Libraries was at the time [ Head of NL, 1976], it's on the tip of my tongue, anyway, he explained that the w ithin the Presidential Libraries that you would come and work in the Washington area for a year as they trained you in the Presidential Library mode. After that year, you would be assigned to one ofthe libraries. And he asked me which one of the libraii es I would like to go to. And I said, "Can I reverse that and tell you where I would not like to go?" And he said, "Yes." l said, "I would not want to go to Hoover or Eisenhower." This was in '76, and he said "Do I detect a partisan bias?" I said "No, you detect an urban-rural bias --- I wouldn' t mind going to suburban New York, Boston, Kansas City, Austin, but I defi nitely don't want to go to West Branch, Iowa or Abilene Kansas." He laughed and said, "You know there are people who work for the Presidential Libraries who couldn't read offa list of their locations" I went back to ~th St., where the Machine-Readable Archives Division was located,and saw Charles. He said, "Well, I got a call from Presidential Libraries and they said tha t ifl don't hire you, they want to." And he said, "Where would you like to work?" I said, "Charles, I'd like to work here," That's when I made the decision. He asked me why and I said, "Well, I want to settle down and start a life. I' m tired ofmoving. In a year from now, ifI were with Presidential Libraries, I'd have to move to another place. And I'm tired of moving. ' And he said "OK." That's why I joined the staffofthe Machine-Readable Archives Division.

Ted Hull: Very good

Thomas Elton Brown: In other words, I didn't choose to work in the [Office of the] National Archives

Ted Hull: ... they chose you

Thomas Elton Brown: Or I just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

Ted Hull: So Charles Dollar was your first supervisor, and what role do you think he played in your becoming the archivist you are today and having such a long and stellar career in the area ofelectronic records?

Thomas Elton Brown: Grand Valley State Colleges had an experimental university that I was involved in. We did a lot of independent studies and self-pacing type of programs. To a large extent what I was working at Oklahoma State with the experimental course was also like that. He [Charles Dollar] wanted me to get involved with developing training courses in machine-readable records because there were very few people who knew anything about electronic records at that time -- sort of like today. Also Mabel Dietrich, who was the head ofthe Office of the National Archives [Assistant Archivist for the Office ofthe National Archives, 19:X.X - 19XX], wanted the other archivists exposed to machinereadable records and she wanted him [Charles Dollar] to get involved in SAA [Society of American Archivists] and to expand the training. Charles knew I had been involved in some of these experimental educational programs at Oklahoma State and at Grand Valley, so he assigned me as one ofthe "other duties as assigned" to develop training courses and modules for agencies and for archivists. He then got me involved with conducting a workshop at SAA on appraisal of electronic records -- machine-readable records. That was done several times, and then we did a two-day workshop. Since he knew that I had been involved with some experimental education and self-paced study; he wanted to use that background to develop training programs in-house and externally. That gave me some visibility.

Ted Hull: And so he envisioned your niche, your area ofexpertise, to be in outreach and educational programs.

Thomas Elton Brown: Right

Ted Hull: To spread the word about electronic records and their value.

Thomas Elton Brown: Right

Ted Hull: How effective do you think that was, I think its very well know in the profession, that outside NARA , SAA and archivists generally learned a lot from those programs and workshops. What is your feeling about how they, those training programs were received internally, by more traditional archivists?

Thomas Elton Brown: I don't know. One of the first courses that we did was to train incoming archivists to deal with electronic records. One of the persons who was in that course was Mike Kurtz. [A.ssistant Archivist for the Office ofR ecords Services - Washington, D.C., 19:XX -]. Part ofthe drill in that course was to write a COBOL program, and so Mike Kurtz was able to write a COBOL program in 1976. Now whether or not < laughter> did Mik e have an appreciation ofelectronic records since then? I think you'd have to ask him. But I really don 't see where we were all that effective, either internally or externally, in terms ofbuilding allies outside ofthe program.

Ted Hull: Now, in terms of, and I'll get to more details about this later probably, but in terms ofbuilding bonds with other archivists who came in at the same time, like later the CIDS [Career Internship De velopment System] program and now we have the ADP [Archival Development Program] program , were you part ofa group, a class that all received standard training in NARA archival processes and procedures?

Thomas Elton Brown: No, I was probably hired the last year before the CIDS program was established. The only sort ofa "class" met twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There were lectures that everyone had to attend. At the conclusion of those presentations and some required readings, we had to pass an examination ...

Ted Hull: Wow, was this a GSA [General Services Administration]?

Thomas Elton Brown: No, this was a NARA presentation. CIDS, ifl remember correctly, was a GSA-wide program that was established in order to increase upward mobility for internal candidates and to provide some sort ofa training development system. NARA took this mandate that they had from GSA and developed a CIDS program for archivists. It became a series ofrotational assignments that you had to go through. But it was n't like the CIDS class that we had beginning under Frank Burke [Assistant Archivist for the Office of the National Archives, 19:XX - 19:XX; Acting Archivist ofthe United States, April 16, 1985-D ecemb er 4, 1987], where everyone was hired en masse, all arrived at approximately the same time,one person coordinated all the rotational assignments for the first year, and at the end ofthat first year each was assigned to a unit. The original CIDS was whe n you came in and your unit arranged for these various rotational or training assignments. It was not nearly as structured as the second CIDS program. And when I came in [before CIDS] , it [training] was even less structured. We were sent on rotational assignments, but it was just sort ofhit and miss as to what you did. I think I can probably remember I did about fou r. One was description in military records. I think in many ways the assignments that Charles sent us on had an ulterior motive. We were public relations people for the unit. Because he believed be had hired some bright people (and I think he did), he would send these people to other units so that not only our colleagues, but people above them wou ld know how bright and enthusiastic we were. I went to military to do arrangement and description because Mab el Dietrich was the fonner director ofthat unit, and Cha rles wanted to get the word up to her. He sent me for an administrative history assignment to work with Leonard Rapport because Leonard was questioning some ofour appraisals. And I went to the National Audiovisual Center -­ w hy I did that, I don 't remember. < laughter> I mean , Charles was very much of a ... ; he viewed us as pawn s in a chess game as he was trying to advance the image ofthe program internally. And then, as I said, in the following year or maybe two years, they fornrnlated a CIDS series ofassignments whe re everyone had to go through a certain set ofassignments.

