State Dept: Crisis in the “Foreign Relations” Series
December 11th, 2008 by Steven AftergoodIn a tense and adversarial meeting at the State Department yesterday, the chairman of the Department’s Historical Advisory Committee warned that the future of the Department’s “Foreign Relations of the United States” (FRUS) series, which is the official record of U.S. foreign policy, is in jeopardy due to mismanagement by the Office of the Historian. Underscoring his concerns, he announced his resignation from the Committee.
An Assistant Secretary of State rebuffed the criticism. He accused Committee members of engaging in innuendo and ad hominem attacks, and he abruptly walked out of the meeting.
William Roger Louis, the esteemed historian who has chaired the Committee for the last five years, presented his views in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (pdf), which he read into the public record at the December 10 meeting.
“The Historian’s Office has become an intolerable place to work; the exodus of experienced historians is significant; and the future of the Foreign Relations series is at risk,” Prof. Louis said.
“My concern, along with that of all members of the committee, arises from mismanagement by the Historian himself, Dr. Marc Susser. So large are the numbers of staff members leaving, or contemplating departure, that the integrity of the Foreign Relations series is now in jeopardy,” he wrote.
An analysis (pdf) appended to Prof. Louis’ statement said that “This year alone the office has lost 20% of its FRUS staff (7 of 35 members) and 30% of its FRUS staff experience (64 of 212 years).”
In a separate memorandum to the Secretary (pdf), Prof. Thomas Schwartz, another prominent historian and a former member of the Committee, echoed those concerns. (Following the criticisms he voiced in the Committee’s last annual report, Prof. Schwartz’s membership was pointedly not renewed, in what was interpreted by other Committee members as an attempt to intimidate them.)
“Simply put, there are enormous problems within the Office of the Historian, and they stem largely from the management style of Dr. Susser,” Prof. Schwartz wrote. “The forced retirement this past summer of Dr. Edward Keefer, the FRUS series editor…, was only the latest example of a management style that insisted on abject and subservient loyalty to Dr. Susser at the expense of competence and performance in the achievement of the goals of the office.”
The criticism was rejected by the State Department.
“I hardly think that the kind of ad hominem attacks you have engaged in are the kind of behavior we expect from respected academics,” said Sean McCormack, the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. “To express concern about the timeliness and quality of the FRUS series is fine. But to attack individuals in public? I find that objectionable.”
“I will not sit here and listen to personal attacks on the leadership of this office,” he said, before exiting the meeting.
In a written reply to Prof. Louis (pdf), Secretary McCormack added: “By taking these actions, I feel you are obscuring the very thing you hope to accomplish: to raise questions about the quality of the FRUS. I do not believe you can dispute the fact that disagreements with the Historian’s Office have become entangled with personal issues that have nothing to do with the quality of scholarship. While you have decided to walk away from the FRUS, I will continue in my efforts to ensure its continuing timeliness and quality.”
Mr. McCormack also released an annotated version (pdf) of the Committee’s latest annual report (pdf), with point-by-point responses from the Historian’s Office to the criticisms expressed there.
“I regret that I have to sit hear and listen to this decline to the level of slime and innuendo,” said Dr. Marc Susser, the State Department Historian and the principal object of Committee criticism. “We welcome all constructive criticism, but not personnel issues, hiring, firing, or comings and goings of staff.”
But “This is not a conflict of personalities,” Prof. Louis said, noting that his relations with the Historian had always been cordial and professional. “I am resigning on a point of principle.”
At the end of the day, it remained true that there has been a significant departure of qualified staff from the Historian’s Office, and that the FRUS series was far behind its legally-mandated schedule.
“The Foreign Relations series… is regarded throughout the world as a model of its kind, indispensable to the American public, the Congress, and above all the Department of State itself,” Prof. Louis wrote in his letter to Secretary Rice. “It is a tribute to the US Government that such an accurate and comprehensive series exists. In short, the Foreign Relations series stands as a symbol of commitment to openness and accountability. It would be no less than a tragedy to allow the series to falter or decline.”
