How the National Archives Struck a Secret Deal on Documents With the CIA

By JEFFREY R. YOUNG

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines San Diego State U. Defends Its Role in Federal Drug Sting The university's decision to use federal undercover drug-enforcement agents in a sting operation has brought the institution both heat and praise. Colleges Foresee Shortfall in Perkins Loan Funds This Year Student-Loan Market Shows Small Signs of Revival U.S. House Approves New GI Benefits, but Measure's Fate in Senate Is Uncertain Rutgers U. Earmark Becomes Issue, and Irony, on N.J. Campaign Trail Forum Focuses on Private Role in Expanding Global Access to Higher Education Where Students Compete 'Against the Wood' Slide Show: Photos From the Spring Meet Commentary Tell TIAA-CREF You Do Not Want Your Retirement Money to Support Genocide

News Headlines From The Chronicle

Top officials at N.J. medical school engaged in "unethical" and "potentially illegal" activities, report says

U. of California officials acted improperly in awarding compensation to some top managers, audit finds

State Department plans to spend $3-million to bring foreign students to community colleges next year

Ford Foundation to announce $75-million extension to International Fellowships Program

Community-college president in Kansas retires amid sexual-harassment allegations

Anti-Muslim tirade lands Michigan State U. professor in hot water

American Academy of Arts and Sciences announces 195 new members

 Commencement speakers are announced by 20 colleges

Information Technology
How the National Archives struck a secret deal on documents with the CIA

Information Technology
Computer-security breach causes scare at U. of Texas at Austin



A top official at the National Archives and Records Administration said on Monday that the main purpose of the organization's controversial deal with the CIA was to make sure agents did not mishandle documents as they reviewed them for possible reclassification.

Last week the National Archives acknowledged that, soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it struck a secret, classified agreement with the Central Intelligence Agency spelling out how the two federal agencies would work together to remove documents from the archives' shelves for the purpose of reclassification. Since the deal became public, the archives has moved quickly to denounce it and to push to declassify the agreement, which is now available online.

Allen Weinstein, who has been the archives' director since last year, has put a stop to any further removal of documents for reclassification, pending an audit of the process. A report on that audit is expected to be released on Wednesday.

In an interview on Monday, Michael J. Kurtz, an assistant archivist who signed the agreement on behalf of the archives, discussed how the deal had come to be.

"You need to go back in time to about 2000," he said. "We had some concerns here at the archives about the way the CIA was handling some of the records as they were going about their review work in dealing with" an executive order about classified information signed in 1995 by President Bill Clinton. The order gave a broad mandate to declassify federal records, some going back decades.

"The thrust of the emphasis of the National Archives in forging an agreement with the CIA was to codify exactly what procedures [would be used] and how records would be properly handled," he added. The goal, he said, "was to ensure the proper handling of the records."

He also said that the agreement had sought to limit the amount of time that documents could be removed for review.

After the agreement was made public last week, many archivists complained publicly about not only the secrecy of the agreement, but also its language, which suggests that the National Archives considers deceit to be an acceptable tool in dealing with researchers. "It is in the interests of both the CIA and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)," the document says, "to avoid the kind of public notice and researcher complaints that may arise from removing from the open shelves for extended periods of time records that had been publicly available."

"I think that sentence is very inartfully worded," said Mr. Kurtz. "I certainly did not think that that was the mission of the National Archives to, how should I put it, to fool people -- to deceive. At the same time, the concern of these agencies was that there was national-security information improperly released, so we had to strike a balance ... between protecting national-security information and having the maximum access possible."

Mr. Kurtz said he was not surprised at the time that the CIA had classified the agreement, and he said that he did not press for the agreement to be declassified.

"At that point, you have to go back to the time period that this really occurred," he said. "The agreement was finalized in the aftermath of 9/11. The primary concern at this agency and within the government was security -- whether we're talking about physical security, information security, or records security. And so that's the environment in which this agreement was finalized."

"I'm not going to get into retrospect," he continued. "I kind of dealt with things as I did at the time, and now this is a different perspective. I personally certainly understand the concerns that have been expressed about these agreements and wholeheartedly support the direction of the archivist."

Mr. Kurtz's boss at the time, John W. Carlin, issued a statement last week saying that the deal had been kept secret even from him, and that he was "shocked" by its language. But Mr. Kurtz said that Mr. Carlin had been made aware of the agreement at the time.

"I certainly remember discussing this with him," said Mr. Kurtz. "It was in the context of dozens of discussions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in regards to security -- all aspects of it, particularly relating to records security. It is quite possible that Mr. Carlin does not recollect this."

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Carlin stressed that he had never seen the language of the agreement until it was publicly released last week. As to whether Mr. Kurtz discussed the agreement with him at the time, Mr. Carlin said, "he may or may not have."

"I don't know if there's any inconsistency there," Mr. Carlin added. "He's not saying I saw the document, and I'm very sure I didn't."

Mr. Carlin, a former Kansas governor who is now a visiting professor of political science at Kansas State University, said that the secret agreement "flies in the face" of the archives' mission. "We're a public trust," he said, "and you can't maintain that confidence and trust if you're not as open as possible."

When asked if he would have supported the agreement had he known of its specifics at the time, he said, "obviously, now I'd say of course not."

He added, however, that he does support how the current archivist, Mr. Weinstein, is handling the situation. He said he hoped the forthcoming audit would soon shed more light on how the agreement emerged.

• National Archives to Stop Letting U.S. Agencies Secretly Withdraw Documents (4/28/2006)

• U.S. Panel on Declassifying Documents Sides With Scholars Most of the Time (9/1/1998)