Australian Society of Archivists
1999 Conference
ARCHIVES AT RISK:
Accountability, Vulnerability and Credibility
-Keynote Presentation-
John McDonald
Senior Advisor
National Archives of Canada
I would like to begin by saying how much I appreciate the honour of
being invited to deliver the keynote presentation for this conference.
I also appreciate the wonderful hospitality that has been extended by
so many of you during my visit. In spite of the significant distances
between our two countries, we have much in common. Certainly in Canada
we have learned a great deal from the tremendous strides you have made
in advancing the development of both the theories as well as the
practices associated with the management of modern records.
I always find it interesting to note that as much as we value what
our American colleagues have to offer, we seem to connect so much more
with yourselves here in Australia. Perhaps it is our shared ties to
the Commonwealth experience and the parliamentary system of government
or perhaps it’s based on some form of shared values and
principles - I’m not sure.
One thing I am sure about, however, is that Canada is a distinct
society and we are certainly distinct from our American neighbours to
the south (in spite of the multitude of McDonald’s restaurants,
American made cars, and American made movies, TV shows and music). For
instance, we say “eh” a lot and we constantly complain about
our long and very cold winters. I understand from some of my
colleagues here in this room that we are supposed to be polite to the
point of being irritating for which I apologize profusely -
(apologizing is another irritating Canadian trait). We maintain a low
profile, we are deferential to authority, and we don’t tend to
celebrate our accomplishments very much.
And, we trust in our government. In fact as a society we tend to
subscribe to the value of “peace, order and good government”,
the core phrase in our constitution. This is an interesting contrast
to our American neighbors who hold the primary value in their
constitution to be “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
- which may explain why they complain about government intervention
and why they sue the government for just about everything it does.
Canadians respect their government. Is this a good thing or a bad
thing? How do we know that we can trust in our government? Where is
the proof that government is continuing to respect the public trust?
How do we know that government is capable of holding itself to account
when we haven’t even asked it to account for itself (except
perhaps in the annual Report of the Auditor General, the occasional
access to information request, or some royal commission the results of
which may wind up on a shelf).
We know, because inherently we know we can (or at least should be
able to) turn to the records that public servants generate as a normal
part of carrying out their responsibilities and holding themselves to
account. The trust in government is based on the inherent trust we
have as Canadians that the records will be there should we ever need
to exercise our right to call government to account. On the other hand
we also have an inherent trust that policies, rules of the road, and
standards will be in place to govern the way in which records are
created and maintained.
We don’t spend a lot of time thinking about this, just as we
don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the policies and
standards that we assume are in place to ensure the proper management
of the financial and human resources of government - but the point is
that we have an inherent trust that such a structure is in place.
Finally, we have an inherent trust or expectation that someone is
looking after that structure. Just as we expect that there should be
authoritative points of contact for the policies and standards used
for the management of human and financial resources, so too do we
expect there should be an authoritative point of contact for the
management of records. And just as we expect the authoritative point
of contact for human resources to make it clear to civil servants that
they can’t hire their spouses and just as we expect that the
authoritative point of contact for financial resources will make it
clear to civil servants that they can’t purchase plane tickets
for personal travel, so too will we expect the authoritative point of
contact for records to make it clear to civil servants that they can’t
neglect their responsibilities for documenting their activities or
destroying records without authorization. As citizens we also expect
that point of contact to be staffed with professionals who subscribe
to certain values and even a code of ethics. Such a code serves to
further reinforce the sense of trust we have that public servants will
act in a responsible manner.
