[12073] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
National Archives Challenged on Electronic Records
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eddie Becker)
Mon Mar 16 20:39:01 1998
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:23:15 -0600
From: Eddie Becker <ebecker@cni.org>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Please excuse
cross posts.
COURT DATE SET CHALLENGING U.S. ARCHIVIST
For those in Washington, DC, you are invited to the
court room of Judge Paul L. Friedman for a scheduled hearing in the
PROFS Case, -----
Friday, March 20th 1998 at 11am at the United States Courthouse.
The hearing will deal with plantiffs' motion challenging Archivist John
Carlin's rule authorizing agencies to routinely delete electronic records
from agency computers if a paper copy has been created. United
States District Judge Friedman ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the
District Court for the District of Columbia on October 22, 1997. It is
the plaintiff's contention that the Archivist has ignored this court
order.
Part of motion follows:
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND TO SCHEDULE HEARING ON FURTHER RELIEF
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. ' 2202
PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
versus
JOHN CARLIN, in his official capacity as Archivist of
the United States, et al., Defendants.
C.A. No. 96-2840 PLF
On October 22, 1997, this Court entered a declaratory judgment
against the Archivist of the United States declaring that General
Records Schedule 20 is null and void because it is inconsistent with
44 U.S.C. ' 3303a(d). Despite that Judgment, the Archivist has
continued to advise federal agencies that the destruction of federal
records in electronic format is "currently authorized" by General
Records Schedule 20 ("GRS 20"). In order to enforce the Court's
mandate, plaintiffs bring this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2202
to request that the Court promptly schedule a hearing and require
that the Archivist show cause why and injunction should not be
entered to require him to comply with this Court's judgment. More
specifically, plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin the Archivist
and his agents from advising agencies that General Records
Schedule 20 currently authorizes disposition of electronic records,
and require the Archivist to publish a notice in the Federal Register
correcting his prior statements that GRS 20 currently authorizes
such destruction, and instructing agencies that records covered by
GRS 20 may not be destroyed unless or until the disposition of the
records is authorized by a properly approved records schedule.
For complete text please see:
http://www.citizen.org/public_citizen/litigation/enforcem.htm
If you would like to receive updates on the case, send e-mail to
ebecker@cni.org with the word JOIN in the subject line, and
your name and e-mail address in the message.
Posted 3/15/98 by Eddie Becker ebecker@cni.org
