explaining that the FRA "establish[ es] a unified system for handling the 'life cycle' of federal records--covering their creation, maintenance and use, and eventually their disposal by either destruction or deposit for preservation"
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the FRA "establish[ es] a unified system for handling the 'life cycle' of federal records--covering their creation, maintenance and use, and eventually their disposal by either destruction or deposit for preservation"
- finding that “Congress intended, expected, and positively desired private researchers and private parties whose rights may have been affected by government actions to have access to the documentary history of the federal government”
- describing the FRA's legislative history as demonstrating that "Congress intended, expected, and positively desired private researchers ... to have access to the documentary history of the federal government"
- invalidating order authorizing National Archives and Records Service to inspect Title III materials held by the FBI in part because disclosure to the Archives would not serve law enforcement objectives and therefore would not be authorized by §2517(1) or (2)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VAN PELT, Senior District Judge,
concurring:
My colleagues have written well in the preparing of this opinion with which I concur. I do not attempt to improve upon their language or add to the scholarship which is evident to any reader. I choose only to express certain concerns and the belief that the FBI and other defendants can live with this opinion.
*78 First of all, it is to be noted that the inspection by NARS of all records of which disposal is to be had is permissive. NARS is not required to inspect all the records. It does have a duty to conduct a critical examination of disposal schedules and procedures. We are holding that the tendered disposal schedules should provide a reasoned justification for record destruction. We hold the trial judge was correct in his evaluation of the schedules before him. Although his ruling might appear burdensome, I believe it was justified by the facts of this case. Our decision here today helps to clarify the duties assigned to NARS and its relationship with the federal agencies. As a result, conflicts such as those at issue in this case may be avoided in the future.
I would mention that if the schedules hereafter to be furnished are sufficiently detailed, NARS, in my opinion, may be able to satisfy its mandate without actual inspection.
While all cases and their records are important, I make particular mention of the tax records, grand jury proceedings, and electronic surveillance records. These records do fall under and are governed by Section 2906(a)(2). NARS’ management of these records is limited. My concurrence is based upon the belief that NARS’ inspection can only occur with the approval of the agency head or the President. It seems apparent that if the President thought a record or document should be restricted for reasons of national security or public interest and an agency head disagreed and tried to disregard a President’s views of national security or the public interest, termination of the agency head’s authority could and would be sure and certain and sufficient to ensure that irreparable harm would not occur.
I do not read into this law any intention on the part of the Congress to make easy the second-guessing of Judges like Irving R. Kaufman who have conscientiously made rulings which do not satisfy descendants of some of the parties, or to further overwork certain overworked agencies such as the FBI, or embarrass or punish its director whose work has been a source of pride to the judiciary from which he came.
Rather, I believe this opinion strengthens departmental and presidential control, places sensitive records outside NARS’ jurisdiction and assists the Congress in answering satisfactorily the problems with which it was confronted, namely the handling of records, the use of which is and should be restricted.