U of Illinois - Chicago Records Policy

This seems curious, if not Clintonesque:

WASHINGTON - The University of Illinois on Tuesday refused to release records relating to Barack Obama's service to a nonprofit group linked to former 1960s radical activist William Ayers.

The university's Chicago campus said the donor of the records that document the work of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge has not yet turned over ownership rights to the material.

The university is "aggressively pursuing" an agreement with the donor, and as soon as an agreement is finalized, the collection will be made accessible to the public, the university said in a one-paragraph statement.

It's my understanding NRO was told at one point the records were available. So I surfed over to the Library website and eventually the FAQ:

21) How do users request materials from the warehouse/ storage?
- Patrons can request both warehouse and storage materials at the Circulation Desk or by using the "Request" option in UICCAT. Warehouse retrieval forms can be picked up at any library service desk. There is no form to be filled out for requesting storage material. The turnaround time for materials from the warehouse may vary depending on when requests are transmitted. Request items a day in advance to receive item for the next business day. Filled requests are placed on the Circulation Desk 12 Day Hold Shelf after 3:00pm the next business day. Loan periods vary according to the user status. Users will be notified in the event of any delays in retrieval.

Stanley Kurtz did just that and was informed the records were available. At least on the surface of it, it appears these records were somehow taken back, or removed from public access. That's a very different thing than the appropriate permissions not having been granted in the first place. Would a responsible Library accept and list such documents before that step was done? I think someone has some explaining to do, especially considering a good deal, if not all of this involves public funding.

Although the library initially promised me access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, top library officials mysteriously intervened at the last minute to bar access. There followed a struggle between myself and library officials over my right to examine the documents. Although I cannot know for certain, there is reason to believe that Bill Ayers himself may have been consulted, behind the scenes, as the conflict grew.

How's that old saying go? It's the cover up, not the crime. And we know one individual involved here is already capable of committing a crime. With all that cash from the man being available at the center of this ... let's hope there's no crime involving Ayers, or ... anyone else. Hmm.

Comments

[PA]

Sandy Burglar must be associated with this library in some way. This is the way he rolls.

[Kevin T. Keith]

I've worked with archived records in university libraries. They're usually a mess. The libraries almost never have the staff to catalog donated papers, unless they're from extremely prominent people. This wouldn't qualify. Not every even moderately well known person is the subject of active scholarship. Very commonly, donated papers just sit in the boxes they were dropped off in.

The libary catalog probably just lists "Papers and archives of ______", with maybe a numbering scheme for the boxes and folders or some such. Often the first person to produce even a rough index of such documents is whoever the first person is to request to look at them, which may be decades after they were donated. In this case, I would doubt that more than a handful of people have looked at those papers in detail since the day they arrived.

Now the libary is being swamped with requests to look at papers they themselves haven't looked at, and they discovered that the terms of the donation don't explicitly specify a transfer of copyright. (Also not uncommon: merely being given the papers does not give you the right to publish them or release them for publication; it has to be specified. Some authors explicitly encumber their copyrights when they donate their papers, though in this case it was probably just an oversight.) They've got to straighten out the archive and arrange for legal release before they can start giving things out - something they've never had to do before. So it will take a few days. If you don't like it, give generously to the research library nearest you.

[Peter]

Sorry, Mr. Keith, the very fact that they first granted permission to view those papers strongly suggest a cover up. And I do not see hordes of jouralists lined up for miles, fighting over a place in line to view those papers, or for that matter, anything else about Senator obama's somewhat murky past.
Why it's almost as if the big media has taken sides!

[Mark]

I think you should go and read what he has written so far. He was pretty specific about what he went through to get permission, and it involved individuals who were responsible for that particular collection. I believe he said that there was more than seventy linear feet of shelf space involved and an index which described what was in each section. He also, had discussed with them, how to get copies of what he wanted. He had also made an appointment with them, when he would be there, because he had to fly in to Chicago. They notified him about the change in viewing permission, right before he was supposed to go to the airport.

[jcjimi]

Kurtz was also provided a "finding aid" before access was cut off. They have been cataloged in at lease a cursory manner if not thoroughly.

[Peach]

What does the donor have to hide?

[Fred Beloit]

Who is "the donor"? Ayers? Obama?

[Kevin T. Keith]

read what he has written so far

It's not particularly illuminative, not particularly scandalous, and more than a little self-involved.

What it boils down to is, he was told that the collection was accessible, and a graduate student sent him a preliminary copy of an index to the collection which they hadn't finished processing or made public. Shortly thereafter, he was told by a senior administrator that there had been a mistake; the collection was still being processed and was not open to the public.

None of that is surprising. It's not even contradictory, except that it appears he was mistakenly told something, at first, by someone low-level, that turned out not to be true. Then the error was corrected by someone in authority.

The rest of the story is just him working himself into a lather. He notes that one explanation for lack of access is that the collection is still being processed - which apparently it is (the index has not yet been posted on the Web, though they normally are). After he repeatedly questioned them about it, he believes he has uncovered a different explanation - that there is not an executed deed of gift for the collection. He insists there's a coverup. He doesn't bother to note that, again, there's nothing suspicious in this, or even contradictory (getting the deed could be one of the steps of "processing" they still have to do).

He goes on and on, making demands and snotty remarks ("I surely hope the library is not doing less than all it can . . ."), and complaining that they haven't met his demands. Boo hoo. He goes even further, to insist that we should all badger the library and university to make sure nothing is removed from the collection as part of the conspiracy he dreamed up - a likelihood that is nowhere in evidence, and that is nothing more than a delusion he apparently harbors to make himself sound important.

There is no evidence at all that he was denied anything that the library had otherwise authorized access to, or even that - barring perhaps a minor miscommunication - there was anything contradictory or inconsistent in their explanations to him. The library has said they are working on the issue, and have promised to give him access when it is possible to do so. His demands otherwise are neither here nor there, and his wholly fabricated suspicions are founded on nothing.

[Rob Crawford]

Why can't he look over the records before they're fully indexed? If they're worried about theft, then they can watch him carefully.

Fer crissake, you'd think a library would be interested in sharing information in regards to a presidential candidate.