Ted Hull: It became more formalized then. Do you think the CIDS program then was informed by the type of, or was this, were your rotational assignments on the informal side, were they part of a larger program where other division directors were doing similar things w ith their staff? Or was this something that Charles came up with? The reason I ask is you did som ething similar for me and for Mark Conrad and Tom Southerly, those ofus who came in not as part ofthe CIDS program, but I think, ma ybe not in as calculated a way that we were ambassadors for the program , but I think for our benefit you sent us on rotational assignments.

Thomas Elton Brown: Rotational assignments have been a standard procedure for incoming archivists or professional staff. When I joined the staff ofthe National Archives, there was a lot of internal training. Ifyou were in a military unit, you would learn arrangement, description, and reference doing military records in your unit. But they always wanted to send archivists to different media types to expose them to them. They were always sending people to appraisal to give them that experience. But a lot ofthe training or rotational assignments occurred in-house in the unit to which you were assigned. It was only w hen you couldn't get internal training would you go som eplace else. C harles expanded that because we could have done [training in] administrative history internally. I may have been the only one who ever did a rotational assignment in administrative history. That was because ofLeonard Rapport, and he [Charles Dollar] wanted to establish a rapport with Leonard Rapport. <laughter>

Ted Hull: Yes of course. I find that very interesting because, for the benefit of those who will view or read this transcript, Tom's chapter in the book Thirty Years of Electronic Records does such a wonderful job ofcapturing the history ofthe first 30 years ofthe program and how Charles Dollar was so instrumental in establishing a permanent program for electronic records. I think you point out in your chapter a couple ofreal watersheds where the division had problems or was confronted with issues that were not anywhere within his control. The first is the FBI [Federal Bureau ofInvestigation] - project, and that again is very well documented in the book, and the second is the RJ.FS [Reduction in Force], the Reagan RIFS. And I think a number ofthe Assembly interviews have talked to other people who were at NARA during that traumatic period. I would like to get your impression ofthat because you were in the Machine-Readable Division at that time and just how the Machine-Readable Division was really devastated by the RIFS, and if you could just talk about that, your personal impressions ofthat and how traumatic that was for the division, but I don't want to put any words in your mouth. I've heard it discussed so many times as really being a traumatic period.

Thomas Elton Brown: It was. I think that it is sense ofthe Archives as well. Part ofour corporate culture is that we have people here at the Archives who worked 30-, 40-, SO-years. You come to work for the Archives; you find your niche, and you stay. That's part ofthe culture, which has its good side and its bad side. And suddenly this whole corporate culture is being challenged and through a way that no one could see. There was a rumor at the time --the word on the street at the time. I have not read Bob Warner's [Archivist ofthe United State, July 1980-April 15, 1985] book so I don't know whether or not he documents this. But it was rumored that he had made an agreement with the Administrator, Gerald Carmen, of GSA [Administrator, May 26, 1981-February 29, 1984] that ifhe [Bob Warner] would testify against the re-authorization ofthe NHPRC [National Historical Publications and Records Commission], tlien the National Archives would not endure any RIFS. Of course, this turned out not to be true. He did testify against the re-authorization ofNHPRC, but we still underwent RIFs. NARA did the RIFS by abolishing all the positions ofanyone who had not been with the agency for 3- years. , Because once you were there for 3-years, you had career status. And it was harder for someone from outside ofNARA but still someone from GSA to come in and bump you out. By the fact that we [Machine-Readable Division] were a new unit, a lot ofour people had not been there yet for 3-years, and so all ofthem were out the door. And fortunately, I was hired in '76. I had been there for 5-years so my position was not abolished. But I was on the RIF list ... I was second from the bottom to go.

Ted Hull: So in your chapter in Thirty Years, the Division staff fell to 12, in February 1982.

Thomas Elton Brown: That's probably correct

Ted Hull: So from '82 then, so after '82, the division was reorganized into a branch and Trudy Peterson became the branch chief until August 1983.

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes. I left the branch at that time. Trudy left the branch too at that time or right after that.

Ted Hull: OK so after that in term s ofyour career, you had been an archivist in the Machine-Readable Archives Division and in the Machine-Readable Branch through, I'm looking at your vita just to put the time frame together, until June I983. And then became an archivist in the Documentation Standards Division in the Office ofRecords Administration. Can you talk a little bit about the work ofthat division and how what you did contributed to that? I'm not familiar, excuse my ignorance, but I'm not familiar with docwnentation standards.

Thomas Elton Brown: I was the first member ofthe staffor the division. When we were moving towards independence from GSA , Bob Warner said that we would hang our hat in records management on that phrase in the Federal Records Act, "heads ofagencies shall make and preserve adequate and proper documentation." So we proposed to establish standards for what would constitute adequate and proper documentation. These standards would be required for [both paper and] electronic m aterials. This is how we would get our foot into the door. That's why I was hired -- to make certain that these standards addressed electronic materials that the governmen t --that Federal agencies were creating. Of course, Patti Aronsson was hired to be the division director. And she had some problems with the office head.

Ted Hull: This was in the Office ofRecords Administration? Who was the office head at the time, do you recall?

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes. Jim Moore [James W. Moore, A ssistant Archivist for the Office of Re cords Administration, 1983-19:XX].

Ted Hull: Oh , OK

Thomas Elton Brown: Patti and Jim did not get along we ll personally. We did only two things of substance. It ended up being a staffof only five people. First, we wrote a pamphlet that I think the Archives still issues in revised form to pass out to heads ofFederal agencies. It explains w hat they should do when they come into office and when they leave office as to distinguishing between personal papers and official records and what their responsibilities are for official records. We also conducted a study ofrulemaking records of Federal agencies as to what should be created during the rulemaking process and how these records should be organized and maintained. After that, the program sort of withered on the vine. The other two people involved with the program that are still with the Archives are John Vernon and Fynnette Eaton. They remained with the program after I left. Trudy Peterson, whom I knew as my former branch chief, was, I guess, acting head ofthe Office of the Na tional Archives [Assistant Archivist for Office ofthe National Arch ives, 19:X.X - 1993; Ac ting Archivist ofthe United States, March 25, 1993- May 29, I 995], She said to me that she realized from her perspective that the D ocumentation Standards program was in trouble within the Archives. She said, "Why don 't you come to work for m e? I need someone to deal with the bud get side." It turned out that she also wanted me to write internal procedures. Since I had done th.is study on rulemaking, I was sort ofprepared for that. So I went to work for Trudy on part ofthe Administrative Staff and became chief there. I can rem ember R ay Mos ley [see w here he was in 1985) makin g a comment to a group ofFederal agencies while I was still on the [Documentation Standards] staff. When someo ne asked w hat about the docum entation standards program , Ray said "Well, at the National Archives, we view documentation standards as a goal, not a program." < laughter> I sort ofagreed w ith that - it was not a program ---

Ted Hull: Yes, it's a very difficult position to be in, did you feel that you made some progress though in the area ofelectronic records? Bec ause the examples you gave could be ...

