Commentary

Terry Sweeney
 

From 'Energized' To Not So Interested

The little do-si-do between Congress and the White House over missing e-mails is apparently over. Cynics might predict the next steps will be a digging in of heels, followed quickly by threats to launch (and bungle) an investigation, or worse, appoint a special prosecutor.

The little do-si-do between Congress and the White House over missing e-mails is apparently over. Cynics might predict the next steps will be a digging in of heels, followed quickly by threats to launch (and bungle) an investigation, or worse, appoint a special prosecutor.Recall earlier this week that the White House CIO told a congressional hearing that her office was "energized about getting to the bottom of this." This, of course being what happened to more than two years' worth of White House e-mails. During that same period, the administration was rotating the same backup tapes over and over, and also was using the Republican National Committee's e-mail system for official and nonofficial communication.

And here's where what little backup-and-recovery goodwill existed then deteriorated even more. The RNC told Congress yesterday it "has no intention of trying to restore the missing White House e-mails."


More Storage Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

Jeez, who do they think they are? Iron Mountain?

Other details have also emerged. Sometime in 2002, the White House transitioned from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange. That's also when it began the practice of manually naming and saving e-mails in .pst files on local servers. While intended as a short-term solution, this "journaling" method became the standard operating procedure.

It also drew criticism from the National Archives and Records Administration. "It's our view that the journaling function is not the ideal," said Gary Stern, an NARA attorney in this account. It's a mess, and it's not clear the political will is there to get to the bottom of it any time soon. CIO Theresa Payton has estimated it would take "millions" to do a full restore from a related agency's backup tapes.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out whether the White House has been sloppy or willfully negligent. Given the administration's penchant for secrecy and nondisclosure, I'm now leaning toward the latter explanation.

But even if it's sloppiness, it wouldn't be tolerated at any corporation in America (nor, I suspect, at many government agencies). Dismissals, fines, or worse would result. Instead, we're left with a different sort of dance -- a combination of parry, stonewall, and distort. It's a shameful way to manage backup and archiving in the highest office of the land.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links