Steve Dunne

From: jfarmer@9-11commission.gov
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:31 PM
To: sdunne@9-11commission.gov; dmarcus@9-11commission.gov
Subject: Fwd: FW: revised draft

Here's the latest counter-proposal from NY re the Archives issue. Let me know
what you think.

— Forwarded message from "Kahn, Lawrence" <lkahn@law.nyc.gov> —

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:23:47 -0500
From: "Kahn, Lawrence" <lkahn@law.nyc.gov>
Reply-To: "Kahn, Lawrence" <lkahn@law.nyc.gov>
Subject: FW: revised draft
To: '"jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov"1 <jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov>

r~ ^\n th
contain intra-agency material and other sensitive material and the notes the Commission will retain may reveal
identifying information and emotional statements. Thus we do feel we need more protection than the letter
provides. I suggest that we change the sentence to read as follows: "Upon completion of its work, the
Commission shall enter into an agreement with the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to
which public disclosure. . . shall be barred for a substantial period of time, which typically is 25 or 50 years.
The Commission shall use best efforts to negotiate a term for such agreement that is no less than 25 years.
Such agreement. . "

Assuming this is acceptable, I will finalize the agreement, which at this point I suggest we sign tomorrow
morning.

Original Message
From: jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov [mailto:jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:37 PM
To: Kahn, Lawrence
Subject: RE: revised draft

Larry: A couple of nits, and a final substantive issue. There is a period,

instead of a semi-colon, at the end of the first "Whereas" clause. There are
two periods at the end of paragraph 6. Finally, the Commission understands
your concern with the Archives language in the letter, but does not feel it
can agree to enter into an agreement with Archives for a specified term when

those negotiations are yet to occur and Archives may not itself agree. We are
comfortable agreeing to enter into an agreement that would apply "for a
substantial period of time," and ending the sentence there. This issue would
seem of less import to the City in any event, as the City is maintaining
primary custody of the unredacted tapes and transcripts. In any eent, let me
know. I'll check on Dan Marcus's availability to execute the agreement
today. John (Quoting "Kahn, Lawrence" <lkahn@law.nyc.gov>:
> 1. See (a) attached red-lined version, since I made a couple of
> additional changes I wanted to flag, and (b) a clean version.
>
> 2. We do not feel the characterization in Dan Marcus's letter of an
> arrangement with National Archives gives us sufficient protection.
>
> 3. With respect to the change in the agreement as to production of the
> interviews: Due to seven inaudible tapes and four double interviews,
> the actual number of audible tapes is 500. We will have 300 ready for
December
> 3 and the balance on December 10.
>
> 4. 1 am not certain exactly what additional documents are due, so it
> may
be
> that we will need a short additional period to make a final
> production,
but
> I am not asking for any additional changes to paragraph 6 of the
agreement.
> I also do not know specifically which documents we will be able to
> supply
by
> the 15th, but I believe we will be able to supply a significant
> portion of material by that date.
>
> 5. Note the agreement is dated tomorrow. Do we want to change it today
> and sign it today?

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov [mailto:jfarmer@9-llcommission.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:00 PM
> To: Kahn, Lawrence
> Subject: Re: revised draft

> One more concern (sorry). In the NYC whereas cause, please move "in
>the
> City's view" to immediately after the "Whereas," in order to clarify that
> this
> clause sets forth just the City's view, and in no way implies the
> Commission's
> consent to that view. That should be it. Thanks, John Quoting
> "Kahn,
> Lawrence" <lkahn@law.nyc.gov>:

> > This draft incorporates, with some minor changes, the changes you
> suggested
> > this morning. I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss these
> > with my clients, but don't anticipate any major problems. Probably
> > the only
2
open
> > issues are the date the inspection may begin — which I am proposing
> > (to
> you
> > and my clients) be December 8th, and the date of final production of
> > outstanding documents (see revised paragaraph 6, which I hope you
> > and my clients can live with). I will let you know as soon as I hear
> > back from
my
> > clients on these and any other issues. «Commission tapes agrt.doc -
> > 12-2-03 (red lined).doc» Also remaining to be resolved is whether
> > the Agreement can be signed today or will have to wait another day.

End forwarded message