Thomas Elton Brown: No

Ted Hull: media neutral? They apply to records regardless of ...

Thomas Elton Brown: No. I don't think the program ever got offthe ground. We had two people -­ Patti Aronsson and myse lf --in '84 reorganization. I don 't think we every really did anything --either for electronic records or for establishing standards. I think that once Bob Warner retired back to Michigan, the impetus and support that the program had left with him [in 1985].

Ted Hull: So in January '86, you mo ved to work for Trudy [Peterson] on the Administrative Staffin the Office of the Na tional Archives, becom ing ChiefofStaff in February '88, and serving until April '89, I promised I wouldn 't read your resume, but that is in chronological order. You said you joined the Administrative Staff, and during that time, I'm looking at your resume again, as you ment ion you successfully, or you implem ented policies and procedures, and in your resume you mention successfully coordinated and reorganized the Office ofthe National Archives. Can you talk about your role or the Administrative Staffs work on that reorganization within NN [the Office ofthe Na tional Archives]?

Thomas Elton Brown: Yea, prior to that time, NN was organized by subject matter. I am talking about NN as the paper unit. We had a military division, and we had a civil division. Then those divisions differed somewhat in how they were organized functionally. But the basic division was a civil division and a military division. We were beginning to move towards the creation ofArchives II. We had to figure out a way how to organize the records -- the paper records --for the move to Archives II. This meant the need to change the whole subject matter organization into a functional organization so you would have a projects division and a reference division. The theory behind it was that we had to speed up the process ofprocessing and describing the paper records in order so that we would know what we had in order to be able to move them and to be able to find them at Archives II. We referred to UR Us -- umecognized records units --or undescribed records. This is when we began the master relocation register and all that description because the theory was that, as long as people, were doing both projects and reference, reference is going to eat into the project side. Only by establishing a bureaucratic wall [betweent projects and refenence resources] could we ensure that enough time was spent to come to some sort ofintellectual control over the paper records or we would never be able to move them. And so that's what we did; we reorganized the paper side. On the electronic side, this was when the Center for Electronic Records developed. Amazingly enough, I had nothing to do withthe creation ofthe Center for Electronic Records. I think Edie Redlin [Chief, Machine-Readable Branch, 1986-1988] did that. It was sort of the peripheral to the larger effort of organizing the NN office internally.

Ted Hull: Looking back, do you think looking back do you think that the reorganization of the paper units was successful?

Thomas Elton Brown: I do

Ted Hull: The move was certainly very successful!

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes, the move was very successful. And that same reorganization has continued. I find it interesting today to hear the discussion about the need to increase the resources that will be processing the paper records. I hear echoes from that earlier time frame today. What they're doing now is to try to limit the reference resources [to ensure that the paper records are processed].

Ted Hull: Yes, it's a reorganization without reorganizing.

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes.

Ted Hull: So during your time period as Chief ofStaffofthe Administrative Staff, what, other than the reorganization are there other parts ofthat you would like to highlight?

Thomas Elton Brown: Well, I think that Trudy always wanted me to be involved with anything dealing with electronic records. And so whenever anything [ with electronic records] came up, it would be passed on to me. I think the other thing we did was under Frank Burke who was Acting Archivist. He said that we are a national organization therefore we shall recruit nationally. To go back to the CIDS issue: It was at that time which we recruited the first CIDS class, brought them all in, supervised them for the first year under the Administrative Staff and then farmed them out to the separate units. We established that program; I thought that was really a rather successful program. We were under very strict instructions to recruit nationally: "The CIDS class should be representative ofthe nation as a whole, both geographically and demographically."

Ted Hull: Since the CIDS program did have such, and continues to have such, a big impact on the directions the National Archives has taken, with the number oftalented people and really good people who have been hired through that program, are there parts ofthe training that you developed that you feel were especially influential in moving people along their career paths?

Thomas Elton Brown: Well, I think it may inculcate within the CIDS person the desire to stay at the National Archives for a long time since they've invested two years before they're allowed to do anything. <laughter> I think that the CIDS program as it developed probably became over institutionalized and had a lot ofwasted effort with it. Everyone, no matter what your background was, had to take all the same rotational assignments. Even ifyou had spent a career or ten years as a reference archives technician, you still had to go through the reference rotation. They didn't eliminate any ofthese rotational assignments based upon your previous experience at the National Archives or other archival institutions or upon your education. And I think they should have probably have customized it to the individuals and their individual backgrounds. But maybe not so much as how Charles customized it . . . . Then the other thing, you also had a research paper at the end. I'm all in favor ofthe staffofthe National Archives being professionally active regarding professional issues. But it always struck me as strange that here we bring somebody into the program for two years and then expect them to write an archival paper. The quality ofthe CIDS papers has varied immensely, and I don't know whether or not the amount ofeffort the CIDS archivists put into it and the amount ofeffort from the supervisors was worth it, given the fact that you're talking about someone with basically two years ofprofessional experience trying to write a professional paper. It really started with the first CIDS class. It wasn't that you wrote a paper independently. It was more like a seminar paper. The CIDS class met, I think, once a week for 10 or 12- weeks like a graduate-level seminar. I think the first year was with Frank Evans; I'd have to go back and see who it was. But they [the CIDS archivists] met with someone who was a very distinguished member ofthe staffwho had been active professionally and had conducted professional seminars. They would all study the same issue, and they would each write a seminar paper about that issue. And then this devolved into the CIDS archivist working with his supervisor to write a CIDS paper on whatever subject they thought ofat the time. Like everything it evolved.

Ted Hull: Right, so were you smprised when the CIDS program basically ceased to be, after, when was, probably in '98, '99?