Update: Prof. Edward Rhodes also announced his resignation from the State Department Historical Advisory Committee on December 10. He described his reasons in a December 2 letter (pdf) to the Secretary of State.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
It is well-known in the field that the State Department Historian’s Office is a sinkhole of manipulative managerial nonsense where slavish loyalty is rewarded and merit wholly irrelevant. I’m stunned that Department representatives would choose to protecting an incompetent martinet rather than listen to the considered judgment of leading historians in the field who have had the opportunity to watch and judge Dr. Susser’s performance for some time. I suppose it would be too much to expect better from appointed officials too concerned about bad publicity to do the right thing.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:04 am
How, precisely, is this any different than any other office in this administration*?
December 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Because the people running the office are Civil Service appointees who came into office after being selected in the Clinton Administration. They are not political appointees.
Sean McCormack is the one exception, but the Historian’s Office is not normally at the center of his attention.
The only person who will rotate out in the new administration is McCormack.
December 12th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I have worked in the State bureaucracy for almost 4 decades and know more than a few of the people involved in this sordid and unfortunate tale. What is happening in the Historian’s office is not unheard of in any large organization — to wit, an individual who clearly is beset by psychological difficulties assumes a position of office leadership and wreaks havoc by engaging in behavior which, while certainly inherent in the genetic makeup of our august species, most of us outgrow, learn to control, or control with psychotherapy and/or medications prescribed for same. The people who populate the office are, like myself and scores of others I know, civil servants who are hired to do a job and do it well because we are intelligent, skilled, and motivated. The breakdown in the office in question is not unique by any stretch of the imagination and would not be worthy of note were it not for the fact that the office fulfills a Congressionally-mandated mission that is of the utmost importance and maintains a level of close contact with experts in academia.
This is a serious matter and it is important that action be taken by the Secretary — or by someone in a position of authority on the Hill — to remedy the situation. Meantime, State’s office of medical services provides counseling for anyone in the office (or elsewhere in the department) who needs it.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Well, the truthiness of the matter will rise.
HST* put it succinctly years ago: “The scum also rises.”
______
*Not Harry S Truman, but Hunter S. Thompson
January 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The New Yorker has published some additional insights into the Historian’s Office: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2009/01/12/090112ta_talk_vogt.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:34 am
A Tempest in a teapot inflamed by alleged professionals that ought to know better than to use people to grind their own personal axes.
What a shame.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
As someone who actually worked in this office and knows some of the personalities involved, what Sean McCormack labels innuendo is fact. What is alleged to have happened actually happened.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Dr. Susser’s determination to produce a “complete” record shows an understanding of and adherence to best practices for archival electronic records management. He is to be commended for steadfastly insisting on addressing 1) content, 2) structure, and 3) context. His efforts and vision with respect to the FRUs aim at providing citizens not only a trustworthy but also “accessible” electronic record, as a review of the recently-published FRUs on the Department of State website will aptly demonstrate.
I took the time to review Mr. Louis’ letter and analysis. I also took the time to review the minutes of the December 2008 meeting. My take-away is that the nature of the disagreement concerns understanding modern (read electronic) archival science, certain individuals’ dissatisfaction with the changing role and responsibilities of archivists, and perhaps also resistance to change. I find it commendable that Dr. Susser brings to his position an appreciation beyond the letter of the law. An expert witness with knowledge of the field will, I think, agree that “thorough” means “complete” with respect to electronic records(cf “Authentic Electronic Records: Strategies for Long-Term Access” by Dr. Charles M. Dollar published by Cohasset Associates 1999).
Perhaps some may object to Dr. Susser’s use of metaphors (in particular, the heart-cutting metaphor) for communicating his steadfastness, but, again, without the context of the “complete record,” we cannot judge. We must remember that change challenges our mindets, perceptions, habits, and sometimes ven self-identity. I view Dr. Susser’s efforts at change commendable after my review of the record and evidence. Furthermore, Dr. Susser has addressed the matter in public with “British” manners, as did President Obama during the presidential campaign — he has not dignified the accusations with a response.
Best Regards To All!