Information management legislation in the last quarter of the 20th century: A records management disaster

ARMA Records Management Quarterly, Jan 1997 by Penn, Ira A

Several important pieces of information management legislation have been enacted by the U.S. Congress during the last quarter of the 20th century. Both the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and the National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984 were passed in expectation of improving the Federal government's information handling practices. Yet there have been unintended consequences resulting from the implementation of both laws. In this article, the author looks behind the scenes and examines the unfortunate effect each act has had on the governmentwide Federal records management program. Revolutionary changes are recommended.

On October 3, 1977, the Commission on Federal Paperwork issued its final report to the President of the United States. The report said, Information Resources Management is the answer! It did not state what the question was.

The essence of the Information Resources Management (IRM) concept is that information is a resource that should be managed in the same manner as other resources, such as personnel, money, oil, or copper. Given that information is ethereal in nature, lacks intrinsic worth, and is not consumed in its use, the concept is totally without validity. It was, nevertheless, immediately embraced as gospel throughout the public, private, and academic sectors of our society.

It has been almost twenty years since the IRM concept came into being. These days one does not hear it referred to very often because, as is the way with most managerial concepts that prove not to work, it has been supplanted by a newer theory that is also not working. Yet unlike other concepts (Economic Order Quantity, Management by Objectives, and Zero Based Budgeting spring to mind) which have come and gone with little lasting damage, IRM left an injurious legacy-the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT RATIONALE

Managerial concepts do not usually result in legislation-and for good reason. One cannot legislate good management any more than one can legislate morality. Occasionally, however, forgetting where the road paved with good intentions leads, the notion is tried. In the case of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA-80), the rationale was essentially twofold:

to minimize the Federal paperwork burden on the public; and

to establish uniform Federal information policies and practices.

On the surface, it is impossible to argue with either motive. To be against reducing a public paperwork burden is tantamount to being against peace, and to espouse nonuniform policies and procedures for some 200 Federal agencies is to advocate chaos. But if one goes beyond the surface, one uncovers some interesting facts: First, there was already legislation in place to handle the public burden issue; and second, the policies and procedures mandated were based on an erroneous concept-IRM. As we examine these facts, we will see that from a records management perspective, PRA-80 was not only unnecessary, but also disastrous.

THE PUBLIC BURDEN

Initial work for the PRA-80 was begun in the late 1970s as a result of the work done by the aforementioned Commission on Federal Paperwork. For those who may be wondering about the word "paperwork," keep in mind that prior to the mid-1980s electronic recordsexcept for large mainframe computer tapes and disks-were all but unheard of. The Commission had a broad charter to examine Federal records management practices and one of the areas it investigated was "public use reporting." Federal records management programs traditionally have been based on the life-cycle theory of records management. Reports management is an integral element of those programs and public use reporting is the term used to describe the process of collecting information from the public (i.e., individuals, businesses, and state and local governments).

The Commission found that over the years public use reporting had grown substantially. The "public burden" (the amount of time and money necessary for the public to respond to the government's requests for information) had therefore grown as well. A 1973 study by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which serves as the investigating arm of Congress, documented the cost to the American taxpayers to be in excess of $43 billion per year.

For over three decades there had been legislation on the books that had been enacted expressly to reduce the public burden. The Federal Reports Act of 1942 made it clear that the government's collection of information should have a minimal impact on the public. That Act assigned responsibility for managing public use reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which was supposed to act like a junkyard dog to protect the public's interest.

After the enactment of the Federal Reports Act of 1942, OMB issued Circular No. A-40 outlining a procedure for the control of public use reporting. Federal agencies were aware of Circular A-40 and knew that proposed public use reports had to be cleared through OMB prior to being disseminated for information collection. As OMB circulars are policy directives and carry the force of regulation within the Federal government, there was no question about compliance. And yet, with a $43 billion annual cost, the "public burden" had clearly gotten out of hand. The question, of course, was why.