Thomas Elton Brown: Smprised, no. Like I said, I thought that certain aspects ofit had become too bureaucratic, too fossilized. I figured that there would be some changes, I was not expecting it to cease. As a supervisor in the CIDS program, I saw that it was taking an awful lot oftime ofthe supervisors and the office heads, scheduling these quarterly meetings, and all the other drills that one went through. In my own mind, it was becoming too fossilized. I think that is a good term for it. It probably should have been reinvented instead ofabolished. Every training program should be.

Ted Hull: Quite a few CIDS trainees assigned to our unit, and I guess we can move on to the Center for Electronic Records now, who didn't seem to stay around very long because they were able to move on to other parts ofthe Office ofthe National Archives and get better positions, but that's just my opinion and it's not my interview ...

Thomas Elton Brown: Right, one ofthe spreadsheets that I kept was a list of all the CIDS people that had been assigned to us, the date they were assigned, and the date they left. And I think only one stayed ...

Ted Hull: Yes, Greg LaMotta is the one.

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes, that had become rather obvious.

Ted Hull: So in 1989, shortly after the Center for Electronic Records was established, you were hired on as a branch chief ofthe Archival Services Branch. I don't know, as Chief ofStaff, I guess, yes, you were a supervisor, but now you in charge ofsupervising as a branch chief! assume a larger unit of archivists, technicians and a reference program and all that ...

Thomas Elton Brown: Right, I was now a line supervisor as opposed to a staff supervisor.

Ted Hull: Can you talk about how you got your position as a branch chief?

Thomas Elton Brown: Well, when Edie wrote all the [material to launch the Center], she established the Center with two branches, Archival Services and Technical Services. And it was up to Ken to hire Technical [sic Archival] Services [Branch Chief]. Ken [Ken Thibodeau, Director, Center for Electronic Records, December 1988-February 1998] called me down and, or I guess up [from 6W to BE]. We had a discussion as to whether I would like the job, and.I told him I would. We talked about it-it was a job interview including why I wanted it. And at the conclusion, he called Trudy and said, 'Td like to hire Tom." At that point, since I was already a supervisor and already a [Grade] 14, it was merely a lateral reassignment.

Ted Hull: And Trudy was willing to Jet you go?

Thomas Elton Brown: I think so. I think Trudy saw that being the head of an administrative staff really was not my cup oftea. I was really much more ofa line manager.

Ted Hull: And so at that time in 1989 it was truly a growing program as you document in Thirty Years. Can you talk about how you were able to hire people outside ofthe archivist series, myself included? Because I think that was a very masterful stroke of genius on your part, to be able to hire people who had truly electronic records backgrounds, or at least data, data librarians ...

Thomas Elton Brown: When we posted an archival position, we could not find anyone who knew something about data. No one would be hired. And so we said, "Well, let's change the job series and get rid ofthis American history requirement." And we did. We worked very closely with personnel. Trudy Peterson is a woman that I respect dearly, and I owe a lot ofmy career to her. But she did not truly appreciate our need to move toward using the archives specialist series as a professional job series just as we would use the archivist [job series]. But I think she also understood [if not "truly appreciate"]why we were doing it. ... When the last CIDS class was hired [in the late 1990's], they just threw it open and you could hire archivists, archives specialists, or librarians. She probably would have disagreed with that because she probably would have thought that it was very important for a traditional archival program to hire archivists. But she understood that we were not a traditional archival program. And so I think she understood [ why we were doing] what we were doing and probably would support it. I feel quite strongly she would support the current ADP program that is far broader than ... you know ... your 18 hours of American history.

Ted Hull: Also the job requirements for, the positive educational requirements for the archivist series have changed since then. How does that relate to the archives specialists and the rigidities ofthe old archivist job series? Is it just recognition that you can hire arc hi vis ts ...

Thomas Elton Brown: The 18 hours ofAmerican history requirement was developed in the 1960's when there were not any archival training programs anywhere. What training would allow someone to become an archivist? That was when, as I pointed out, you basically had to have a Masters degree in American history so that at least you would have done some research in an archives or in original primary source material. I think that it shows that the profession has grown far beyond this narrow confine. I would say of all the things that I have done, probably to increase the diversity ofthe background ofthe people working in the Center is probably one ofthe things I am most proud.

Ted Hull: Again, as you document in Thirty Years, during your tenure as branch chief a number ofimportant external influences impacted on the program. The biggest ofwhich I'm sure anybody would say was the PROFS case2 that really impacted the trajectory of growth that was predicted for the program. Having been on the reference staff, I was pretty much shielded from any PROFS related activities, but from a manager's perspective, can you explain a little bit about how this impacted your work or the work of the Archival Services Staff?

Thomas Elton Brown: I think it impacted the Technical Services Staffmore than the Archival Service Staff. And also [it impacted] the management level oftrying to figure 011t the money angle ofit because the resources that we were getting were being drained toward processing the PROFS material as it was coming in. That's the downside. One ofthe great upsides that came out ofPROFS was that it ratified what many ofus in the Center for Electronic Records always believed. Email was indeed record material and had to be managed. The fact that it was record material that had to be managed did not necessarily make it archival material, but it had to be managed while it's in the hands ofthe agency. Ifit is important, it should come to the archives for permanent retention. I think all ofus in the Center for Electronic Records believed that, and we're glad that the court case ultimately decided that. In other words, they never asked us --the Department ofJustice never asked us our opinion,. Those ofus who worked in electronic records for so long believed in the importance ofthis material. I can remember representing the [National] Archives at a Coalition for Networked Information meeting. On the panel with me was Scott Armstrong. One of the people in the audience stood up and began criticizing the National Archives and me personally since I was the representative ofthe National Archives. Scott intervened and said "Just a second, there have been many, many people laboring in the vineyards trying to preserve this stuff for decades. And this man is one of them." So, there are some people out there who understood that the government's position was not necessarily the position ofthe archival staffor, for that matter, the Acting Archivist Trudy Peterson.

Ted Hull: Well since that time we've heard a lot about the importance of agency's adopting electronic record keeping systems. And I've always heard you talk about that, that record keeping systems are what's needed to manage electronic records ofan office automation form and email. Since the PROFS case, in your opinion, have agency's made any real progress, and also from your great experience in looking at records disposition schedules and the area ofrecords appraisal. Are agency's really making any progress towards ... ?