What a lovely scenario!! (How almost Canadian)!! If only the world
could be so perfect. Government and society marching into the new
millennium each trusting in the other, government for the people, by
the people; openness; transparency; democracy in action! As we all
know, however, we are far from such a perfect world. And this brings
me to the theme of the conference; “Archives at Risk;
Accountability, Vulnerability, and Credibility”. Are archives at
risk? Are the records needed to provide evidence of past actions (or
inactions), identity, and heritage vulnerable to loss? How can
archives as institutions position themselves to be credible and
relevant in the face of a society which is increasingly skeptical of
its government and yet, at the same time is increasingly aware of the
role records play in protecting individual rights and entitlements and
in establishing a sense of collective identity? How can they position
themselves to be credible and relevant in the face of a government
which, in its treatment of records, seems to be cavalier at best and
malicious at worst. And yet a government that is also recognizing the
importance of records in establishing a trustworthy accountable
environment because it is essential to the delivery of its programs
and services? How can archives position themselves to be credible and
relevant when the records themselves, especially those in electronic
form, are so vulnerable to loss and destruction? These are big
questions. They also cover a lot of ground which is why the
establishment of a focus for this paper was a bit of a challenge.
To provide that focus and at the same time to bring the themes of
the conference into sharper relief, I thought I would continue in the
direction I was taking a few minutes ago by returning to the theme of
accountability and especially accountability within a public sector
setting. And I would like to do this for two reasons. First, I believe
the relationship between archives and the role of records in
supporting government business and accountability is becoming (or has
become) fundamental to the way in which an archives shapes its role in
the future. Second, I thought that the emphasis on the theme of
accountability would provide a context within which the other
conference themes of“vulnerability” and “credibility”
could be discussed more meaningfully. All of this is designed to help
us begin formulating concrete opinions concerning the extent to which
“archives are at risk”.
Let me begin with why I think the relationship between government
accountability, records and archives is receiving such unprecedented
attention. While there are undoubtedly more, I’ve identified
seven factors which I believe are having a major impact on the
accountability-records-archives relationship and causing us to acquire
a deeper understanding and appreciation of both the complexity and
breadth of that relationship.
The first factor, government restructuring, has
been going on for more than a decade. The devolution of government
responsibilities to organizations, most often in the private sector,
is having a profound impact on the status of the records associated
with these responsibilities. A case in point. In the Canadian federal
government, responsibility for air traffic control was passed from
Transport Canada to a private sector company called NAVCAN. Only at
the last minute was it discovered that the medical records of air
traffic controllers would be transferred outside of the control of the
government and, therefore, the Privacy Act. Steps were taken to
resolve the issue but it was clear that no-one had accounted for what
was, in effect, a significant records issue and an equally significant
privacy issue. Nothing had been reflected in the agreement to cover
the transfer of the records. No one had been held to account to make
sure such a situation did not occur. Not only was this a wake up call
to the air traffic controllers, it was also a wake up call to the
government which recognized it needed to factor in the record keeping
issue if it was to address accountability issues associated with the
devolution of its programs.
Now, as governments devolve their responsibilities, they are
transforming themselves into much smaller entities focusing on policy,
regulation, and standards setting. Records are central to this kind of
environment. They are necessary in documenting the decision making
process leading to new policies or standards, or in regulating a
particular function such as drug licensing or firearms registration.
On the one hand, good record keeping is something that is too often
ignored. On the other, however, the electronic work environment is
raising all sorts of questions and concerns about the ability of
public servants to find, use and trust in the electronic information
they need to do their jobs. Governments are waking up to the record
keeping issue and its implications from an accountability perspective.
The second factor is globalization. The pressures
of global change, especially in the economic sphere is having a major
impact on how governments position themselves to ensure their
countries remain competitive in the international marketplace. Complex
public-private sector alliances and partnerships are being forged
which are supposed to be based on trust and openness - a trust and
openness which can be severely threatened if one or several of the
partners are unable to account for themselves because they are unable
to produce the records that would otherwise have given assurance of
their integrity and their capability to serve as effective partners.
The record keeping dimension is becoming a central concern to
governments which recognize the importance of trust in the
establishment of such relationships.
