4 ms·

I have worked at State since 2009, it's not a department wide requirement. Security training is yearly and mandatory but record retention and NARA compliance i

by GVIrish 10y ago

I have worked at State since 2009, it's not a department wide requirement. Security training is yearly and mandatory but record retention and NARA compliance is a different matter.

tanderson92 10y ago
> it's not a department wide requirement I suppose that the head of State (who was that again?) can't be expected to follow correct procedure if they weren't properly trained. If only there were a diplomat running the department at that time who could have directed that all relevant staffers and heads of state received proper training. Hopefully this carelessness doesn't affect the importance that staffers give to using proper procedures for handling classified documents. In all seriousness, that is what this part of your position reduces to: the head of a department didn't break any rules because they didn't receive the proper training. You hopefully can see why people might see that as a problem, even if not a crime.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  You're talking about a couple of different issues here. Official record retention for the purpose of storing to the National Archives rarely applies to the emails of normal employees. There isn't department wide mandatory training on this because it's not really needed. Secretary Clinton would be required to archive her official email as the head of a major agency. There is mandatory training on security and handling classified materials. I'm not saying Clinton didn't receive proper training on either NARA compliance or handling classified material. It just appears that she circumvented the spirit of the archival rules buy maybe not the letter. Classification-wise it sounds like the information was not marked as classified when it was sent to Clinton. If something is changed to classified after the fact that doesn't mean the recipient of the information committed a violation. Now if it turns out Clinton knowingly handled classified materials on unclassified systems that would be a security violation. Then the question would get into intent and impact to determine what charges and punishment would be warranted. Usually there has to be some intent and an attempt to distribute classified info before jail time comes into play.
linkregister 10y ago
Thanks for responding; I'm surprised and dismayed that records retention training isn't universal. Not that I can see the SecState clicking through hours of computer-based training, that would be delegated to an assistant.

by GVIrish 10y ago

I have worked at State since 2009, it's not a department wide requirement. Security training is yearly and mandatory but record retention and NARA compliance is a different matter.

tanderson92 10y ago

> it's not a department wide requirement I suppose that the head of State (who was that again?) can't be expected to follow correct procedure if they weren't properly trained. If only there were a diplomat running the department at that time who could have directed that all relevant staffers and heads of state received proper training. Hopefully this carelessness doesn't affect the importance that staffers give to using proper procedures for handling classified documents. In all seriousness, that is what this part of your position reduces to: the head of a department didn't break any rules because they didn't receive the proper training. You hopefully can see why people might see that as a problem, even if not a crime.

GVIrish 10y ago
You're talking about a couple of different issues here. Official record retention for the purpose of storing to the National Archives rarely applies to the emails of normal employees. There isn't department wide mandatory training on this because it's not really needed. Secretary Clinton would be required to archive her official email as the head of a major agency. There is mandatory training on security and handling classified materials. I'm not saying Clinton didn't receive proper training on either NARA compliance or handling classified material. It just appears that she circumvented the spirit of the archival rules buy maybe not the letter. Classification-wise it sounds like the information was not marked as classified when it was sent to Clinton. If something is changed to classified after the fact that doesn't mean the recipient of the information committed a violation. Now if it turns out Clinton knowingly handled classified materials on unclassified systems that would be a security violation. Then the question would get into intent and impact to determine what charges and punishment would be warranted. Usually there has to be some intent and an attempt to distribute classified info before jail time comes into play.

linkregister 10y ago

Thanks for responding; I'm surprised and dismayed that records retention training isn't universal. Not that I can see the SecState clicking through hours of computer-based training, that would be delegated to an assistant.