Thomas Elton Brown: I haven't seen it. I think that the vast majority ofthe stuffout ofthe White House that we have looked at is not worthy ofpermanent retention. I think Greg LaMotta did some interesting studies for his paper that he gave at SAA in trying to explain just how much chaffis in the wheat ofthe email out ofthe White House. And I don't know how many agencies are actually involved with implementing records management systems for email, but what it is going to take is for agencies at the time of creation-to figure out what to dispose ofat the appropriate time and to figure out a way how to. transfer that which needs to be saved to the Archives. One thing that I have learned is that the most important thing about electronic records is not the technology but is the human angle. As you know, ifwe lose the technical documentation and the codebook to a data file, no amount ofmoney can recreate the usability ofthat data file; it is lost forever. However, ifwe have the documentation but the data file is in a native format, we can spend money to get it out ofthat native format into something that is usable. It's all a matter ofmoney ifyou're trying to solve a technical problem. Ifyou're trying to solve an intellectual problem, there are certain human problems that no amount of money can solve.

Ted Hull: And that well, we can talk about that point for a long time, because that hearkens back to something I didn't talk about, or didn't ask about from Thirty Years, that is you call it the, I always think ofit as the COM Debacle, Subcommittee C, and how perhaps we need to microfilm our documentation and at least send that to Boyers along with our backup tapes. But I think you've documented that so well in Thirty Years unless there's something you want to add something to your very pointed discussion about all ofthat craziness.

Thomas Elton Brown: But it was always like a bad penny that always kept coming back and coming back. I think I've said enough in there ...

Ted Hull: Hopefully we're beyond that. The other aspect to your discussion in Thirty Years about the changes the Center went through, one ofthe more, actually the whole part of the electronic records program, was where to put appraisal. And certainly you left a lasting mark in the area ofelectronic records appraisal and so my question is while the Center had appraisal of electronic records, did we really do that good of a job?

Thomas Elton Brown: I'm glad you asked that question, because I think that our colleagues in the appraisal unit today have a misinterpretation ofwhat all was going on when we acquired appraisal in 1989. We had appraisal up until 1984. With the establishment ofthe Office ofRecords Administration under Jim Moore, they consolidated the appraisal function in order to focus in all ofthe records management activity within the agency. The only two things that we had that was records management was appraisal and documentation standards. And they wanted consolidated these; it was a political move so there would be one-stop shopping for records management.

Ted Hull: This was at the same time as independence

Thomas Elton Brown: Right

Ted Hull: To distinguish what NARA did from what GSA did

Thomas Elton Brown: That was, I think, a strategic, tactical --whatever you want to call it --move to make sure that we didn't lose our foothold within the agencies. In 1989, five years later, when Don Wilson [Archivist ofUnited States, December 4, 1987-March 24, 1993] said he wanted to establish a model program [ for electronic records], he asked Ken and myself what it was that we needed. And in 1989, the vast majority ofelectronic materials being produced by computers in the Federal government that had long-term value were data files. You had the beginning of stand-alone PCs about 5-years earlier. Most ofthe PCs were not networked; they were being used to generate output and individuals were managing their own work [spaces]. In this environment ifsomething is not communicated somehow, I don't think it would be a record or would rise to the level ofa level ofa permanent record. Something on my C: drive is probably not a record unless I attach it to an email and send it to you. The problem that we were having was [ our exclusive concern with data]. I think this is one ofthe big issues when you asked earlier how successful have we been educating our colleagues about the importance ofelectronic records or how to manage them. I questioned [ whether] we had been that good because for so long all we were interested in was data. because [ only data] was being born digital. And data from 1985 to 1989 was not being scheduled. We explained this to Don. And he said, "OK, well, you're now responsible for scheduling and appraising." We said, "We're really not really interested in doing the scheduling because that means we would get into the temporary stuff." And he said, "Well, then, you can be in charge ofappraisal of electronic records." At that time, electronic records meant data. But within 3-to 5-years that, shall we say, was overtaken by events. Technology had changed, and suddenly data was not the major records management concern. We had gone into LANs and email, and both intranet and internet email. As that became important, it was sort of difficult to say, "OK, you're going to have this group over here appraise the paper correspondence in an office and this group over there appraising the electronic form ofthat [correspondence]." And I know when we were in the White House trying to appraise the Clinton email after PROFS, it was always sort ofstrange with Jim Hastings and I both there trying to deal with the appraisal issue. So I really think that the removal ofappraisal from the Center for Electronic Records in 1998 reflected the.change in technology that email and office correspondence within the office, or between offices, or between agencies, or the public and the agencies probably needs to be appraised together. My great fear is the fact that the data is not going to be appraised. Because, I guess; ofall the formats in the National Archives, data is the only one in electronic form that the Archives had not acquired in a earlier capacity in analog form. You have digital photographs, analog photographs; digital memos, paper memos; digital movies, analog movies.

Ted Hull: I have a comment, unless you count survey forms, that we have a lot ifyou look at Record Group 257, Consumer Expenditures Surveys from 1918, 1930 ... You're referring to punch cards in an earlier form, digital data, as we know from Peggy's article3 that punch cards were not really considered record material.

Thomas Elton Brown: Well, some people considered them to be. Well, I think what's fascinating about these [paper] surveys that"we have acquired is that -- yes, and we have some Census schedules from the economic censuses of 1927 or something like that --because when the Archives opened its doors, they just took in anything. They needed to justify their existence. And the truth ofthe matter [is that], when the electronic records program was established in 1968, it took in everything that it could. [Ofthe seriesws on) the first list ofaccessioned material in the National Archives in digital form from -- I think it [that list] was in 1973 - '74--within five years; all but one ofthose [series of] records had been internally disposed of. So I think its sort of human nature to go and grab everything initially.

Ted Hull: Thank you for your comments on electronic records appraisal, because I think that is such an important aspect ofthe work you've done ofthe last 30 years. Now I'd like to move onto some general questions. I think we've touched upon major points in your career. What were some ofthe challenges and issues that you faced in your career with the agency. Let's start with what was the biggest challenge that you were confronted with?

Thomas Elton Brown: I think probably it's always been limited resources because archives is a very labor intensive operation, even ifyou are dealing with electronic records. There's always been the push to do more with less, and I think that's always been the biggest challenge. As I said earlier today in the [ Archivsist Development Program] workshop, John Carlin [Archivist ofthe United States, May 30, 1995-February 15, 2005], was very successful in increasing the amount ofmoney. How that was money was spent would be subject to some discussion. But other than that period, we've always been suffering from limited resources.

Ted Hull: And we're back to that to point again.

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes.

Ted Hull: Yes, what was your biggest disappointment during your career?