Electronic Commerce and Electronic Service Delivery
is the third factor. Many developed countries are building strategies
for delivering their programs and services electronically and
transacting business over the “net”. Private sector firms
such as banks, insurance companies, suppliers, and others are urging
their governments to move quickly to the adoption of policies,
standards and practices for managing electronic transactions. They
want electronic records to be accepted as evidence of these
transactions for the purposes of the courts and as the basis for
record keeping in general. They want to know that they can rely on the
security surrounding these transactions, that where necessary, records
will be protected using encryption techniques such as Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI), and that such records will be retrievable in
spite of changes to the PKI environment. Governments are recognizing
that a poor record keeping infrastructure will add considerable risk
to the integrity and trustworthiness of electronic commerce and
electronic service delivery initiatives, especially where the ability
to produce authoritative and reliable records is the key to their
success.
Closely connected with the third factor is the fourth, privacy.
Societies around the world are becoming increasingly sensitive about
the collection and use by governments and the private sector of
personal information, especially when so much of it is in electronic
form. At the same time, governments are partnering with the private
sector to build electronic service delivery applications that will
bring privacy issues to new levels of complexity. Legislation such as
the European Directive on Personal Information and the proposal to
extend the Canadian Privacy Act(1) to
the commercial sector are examples of the steps governments have taken
to maintain and enhance citizens’ trust in the integrity of their
government’s services even as they become electronic. Governments
are concerned that all of these efforts will be for nought, and the
relationship of trust will be seriously impaired if poor record
keeping results in the mismanagement or inadvertent destruction of
personal information.
While privacy legislation is designed to protect information, the
fifth factor, freedom of information, is intended to
provide citizens with the right of access to government information.
Similar to their concern about privacy, citizens are concerned about
their ability to access the information they need to hold government
to account for its decisions. Governments are concerned that poor
record keeping can undermine their ability to find the records they
need to respond to formal requests made pursuant to such legislation.
In some countries, recent initiatives to strengthen and extend such
legislation is bringing the record keeping issue back into the
spotlight. For instance, a law was recently passed by the Canadian
government making it a criminal offence (subject to heavy fines) to
destroy records in order to prevent an individual’s right of
access under the Access to Information Act. This has been followed
just last week by a scathing report by Canada’s Information
Commissioner(2) on the apparent
negligence by the Treasury Board in ignoring its responsibilities for,
among other things, ensuring an effective record keeping
infrastructure across government. Again, governments are looking for
help to address the underlying record keeping issues which have led to
high profile and embarrassing reports such as the report of the
Information Commissioner.
The sixth factor is the protection of rights and
entitlements. One only has to turn to the newspapers (it
seems on a daily basis) to appreciate the growing sensitivity of
society to the role records play in providing the evidence required to
help individual citizens protect themselves or make a claim for an
entitlement. The records used to help settle aboriginal land claims,
or to substantiate compensation for victims of LSD experiments in
Canada in the 1960's, or to make claims for the nazi war gold are like
gold themselves given the contexts within which they are being used.
Their absence can be as significant as their presence such as in the
case of the records stolen from Kosovo refugees who required them
simply to establish their identity. The abuse of records through
unwarranted destruction and other means is often a signal that there
has been an abuse of power. Some parts of government recognize that
multiple occurrences of such abuse can lead to the serious erosion of
the trust that lays at the foundation of citizen-state interaction.
They are also beginning to recognize that records lie at the root of
these abuses.
Finally, the seventh factor, collective societal memory,
is also raising the issue of accountability and record keeping but at
the very broad level of society itself. Society depends upon records
to understand its past and to provide the context it requires to set
direction for the future. The information in government records forms
one component of a rich landscape of information and information
holdings which, collectively, serve as the basis for enhancing social
consciousness and a sense of identity and context. In an era of rapid
social and economic change, however, especially at the global level,
where politically sensitive issues concerning national identity are
coming to the fore, concerns are being raised about the depth,
quality, and survivability of the recorded memory of society.
These factors and others like them, are serving as major catalysts
in heightening, as never before, the sensitivity of not just archives,
or society, but of governments to the importance of records in
promoting trust and serving as instruments of accountability - from
the management of information connected with complex
multi-jurisdictional partnerships, to the protection of personal
information communicated and stored in a variety of forms, to the
management of the authentic and reliable records of electronic
business, to the guaranteed rights of citizens to access information
regardless of the time frame.
