IG report says naval history ‘in jeopardy’ - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

IG report says naval history ‘in jeopardy’

The Navy’s historical command, a chronically underfunded institution tasked with the safekeeping of the Navy’s innumerable treasures, is beset with preservation problems and internal strife, a recent report by the naval inspector general has found.

The problems are impairing the Navy’s efforts to record and share its history with the fleet and the public, the report found; it calls for a “blue ribbon panel of eminent historians” to address the issues.

One of the most pressing findings is that historic collections of photographs, paintings and artifacts are endangered because of poor facilities, namely broken or nonexistent temperature and humidity controls in the three sprawling repositories controlled by Naval History and Heritage Command, based at the Washington Navy Yard, D.C.

Nearly all of the history command’s 230,000 square feet of storage area is unsuitable for these artifacts, the IG report found. This has prompted the command to relocate its sensitive items, such as parts of its photo collection, although it isn’t clear where they will be moved.

The command’s “storage and preservation activities require temperature and humidity controls that are uniquely demanding and almost entirely unmet,” according to the report. “Consequently, the history and heritage of the United States Navy is in jeopardy.”

The Navy’s historical archives are no small matter. The archives house artifacts going back to the days of the Continental Navy. These can be studied by historians or lent to museums. In addition, Naval History and Heritage Command has 112 employees who oversee an extensive collection of naval art, ship histories dating back to 1775, all 12 Navy museums throughout the country, “operational archives” of reports and orders since 1946, and a voluminous photo collection. It is also responsible for maintaining the warship Constitution and is the steward for all of the Navy’s sunken ships and aircraft.

Budget shortfalls have hamstrung the historical command’s mission, the IG found in a Dec. 1 report, which was obtained by Navy Times through a source. A previous IG report in 2010 reported that many of the command’s historic documents and photos were deteriorating from mold and mildew. And there is a decades-old backlog of unprocessed artifacts and papers, which the command estimates will take 644 man-years to process.

Yet, on top of this, there is a clash of cultures. Fully 90 percent of the command’s staff are civilians, many of whom are professional archivists, curators, librarians and historians. They ensure that the Navy’s artifacts and records are available to the Navy and the nation. But under the current leadership, the report says, these professionals feel like their advice is ignored, their work is underfunded, and their access to the director is limited; an influential advisory board, helmed by naval historians, was allowed to expire in 2010 and hasn’t been renewed.

The concerns come at an inopportune moment for Navy history. Starting this year, the Navy will commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812, with events all over the country during the next three years. The commemoration is a high priority for Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert and Fleet Forces commander Adm. John Harvey.

Historians and former staff members say that the historical command is losing touch with its mission.

“There has been a drift away from the professionals,” said William Dudley, a former director of what was then called the Naval Historical Center, after he reviewed the report. “There needs to be more dialogue between the people who are running the center and the people who are doing the basic work that the center is all about.”

Through a spokeswoman, the director, retired Rear Adm. Jay DeLoach, declined repeated requests for an interview, citing the fact the report has not been officially released and that the historical command is still charting its way forward. But the spokeswoman said progress had been made in the past year.

“We have been doing a much better job of assessing our artifacts and archives, and determining the costs of our preservation requirements,” Lt. Cmdr. Heidi Lenzini said in a statement, but cautioned this is “an incredibly complex task.”

Over the past few months, Lenzini said, the command had been moving “our most fragile portions of our collection to better storage facilities.”

As far as personnel issues, Lenzini said inroads had been made, such as renovating some of the facilities and continuing to allow telework and “flex-time options” for employees.

The continuing problems at the historical command have the attention of Navy leadership, said one official, who characterized the problems as stemming from years of insufficient funding.

“Funding and resources are on the way to fix many of the issues addressed in the report,” said the Navy official, who asked for anonymity to discuss a report that hasn’t been publicly released. “The problems are being worked and they have the attention of senior leaders.”

More money is on the way. The command budget for fiscal 2012 is $38 million, a 46 percent increase from the year before, and the command plans to hire 47 more personnel in fiscal 2013, according to the report.

Sea change under new leader

When DeLoach took over the Naval Historical Center in 2008, he arrived with a mandate: Bring cultural change to an underfunded institution that he said was out of touch with the public and the fleet. He had the center renamed as a command and ordered a redesign of its website. He began sending history notes to Navy leaders and has argued that the command is too “introverted” and academic. Not long after taking over, he told Navy Times he wanted “forward-looking historians.”

DeLoach is not a historian or archivist by training. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1978 and served as a junior officer aboard submarines. He joined the Navy Reserve after his initial active-duty commitment and by the time of his retirement in 2007 had become a one-star. DeLoach holds master’s degrees in management, strategic studies and nuclear engineering.

In keeping with his ambitions for the command, DeLoach brought in new deputies to help him run it. For example, DeLoach hired Gregory Martin, an academy classmate, to head the archives and histories division. He holds a master’s in history but had no prior experience as curator, archivist or professional historian. Similarly, Jay Thomas, the retired captain who now heads museums and collections, holds a doctorate in geography.

Among the senior leadership of the historical command, only one position is held by an experienced professional historian, the IG reported. “Most notable is the lack of one or two eminent historians to advise the director,” the report says.

Many of the 20 historians on staff told the IG in interviews that they felt the command’s leadership was focused on commemorations, such as the upcoming bicentennial events for the War of 1812, to the exclusion of everything else. What’s more, many professionals feel they’re being left out of important decisions and that their “corporate knowledge” is ignored, according to the report.

During surveys, Naval History and Heritage Command scored the worst “quality of work life” rating since the IG began recording these five years ago.

Oversight of the command has diminished. Since 1956, a subcommittee of esteemed naval historians has provided the Navy secretary with independent advice and recommendations.

But its charter expired in 2010 and there have been no meetings in the past three years, according to the report.

Because of short-staffing and the new direction under DeLoach, there’s a growing perception that the historical command is distancing itself from the historical community, said Dudley, a historian who retired as the center’s director in 2004.

“The NHHC director has been largely dismissive of outside scholars,” said Dudley, who added many academics have told him it’s increasingly hard to reach experts at the command. “The historical, museum and archival community, inside and outside the Navy, has no confidence in the current direction or management of NHHC.”

Lenzini, on behalf of DeLoach, declined to comment on Dudley’s accusations that the command is increasingly bureaucratic and aloof from the historical profession under DeLoach. She would only say that the process of “transforming” the command has brought “challenges.”

Dudley said it is the responsibility of the professionals at the command to balance the needs of the Navy with its professional training. But when they are in conflict, the director and senior leaders at the command should hear their concerns.

“Since the current director took over, there has been a major growth in upper levels of management which insulate him from the professionals he employs,” Dudley said. “This has not only increased the NHHC’s financial burdens but it has also created the impression of empire building and made the NHHC more cumbersome and less effective.”