Thomas Elton Brown: I would say the appraisal ofthe 2000 Census. [I am disappointed in] the fact that we, in effect, appraised 500 million blank pages as permanent, the amount ofmoney that will waste ifwe don't correct it, and the failure ofour colleagues in the agency and outside ofthe agency to see that --what is it? --the Individual Census Record File contains all ofthe information that anyone will ever want, that is the only thing that will need to be saved and that is the only thing that will ever be used. I would say that that was my biggest disappointment. No matter how hard we argued, those arguments fell on deaf ears except inside the Center for Electronic Records.

Ted Hull: And that goes back to your earlier point about data. Because that's what it is, it's data! Very good. Did changes in the administration change the nature ofyour work assignments, describe those changes. I think this is really, how did you work in the hierarchy? I think in your case, the head ofthe Office ofthe National Archives certainly had a big impact on your career.

Thomas Elton Brown: Oh yes, Trudy obviously had an impact on my career. I don't think that, outside of[Trudy], who held the Office ofthe National Archives really impacted me because most ofthose people -- whether your talking about Mabel Dietrich or Jim Moore [Assistant Archivist for the Office ofthe National Archives, 198X- 198X] [had an impact.] I guess when Jim was there with Mary Ann Wallace as NN-B, it really did impact the Machine-Readable Branch because that was when we were moved into 13E stack area. That's where Trudy in Thirty Years4 talks about she could only open one side ofher desk drawers. They also took away all access to technology from us, and that probably impacted [us] severely. But Frank Burke, Michael Kurtz, and Mabel Dietrich were always focusing on trying to get as many resources as they could from the Archivist, the resource allocator at that point, as opposed on affecting the line manager or the line supervisor.

Ted Hull: What would you say were the most significant turning points in your career?

Thomas Elton Brown: Well, I would say coming to work for Charles Dollar in the Machine-Readable Archives Division; leaving the Documentation Standards Staff and going to work for Trudy Peterson [since] that gave me some valuable administrative experience; and then going to work for Ken as a line manager. I had that job for 18-years, and it was the finest job I could ever imagine.

Ted Hull: Very good. Here's something external about your relationship with Federal ... what has been your relationship with other Federal agencies and how have changes within those agencies impacted your work? I think this is a very interesting question; this is one ofthe Assembly questions!

Thomas Elton Brown: In my position as a~inthe Center for Electronic Records, I seldom dealt with Federal agencies. It's amazing! I dealt with archivists who dealt with Federal agencies; I dealt with archivists in NWML who dealt with other Federal agencies. But I seldom got involved. I think there's a story I'd like to tell in terms ofFederal agencies. I was probably here at the National Archives for probably one year or two years, and Joe Califano was the head ofHEW [Joseph Califano, Secretary ofHealth, Education and Welfare, 1977-1979]. He had hired a computer person to put together an automated index for his central correspondence file. I was given the task to appraise this index. We're talking about a very senior person working for a very senior person [ a cabinet secretary]. I'm a GS 9 archivist. This is what all ofus [in the Machine-Readable Archives Division] were doing at this level because no one else was dealing with electronic records. So you had very junior people --very junior archivists --going and talking to very senior people. I arrived at his [ the IT official designing the index ]office. The appointment was at 10:00, and I made certain I'm there by 10 minutes early. WeII, I arrived and was immediately escorted into his office. And he said, "You were supposed to be here 20 minutes ago. Where have you been?" I just sort ofstammered all over the place, and said I thought the appointment was for 10:00. ''No, my calendar says it's 9:30. Ifmy calendar says it's 9:30, it's 9:30." And I apologized, then he turned and said "You know, the only one person would I waste 20 minutes waiting for would be somebody from the National Archives." It turned out that he was a Civil War history buff, and we proceeded to spend the next hour talking about Civil War history. Fortunately I was not that far out ofgrad school so I could still remembered [ enough history to discuss] it. And he always spent his summer vacations touring Civil War battlefields; the previous summer he had gone to battlefields in Missouri and to Pea Ridge, Arkansas. WeII, my senior thesis happened to be on Pea Ridge, Arkansas. He and I then spent a good thirty minutes reliving the Battle ofPea Ridge and questioning Sterling Price's military strategy. <laughter> I tell that story because it, I think, captures the fact that within other Federal agencies we have a reservoir of support ofpeople who appreciate the fact that we are preserving American history. I think we should figure out a way to exploit that fact. This is opposed to trying to minimize the fact that we are a cultural agency and to maximize that we are a records management agency.

Ted Hull: We never got the index though, did we?

Thomas Elton Brown: I appraised it as temporary.

Ted Hull: You did? Index to the Secretary's correspondence?

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes, it would not facilitate access to the information given the data elements that was in it. He was more than willing to give it to me ifwe wanted it.

Ted Hull: I'm not sure how this next question, I feel obligated to ask all these questions now, how this applies to you but I think it does, describe, and I think you may have touched on this already, in your discussion ofyour early training, describe the process of becoming a subject area expert, in electronic records, how did researcher interest and research demands guide your work with the records? I think you can interpret that in many different ways.

Thomas Elton Brown: I don't think I ever became a subject matter expert. I may be an expert in electronic records, but that was certainly not driven by researcher demand. It was not like Greg Bradsher and his subject area expertise in records relating to Nazi Germany since researcher demand obviously drove him to learn everything that we could figure out about those records. So I really don't think that I have a subject matter expertise. And if it were in electronic records, it wasn't driven by researchers since I have had very little active involvement in responding to reference.

Ted Hull: But I think your subject area expertise is really in Census, at least I consider you to be, in two areas, not just the Census Bureau but in FOIA and access

Thomas Elton Brown: OK ... when I was a line archivist from '75 to '83, that was my agency and that's when we worked an awful lot on getting records in from the Census Bureau. But we spent a lot more time trying to. get records in than actually getting records in. It wasn't until Mike Miller came along that he was actually able to burst the dam, and the stuffreally began to flow.

Ted Hull: The dam's been closed.

But in the area ofFOIA and access, how did you develop that expertise, I'm curious?