In exploring the theme of accountability and given my focus on
accountability in government, I thought it might be useful to begin
with a clear understanding of just what it means for a government to
be accountable. To whom is it holding itself to account and why? This
is a topic that is not new and much has been written about the subject
of accountability in public sector institutions as well as the role of
archives and archivists. “Archival Documents - Providing
Accountability Through Record Keeping”, edited by Sue McKemmish
and Frank Upward(3), focused exclusively
on the topic and articles on government accountability and record
keeping have appeared in various journals. And, of course, all of us
have numerous “live” cases which, though by no means
touching on all of the multiple dimensions of accountability I
mentioned earlier, serve to elevate the accountability issue in our
consciousness. In Canada, we have the Somalia affair which involved
the alteration of records connected to an investigation into the
alleged murder of Somalian youths by Canadian soldiers. The
destruction of records connected with events surrounding the tainting
of Canada’s blood supply with the HIV virus is another example.
Last week, our Defence department was accused of extracting certain
medical documents from the files of soldiers who were possibly exposed
to toxic chemicals while serving in Bosnia. Here in Australia there is
the Heiner Affair and the destruction of records connected with the
dismissal of an employee in a juvenile detention center. All of the
literature, all of the multiple dimensions as well as the high profile
cases are situated within the context of certain assumptions about
what it means to be an accountable government in a democratic society.
As a result, if we are to understand the government
accountability-records-archives relationship within the context of the
factors I described earlier, it might be useful to confirm our
understanding of these fundamental assumptions.
As anyone who has taken a public administration, political science,
or history course well knows, society exercises its power through its
elected officials who, in the case of the Canadian federal government,
are assembled into a Parliament. Parliament enacts the laws and
policies by which society is governed. To ensure that a governance
structure is in place, parliament passes enabling laws that give
expression to the broad functions and activities that need to be in
place to respond to societal interests, concerns, and directions.
Responsibility for establishing and maintaining these functions and
activities is assigned to the heads of government institutions. They,
in turn, are responsible for assigning accountability for the delivery
of the products and services of these functions and activities across
their organizations but within a framework of civil service values
which are also reflected in law. The extent to which accountability
has been assigned effectively is measured at a variety of levels.
These can range from the internal audit programs of government
institutions, to the external audit mechanisms supported by, in the
case of Canada, the Office of the Auditor General, to the hearings
conducted by parliamentary committees responsible for overseeing the
conduct of the various government ministries that comprise the
government. They can also include various watch dogs, ombudsmen,
commissioners, special oversight boards, the opposition parties in
Parliament, media scrutiny, various lobbying groups and concerned
individuals, all of whom operate outside of the government but who
have an extremely important role to play in “keeping government
honest”.
The assignment of accountability in government is not a theoretical
concept. It is very real. It is very real to those involved in
understanding how Canada’s blood supply came to be tainted with
the HIV virus. It is very real to those seeking the truth behind the
killing of the Somalian youth by Canadian troops. It is very real to
those hunting down nazi war criminals. It is rooted in the values of
society, the rights of citizens, and the laws that society establishes
to govern itself. The instrument that underpins the entire
accountability framework is the “record” and the means by
which records are created, received, captured, maintained, and
destroyed to serve as evidence of this accountability is called “record
keeping”. The requirements for record keeping are also very real.
Without records there can be no demonstration of accountability.
Without evidence of accountability, there can be no trust. And without
trust governments will be unable to prevent the kinds of high profile
cases I just described. But at an even broader level, they will be
unable to fully develop the electronic commerce and electronic service
delivery initiatives that are high on the list of government
priorities. They will be unable to establish complex partnerships at
the national and international levels. And they will be unable to
respond to the concerns raised by an Information Commissioner seeking
to stop the apparent erosion of the public’s right to access
government information. As we are well aware from our own experiences,
many governments have been slow to establish effective record keeping
programs that are up to the task of meeting this range of
accountability requirements not to mention their program
responsibilities. If they have, they are fragmented and far from
effective. There are a number of reasons for this:
- the laws and policies governing the establishment of government
functions and activities do not deal explicitly with the creation
and keeping of records;
- the criteria designed to help government institutions determine
what records need to be created to serve the purposes of
accountability and the conduct of their functions and activities
have not been developed;
- accountability for documenting government decision making and
program/service delivery has not been assigned effectively at senior
levels;
- the laws and policies governing the establishment of record
keeping programs that are consistent in their design government-wide
are inadequate or outdated;
- information jurisdictions and record keeping cultures are
fragmented and uncoordinated with each supporting its own agenda,
approaches, tools, terminology and professional associations;
- record keeping standards or practices, especially for the
management of electronic records, have yet to be developed and if
they have been developed they are fragmented or insufficient;
- requirements for the acquisition of technologies for managing
records (including those in electronic form) have yet to be
developed;
- people with the knowledge, skills and abilities required to build
a record keeping program that is relevant to the accountability and
program delivery requirements of the government have yet to be
recruited or developed.
But this brings me to the one factor that is probably the most
important factor contributing to poor record keeping:
- the lack of a central authority to provide, on the one hand,
leadership for the development of policies, standards, practices,
training, etc. for record keeping across government and, on the
other hand, a strong role in evaluating (or ensuring the evaluation
of) the effectiveness of these policies and standards both within
institutions and across government.
And this brings me to the role of archives. As I mentioned at the
beginning of this paper, there are a number of factors that have
increased the sensitivity of governments to record keeping issues.
Based on both internal recognition and external pressure, they are
beginning to understand the issues and they are beginning to look for
someone to assume responsibility for finding solutions. They recognize
that their record keeping policies and practices (if they have any)
have been ineffective and neglected . But, within the context of the
factors I’ve outlined, they recognize that something needs to be
done and needs to be done quickly.
An increasing number believe such a role should be undertaken by an
archives. Why are some taking this tact? Because they believe that of
all the organizations in a government, only the archives has a direct
vested interest in “records” and their long term
preservation and access. No other agency in the government has both
the concern (if not the mandate) and the knowledge, expertise as well
as the tools and techniques required to manage authoritative and
reliable records through the long term. While the focus of this talent
may have been on the older archival record within a societal context,
senior administrators see no reason why this same talent could not be
adapted for use by government institutions in managing the integrity
of their records through time. And at a broad government-wide level,
they do not see why the archives could not serve as the lead agency or
even authority responsible for the establishment and maintenance of
that comprehensive record keeping infrastructure.
The final shape of the program or infrastructure might take many
different forms. The authority for records management might rest with
a central agency while overall responsibility for the integrity of the
infrastructure might rest with the archives supported by strong
internal and external audit and review functions. Or the archives
might be asked to take on multiple roles. Regardless, there is a
growing and significant expectation that the archives will assume a
major and likely even a lead role.
It would be expected to lend its expertise to solve records
authenticity issues associated with emerging electronic commerce and
electronic service delivery initiatives, to participate in the
development of policies concerning the devolution of government
programs to other jurisdictions, to help in the establishment of
public and private sector partnerships or perhaps even multi lateral
international partnerships, to facilitate the development of standards
to help the policy areas of government sort out the information chaos
in their offices, to help support national priorities related to
connecting Canadians not just with wires but with content made in
Canada, and of course, to help government prevent the underlying
abuses which have lead to the kinds of high profile cases I mentioned
before.
Such a perspective is based on a vision in which it would be the
responsibility of government to adopt a record keeping infrastructure
to address the requirements I have just described, but it would be the
responsibility of the archives to ensure that the components of the
infrastructure were developed and made available. It would also be the
responsibility of the archives to evaluate the effectiveness of the
infrastructure, though this role could also fall to internal auditors
in the case of individual institutions, and the auditor general in the
case of governments as a whole. In addition to serving the diverse and
multi faceted accountability issues being faced by modern government,
the establishment of a record keeping infrastructure would reinforce
the concept of “good government”. It would tell civil
servants when they are or are not acting in a responsible manner with
respect to the creation, use and disposition of government records.