Thomas Elton Brown: Back in '82 (I think it was) or early in the early 80's, the whole issue of contract and grant records came up. I was working with a lot ofcontractor-generated records -- a lot ofstuff from the National Institute ofEducation, --all ofwhich were created under contracts, grants, or combinations thereof. The whole question was, "Were these Federal records? Could you have access to them?" It was an issue in various professional associations like APDU [Association ofPublic Data Users] or !ASSIST [International Association for Social Science Information Service and Technology]. And that was how the FOIA became important. When the Forsham decision was handed down,5 we were trying to get involved with the [ scheduling ofthe] National Science Foundation's contract laboratory records. The FOIA question came up as, "Is the data created under contact and/or grants a Federal record that should be managed as such?" Can you have access to it? Ifthe agency gives you access to a printout, can you still require the data?" That was a huge issue and [remained] an issue at various points in time. But I think it all began whether grants and contracts produced Federal records.

Ted Hull: And the answer is? in the case ofcontracts, yes, and grants, no, except hasn't a decision recently been made about, I haven't understood this, that data collected under grant is subject to FOIA?

Thomas Elton Brown: I am not familiar with that.

Ted Hull: I thought it was a decision recently related to some tobacco litigation?

Thomas Elton Brown: I don't know, I'm not familiar with that.

Ted Hull: We'll set that aside. In my mind I always considered you a subject area expert in that area and in Census generally and I see where that's come about. How would you describe the intellectual and institutional value ofthe records with which you work? I think that's an interesting question, I'm not sure how to interpret it though? How would you describe the intellectual and institutional value ofthe records with which you work?

Thomas Elton Brown: Well, I'm going to take it very broadly. The records ofthe Center for Electronic Records cover 130 different agencies across the board. I think that's what has been most interesting about working for the Center. In electronic records, you move from one topic to another! That's the whole question about subject area expert. Yes, I worked a lot in the Census, but I was also taking in a lot from the National Institute ofEducation and other things ofthat nature. And the fact that it is so broad in terms ofsubjects, I think, is what gives it its value. Granted I think it may be somewhat shallow. With few exceptions, we're not very deep. Census would be one ofthem [the exceptions] where we are fairly deep. But generally speaking, we have --I think --have identified the basic data and the basic agencies. I think that's the importance ofour holdings.

Ted Hull: And just as a side comment, unfortunately due to limited resources I think there are certain areas that we could get a lot deeper in

Thomas Elton Brown: Oh, f do too.

Ted Hull: But it's really the resources it comes down to, doesn't it?

Thomas Elton Brown: Right, it's the resources internally and the willingness ofthe agencies externally to cooperate with us. Ifyou find an agency with a records officer that's willing to work with us, then we can do great things. Ifyou don't have that records officer, data administrator, or program official who doesn't want to work because it's too much trouble, whatever, whatever, whatever, then we will never get a depth to the records that we have.

Ted Hull: Linda Henry also submitted some questions. So earlier today in the session you did for the ADP [Archivist Development Program] training you may have heard these already.

Thomas Elton Brown: We never got to them

Ted Hull: I think they bear repeating.

Thomas Elton Brown: We never got to those questions.

Ted Hull: Oh, OK, well, the first one was what was the most important thing you learned that you would like to pass on to new electronic records archivists? It says electronic records archivist, but it could really be any new NARA archivist?

Thomas Elton Brown: The important thing, I mentioned earlier I believe, about electronic records is not the technology, but the intellectual importance ofunderstanding the content ofthe records and coming to some sort ofunderstanding intellectually ofwhat you 're dealing with; their provenance, the reason why they were created, how the agency used them. The technology should be secondary. One ofthe things we were talking about earlier was the diversity ofthe workforce in the archival staff. One ofthe things that we added was IT people on the Archival Service Staff. I think that is very important because ifthe archivist can figure out the intellectual problems and challenges, then the IT person is there ifthere is a new technical issue. The IT person can come to bear [ on the problem] .. As I said in that paper on website appraisals,6 merely the fact that we can preserve something doesn't mean its worth preserving. The important thing is: "Let's worry about ifwe can preserve it only after we determine whether or not it's worth preserving."

Ted Hull: Something that I've learned from you certainly is that the technology will take care ofitself ... the dependencies. I mean, we are committed to taking things and preserving things in a hardware and software independent format, but there are cases where that's not really possible, but certainly ifthe need is great enough the technology can be tooled to read, to interpret, to process, whatever we may have preserved, so ...

Thomas Elton Brown: We took in a lot ofstuff from the 9-11 Commission that will be a technological challenge. So long as we have intellectual control over what it is, we will be able to solve the technology issues ifwe're willing to spend the money. Possibly for the 9-11 Commission, future generations may be willing to spend the money. So yes, I agree, technical dependencies may not necessarily take care ofthemselves, but we could be able to take care ofthose dependencies.

Ted Hull: What was your most, I'm moving on to the next question, what was your most important contribution to the program?

Thomas Elton Brown: The diversity ofthe background ofthe staff.

Ted Hull: I agree. What was the high point ofthe program? Or ofyour career, you can do either one or both. What was the high point?

Thomas Elton Brown: Probably when Ken said that he would like for me to become the head ofthe Archival Services Branch ofthe Center for Electronic Records. Because I really think that ...

Ted Hull: That was the high point ofyour career?

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes, the high point ofmy career, I think we had some problems. And I think we also had some successes. I think I made a contribution, particularly starting offin those first ten years.

Ted Hull: And the high point ofthe program, what do you think that was?

Thomas Elton Brown: I would say probably the most significant part ofthe program was when Everett Alldredge [head, Office ofRecords Administration, 1955-May 1971] had the foresight to start it. I mean, it had a rough start getting started. That may not be the high point, but I think that what Ev Alldredge did during that time has probably not been adequately documented --ofhow he labored to get the program started. The high point, probably, I would say, was the fact that we successfully responded to every court challenge presented to us by the PROFS case. And the fmal line was the case was dismissed in 1994, Then the subsequent GRS 207 case was filed against us, and we won that case by a mile. I mean it was just a slam dunk for us. We successfully staved offtwo very serious legal challenges in the early to mid-90's.

Ted Hull: Well, knowing Linda as you do, we have the other side ofthe coin, the low point ofyour career and ofthe program?

Thomas Elton Brown: Obviously, the RIFs of '82. We knew that individuals were going to suffer; we knew that the program was going to suffer, and we knew that the Archives as an agency was going to suffer.

Ted Hull: And ofyour career?

Thomas Elton Brown: Probably working for the Documentation Standards Staff

Ted Hull: Oh really?

Thomas Elton Brown: Because it was not a pleasant experience ....

Ted Hull: It sounds like you had a great, challenging mandate? But, just not enough resources.