They would know not to dispose of records without the approval of the
archives and they would also know there are rules and a process to be
followed to obtain this approval. They would understand their
responsibilities for the care of records and if they were civil
servants they would understand that they and not the records managers
or even the archivists, were ultimately accountable for the records
associated with their programs. For its part, the archives would
understand its accountability for the quality and currency of the
policies, standards, and practices which comprise the record keeping
infrastructure. If it is in a position to regulate the adequacy of the
implementation of the infrastructure then it would be responsible to
undertake audits, prepare reports to various audiences including
parliament and to report on infractions to those who have the means to
force corrective action.
This last point is very important. It would be very difficult to
audit something in the absence of authoritative standards which would
enable an audit to be undertaken. It would also be far too easy for
public servants to get away with what we would normally consider to be
improper behavior if they could simply state that they were never
aware of the standards and rules (if any existed in the first place).
As a result (and rather obviously) it would be incumbent on archives
to ensure that such standards and rules, etc. were developed,
endorsed, and in place before they launched into reviews and audits of
record keeping across the government. In this respect, Australians
have the wonderful advantage of having a standard to which they can
turn(4). Thanks to this standard and its
evolution into an international standard, the rest of the world will
hopefully not be far behind.
It is interesting that in the past, those archivists who recognized
the importance of the role I am describing felt like they were having
to knock loudly on the doors of senior administrators to have: a) the
importance of record keeping recognized; and b) their role in building
a record keeping infrastructure accepted. I would submit that this
door is ajar and that when archivists come to knock forcefully on the
door, my fear would be that they may find themselves tumbling into the
room, winding up on the floor looking up at the rather surprised faces
of some key people who were otherwise quite prepared to invite
archivists to the table as full partners to help in addressing these
common issues. Rather than the “push” of archivists trying
to influence government record keeping, I am arguing that we are
beginning to experience the “pull” of governments looking
for solutions to the critical record keeping issues they are facing
today, issues which touch on accountability but in a variety of
different dimensions.
And this brings me to the theme of credibility. An archives that
insists on restricting its role to the passive collection of so-called
historical records will lose credibility in the eyes of those who
believe almost intuitively that an archives has a role to play. In my
opinion the “pull” I just described is something archives
cannot ignore. Governments which are increasingly aware of the
significance of the record keeping issue in the achievement of
government priorities and strategies and aware of the full scope of
the accountability continuum I just described will expect that the
archives should play at least some role. Independent of the legal
constraints which have sometimes been cited for why an archives may
have to restrict itself to addressing the historical dimension, I
believe the day will arrive for many when they will be asked and
expected to assume this broader role.
This perspective on the role of archives is being considered at the
international level. Several months ago, the International Council on
Archives Committee on Electronic and Other Current Records, which I
chair, developed a set of principles on archives and the management of
modern records. These principles, which were derived from similar
principles developed by the former Committee on Electronic Records are
as follows:
- The archives should facilitate the establishment of policies,
procedures, systems, standards and practices designed to assist
records creators to create and retain records which are authentic,
reliable and preservable;
- The archives should be involved in the entire records life cycle
(conception, creation, maintenance) to ensure both the creation and
retention of records that are authentic, reliable and preservable
and the capture, preservation and continued accessibility of records
identified as having archival value;
- The archives should manage the processes for appraising records
as having archival value and for ensuring their intellectual control
through time;
- The archives should articulate preservation and access
requirements to ensure that archival records remain available,
accessible, and understandable.
Time does not permit a full exploration of all of the principles
and, in any event, they will be published in an article in the next
edition of the ICA’s journal, Janus, as a means of stimulating
debate among the members of the international archival community. For
the purposes of this paper, however, they reflect a vision of an
archives which is actively involved at the so-called front end before
records are even created. It is a vision of an archives that is as
much involved in facilitating the management of the records required
by government institutions to carry out their program responsibilities
as it is in identifying and seeing preserved records designated as
having long term historical value. It is also a vision that has
serious implications for archives from the perspective of
accountability.
For instance, by subscribing to the principle of facilitating
the establishment of a record keeping infrastructure designed to
assist records creators to create and retain records,an archives
would be accountable for extending its expertise in the archival
management of records to help organizations develop the infrastructure
they would need to create and manage their own records properly. They
would be expected to partner with others who share a common concern
for the ongoing preservation and accessibility of important government
records. Adherence to this principle would satisfy the two closely
related objectives of good governance and the preservation of a high
quality archival record. The facilitation role would include the
development and implementation of policies, standards, and systems for
the creation and maintenance of records. But these would be shaped in
line with the strategic government-wide issues and directions I
mentioned earlier. It could also have a so-called “hard”
edge such as the requirement by government institutions not to dispose
of their records without the authority of the archivist, an “edge”
that would come complete with sanctions against civil servants who do
otherwise. Such a requirement would be supported by a clear and shared
understanding of why such an authority is needed, under what
circumstances and conditions an authority would be granted, and how
such an authority would be obtained. I think Chris Hurley’s, “The
Shredding of the “Heiner” Documents: An Appreciation”(5),
offers an excellent overview of the various ways in which the
accountability of the government on the one hand and the archives on
the other can be seen with respect to the authorized disposition of
records.
The principle of being involved in the entire records life
cycle to ensure the creation and retention of authentic records and
the capture and preservation of archival records, builds on the
first principle by requiring an archives to be accountable to society
for helping government establish a record keeping infrastructure but,
equally, for ensuring that it is relevant and effective through time.
Electronic records have demonstrated to archives that they must align
the requirements of the archival function with those of the record
keeping function. They must become involved at the conception stage
before records are created and when plans are being established for
the development or modification of records creating systems. According
to the principle, the interests of an archives and the interests of a
given records creating organization would be addressed simultaneously
not just at the conception stage but at all stages in the life of the
record.
The principle identifying records of archival value, introduces
another interesting dimension of accountability for archives.
According to this principle, an archives would be accountable to
society for defining a view of itself as it exists today. It would not
be a view based primarily on satisfying the interests of
yet-to-be-defined future researchers or historians. It would be a view
on behalf of society as it exists today to meet its own purposes over
both the immediate and longer term(6).
What traces does society want to leave of itself? What story does it
want to leave to others in the future about what it looked like
through time? What records does it want to have in place to define
itself as a society? According to the principle, archives would be
accountable to society for the criteria archivists would use to decide
on the nature of the documentary record which would allow society to “tell
its story” - its history - to future generations while at the
same time protecting the rights and entitlements of citizens. A
variety of reporting mechanisms would become available if an archives
was to align itself to this perspective of accountability (i.e. to a
current as opposed to future society). For instance, it might find
itself being required to approach Parliament to confirm with elected
officials if the records appraisal criteria and strategies it had
developed best reflected the criteria and strategies society would
want to use to define itself.
The principle, ensuring that archival records are preserved and
made available, would require archives to be accountable to
society for the establishment of mechanisms to maintain the
authenticity and continued availability of archival records through
time. Regardless of the location of archival records in archives, in
government institutions, in academic or research institutions, or in
private sector organizations for that matter, parliament would expect
its archives to ensure the ongoing integrity of the memory that had
been captured of society at any given point in time. One example of
how an archives might respond to this accountability requirement could
be for the archives to report back to society through parliament on
the state of the recorded memory of the government and presumably the
country as a whole.
So far I have discussed the accountability of archives as
institutions. What about the accountability of archivists as
professional individuals? On the one hand they are archivists. As such
they subscribe to a set of values which are often described in the
codes developed by the professional organizations for which they are
members. The International Council on Archives(7)
has such a code as do other professional archival organizations.