Thomas Elton Brown: Not enough resources and the personalities involved between Peggy [sic Patti] and Jim Moore. That was not a nice situation to be in. Because there were so few ofus, it's not like you can run and hide some place. It was very up close and personal, constantly.

Ted Hull: The last question listed here, is, this is going back, I think, to our earlier discussion oftraining really, but what do you believe are the most important qualifications to be an electronic records archivist?

Thomas Elton Brown: I would say a willingness to learn new things. And that means a willingness to f ask questions --even if you think you should know the answer. Because one ofthe things --since I stayed around long enough --I could tell people, "I'm sorry, I don't think I understand what you're saying" about a technical issue. And I think people need to be able to admit that they don't know what they don't know, admit it, ask questions and learn something. And I think an attention to detail [is also an important qualification.] I think those would be the two key points. When you look at it, it may be those would be the two key points for any archivist.

Ted Hull: Yea that's true. I have two more questions, if you're done with that. The first is, and this is another electronic records focused question, electronic records and how we've fit into the broader agency over the years. And this question has to do. with description. I noticed in your vita, you developed descriptive standards and things like that, but it seems from my perspective as an archivist who has done a lot ofretrospective work on our earlier descriptions that in the early years, we seemed to diverge some from the NARA descriptive standards, is that a fair assessment? Or, how was or was not electronic records integrated into the larger NN management ofholdings? I think you know where I am going and this is more of a mechanical reporting 14044s and accessions, and tabulating our holdings, and description, and that whole ...

Thomas Elton Brown: Tabulating our holdings, oh God! <laughter>

Ted Hull: As we've come back full circle now that we're counting logical data records agam ....

Thomas Elton Brown: Well, back in the 70's when we first began to describing records, you had two things going on. You had NARA adopting the NARS A-1 system where we would describe series ofrecords on 6710s, 6710As. And then, as I said, at that time, the paper world was divided into two worlds, military records and civilian records. And so we would describe our military records in our holdings because that was when Don Harrison was bringing in all the Vietnam material. We would send them [the decriptions] down to military, and they would not approve them. So we would change them. Then we would start describing civilian records and send them [ those descriptions] down so that they would reflect the standards from the military side. But the civilian people were not describing the records according to the same standards as the military units and vice versa. There were two different approaches. And the other non-textual units -- motion pictures, sound recording, still pictures --were heavy into item-level description. They could care less about these [ discussions about describing] series.

Ted Hull: They did their own thing

Thomas Elton Brown: They [military division and civilian division] did their own thing, but we were the only unit who was involved with describing series ofrecords that had to conform to both ofthem. What we did was to point out that there was no standardization or no descriptive standards within the agency. The other thing that we did -- and one ofthe problems that I see this echoing back now as we go into ERA --in the 70's was to try to describe records only once in their lifecycle and that would be at the time ofscheduling and appraisal. And these would be on 671 0As. You had the appraisal archivist writing out 6710As for all ofthe paper records, and we would do the same for the electronic records. Now within the files, you will see volumes of6710As ofrecords [that] have never been accessioned, have never come in. Since we were writing our own descriptions, we sort ofliked what we did. But the custodial units did not like what the appraisal archivists in the Office ofthe Records Centers were doing. So whenever they would get something in, they would just throw out the previous description and redo it themselves. <laughter> So you had, at this point, three or four different descriptive standards emerging. With that effort going on, you also had at that same time period Sue Dodd and the whole effort ofcataloguing machine-readable records. 8 And this evolved into a Proposed Federal Standard for the Cataloguing ofMachine-Readable Records. [sic] [ Proposed Standards for Bibliographic Entry and Abstracts ofFederal Machine­ Readable Data Files.] When we began following that standard for some ofour holdings, we were describing the same records twice. Sue could never quite figure this one out, "Why are you describing the same records twice?" I said, "Well we need to follow the NARA standards that don't exist. Aand we had to follow the Federal government standards that are emerging." And those were always a "proposed" standard. And so that's why you have during that 70's period a multitude ofdifferent attempts to describe records.

Ted Hull: But what resulted was the Catalog ofMachine-Readable Records.

Thomas Elton Brown: Right

Ted Hull: Which was a NARA publication

Thomas Elton Brown: Right

Ted Hull: Sponsored by NTIS?

Thomas Elton Brown: No, that was something separate.

Ted Hull: That was something separate?

Thomas Elton Brown: The Catalog was a National Archives Trust Fund Publication.

Ted Hull: Which was a finding aid to our holdings. Interesting. Because then, I guess, it wasn't until the Format-X and-Y came along that NARA had a descriptive standard

Thomas Elton Brown: Yes, that's when we tried to develop one --with the X- and Y-Formats.

Ted Hull: Which we did and we followed, OK, very good, that helps quite a bit. The other question of course is the inevitable, ERA. As your career came to a close at the end of June, you could see ERA off on the horizon, I believe, and so, what as you now leave the electronic records program, how so you see what you're leaving behind evolve or become a part ofthe ERA effort?

Thomas Elton Brown: I think that my experience with electronic records since 1976 is that we've always evolved based upon earlier experience. The automation ofour verification process through AERIC [Archival Electronic Records Inspection and Control Utility] was merely the automation ofthe manual process that we were doing. The ability to verify email within AERIC is based upon the verification ofdata files, structured data files. And so I hope and I think, given the fact that you have Ken and Fynnette [Fynnette Eaton, Chief, Technical Services Branch, Center for Electronic Records, 1989-ca. 1996] there, ERA will be based upon [ our experiences].... And for that matter Mark Conrad, Bob Chadduck ...

Ted Hull: ... Adrienne Reagins and Sharon Smoot and ...

Thomas Elton Brown: It will be based upon the practical experience that the agency has had dealing with electronic records for the last 35 years now. And I think that ERA will succeed in a number ofits goals. Whether it succeeds with, you know, any format, anytime, anyplace, anywhere ... I don't know if that's possible. But will we be able to manage the basic formats? I think ERA probably will be able to do that. The technology is there, and all we have is to make certain Lockheed Martin finds it. I think it will be a partial solution

Ted Hull: Well that concludes all of, those are all the questions I have. Is there anything else you'd like to day for the record here?

Thomas Elton Brown: I don't think so.

Ted Hull: Tapped you out. What time is it? Gees, we've gone for over an hour and a half. Well thanks so much Tom. I really appreciate it.