Similar to other professions they are accountable to their peers and,
through their pledge to abide by a code, to society for the
professional manner in which they carry out their responsibilities as
archivists. These codes have been catalysts for causing archivists to
take strong stands on matters which they feel contravene a given code
or where a position statement would be warranted to underline an
important principle. While I expect the ASA’s recent position
statement on the Heiner Affair(8)
probably comes to mind rather quickly, there are other examples from
around the world. One is the recent positions by the ICA and others on
the destruction of the archives in Kosovo(9),
and another closer to my home, is the stand taken by the Canadian
archival profession on the implications of pending legislation
extending the Privacy Act to the commercial sector(10)
On the other hand archivists are also public servants. As such they
subscribe to the values and principles of the institutions they work
for and the governments of which their institutions form a part. Just
as they advise other public servants, this means that they too must
recognize the importance of establishing a documentary trail of their
activities, including their appraisal decisions, their rationale for
authorizing the destruction of records, and indeed any other activity
they undertake. As public servants they are just as accountable
(perhaps more so) for documenting their actions, for being open,
transparent and accountable.
Are archives at risk? In my opinion, no! I believe they have never
had a better opportunity to assume a leadership role in helping
governments and society as a whole to understand the relationship
between records and accountability. And by assuming such a leadership
role, both within government and on behalf of society, they will find
themselves positioned to influence much more directly the steps taken
not just by archives, but by all organizations, to address the
vulnerability of records to loss and destruction. Such a leadership
role cannot help but lead to the enhanced credibility of the archives
as an authoritative source on what it means to create, capture, and
maintain authentic and reliable records. But these are just my
opinions. I would be interested in your own. Are archives at risk? Am
I being too optimistic? Are there other factors that need to be
considered?
Over the next two days, we’ll have ample opportunities to
explore these and related questions? In my view, however, and by way
of closing, the “pulls” of society and government for an
authoritative voice on record keeping will be too strong to resist
and, not that any of us (hopefully) will want to resist this pull, I
think the greatest challenge we face will be in shaping an effective
response. If I may use an Australian metaphor, the risk to archives is
not that they find themselves irrelevant or outside of the “G”
or, more locally, of the “GEBBA”, but that in actually being
in the cricket ground they choose not to (or don’t know how to) “step
up to the crease”.
Acknowledgment
My thanks to Terry Cook and Glenda Acland for their valuable
comments on early drafts of this paper.
Footnotes
(1) Justice Canada, “Bill C-54 - Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act”, Ottawa,
1998, http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/atip/A-pinf_en.html
(2) Office of the Information Commissioner, “Annual
Report of the Information Commissioner: 1998-99", Ottawa, 1999,
http://fox.nstn.ca/~smulloy/oic98_9e.pdf
(3) Sue McKemmish and Frank Upward, eds., Archival
Documents - Providing Accountability Through Record Keeping
(Melbourne, Ancora Press), 1993
(4) Standards Association of Australia, “Australian
Standard: Records Management (AS 4390-1996)”
(5) Chris Hurley, “The Shredding of the “Heiner”
Documents: An Appreciation”, 1999,
http://www.caldeson.com/RIMOS/heiner.html
(6) Some of these thoughts were inspired by a paper
delivered by Chauncey Bell at the annual meeting of the Society of
California Archivists, 1998, Pasadena, California, “Organizational
Change and the role of the Archivist”,
http://www.rbarry.com/cb-sca/cb-sca.html
(7) International Council on Archives, “Code
of Ethics”, Paris, 1996,
http://www.ica.org/pub/c_ethics_e.html
(8) Australian Society of Archivist, “Position
Statement on the Heiner Affair”, 1998,
http://www.archivists.org.au/pubs/positionpapers/heiner.html
(9) International Committee of the Blue Shield,”Appeal
for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage in Yugoslavia”, April
4, 1999.
(10) Justice Canada, “Bill C-54 - Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act”,
http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/atip/A-pinf_en.html |
