February 25, 2020
Russell T. Vought
Acting Director
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th St. NW
Washington, DC 20503
russell.t.vought@omb.eop.gov
D. Talmage Hocker, Board Member
Mary Phillips, Board Member
Nick Rahall, Board Member
Angela Styles, Board Member
David L. Winstead, Board Member
Adam Bodner, Executive Director
Public Buildings Reform Board
1800 F St. NW #5116
Washington, DC 20405
fastainfo@pbrb.gov
Adam.Bodner@pbrb.gov
Dear Acting Director Vought and Board Members Styles, Phillips, Winstead, Rahall, and Hocker
and Board Executive Director Bodner:
I write to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Public Buildings
Reform Board (PBRB) reconsider and reverse their decision to close and sell the Federal Archives
and Records Center located at 6125 Sand Point Way NE in Seattle, Washington (the National
Archives at Seattle).
The decision is illegal and was made without consulting with local, state, or tribal officials. If
OMB and PBRB had consulted with local, state, and tribal officials, you would have learned of
the sad legacy of the land on which the archives facility is located and the deep historical
significance of the records stored there. The Seattle facility houses a significant body of tribal and
treaty records relating to the 272 federally recognized tribes in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and
Idaho.1 These records are regularly used to establish tribal membership. It also contains the original

1

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/terrible-and-disgusting-decision-to-close-national-archives-at-seattle-ablow-to-tribes-historians-in-4-states/

 copies of correspondence between Governor Stevens, Indian agents, and Tribal leaders during
treaty negotiations in the mid-19th Century, as well as original drafts of the treaties themselves.2
In addition, the Seattle facility maintains 50,000 files related to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882,
as well as records related to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II. These records,
which are of significant regional importance, must remain in the Pacific Northwest.
Finally, residents of my state use the Seattle facility for a broad range of personal research. My
late father, Murray Ferguson, spent many, many hours at the Seattle facility. I have heard from
numerous Washingtonians who are outraged by your decision and the “process” which led to this
outcome.
I.

The Seattle Archives Building Was Built On Land That Had Been A Thriving
Farm of an Interned Japanese-American Family

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”3 The history of the land on which
the National Archives at Seattle is located reflects the nation’s sad history of internment of
minorities and immigrants, a fact that does not appear to have been considered by either PBRB or
OMB.
As documented by a now-retired senior NARA archivist,4 the land on which the Seattle facility
sits was once a thriving farm operated by the Uyeji family, who emigrated from Japan. In the
decades leading up to WWII, the Uyeji family and their Japanese-American neighbors, the
Takasugi family, lived and worked on the land.

Two members of the Uyeji family in their greenhouse during the 1930s and picture of the Uyeji family farm.
Their home and farm were located on the site of the current Seattle Archives facility. Photos from Densho, Uyeji Collection.
2

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6671516-National-Archives-Puyallup-and-Port-Gamble.html
George Santayana.
4
http://www.discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2013/6/20/nara-seattle-1/
3

2

 In May 1942, when the federal government ordered the forced evacuation of residents of Japanese
ancestry in the area, the Uyeji family and their Japanese-American neighbors were removed from
their home and family farm. The Uyeji family was initially interned at the Pinedale Assembly
Center in central California and then later at the Tule Lake Relocation Center in northern
California. The Uyeji family was never able to return to their Seattle home.
Instead, while the family was interned, the
land was sold and then subsequently
condemned by the U.S. Navy in 1945 in
order to build the warehouse that is now
used by NARA. Since 1963, the warehouse
has been a NARA facility, and it currently
houses records about the Uyeji family farm
– including a key to the front door of the
family’s former home – as well as records
related to the internment of JapaneseAmericans in the 1940s. The connection
between the land on which the Seattle
facility sits and the records it holds, further
underscores the intense regional importance
of the facility.
The Uyeji family greenhouse in 1944, two years after the family was
forced to abandon it during their internment. This photo is located at
the Seattle Archives.

If closure of the facility proceeds, these records will be transferred to facilities in Kansas City,
Missouri, and Riverside, California. According to local archivist organizations like Densho, which
preserve and share the history of the WWII incarceration of Japanese-Americans, physically
moving these archives would impede local families’ research into their roots and genealogy.5
These records are particularly relevant to families whom the federal government forcibly removed
from the Pacific Northwest, and those seeking to fully understand the impact of internment.
I am deeply troubled that PBRB did not have any clear process for obtaining comments and input
on its impending decision whether to close a building with so much local and regional history.
This flatly contradicts the PBRB’s stated goal of transparency.

5

https://iexaminer.org/concerns-raised-about-closure-of-national-archives-in-seattle-which-contains-chineseexclusion-act-records/

3

 II.

The Tribal Records Stored At The Archives Are Essential Records That Tribes in
the Pacific Northwest Must Be Able To Easily Access

Your agencies also wholly failed to consider the impact that closure of the Seattle facility would
have on tribes and native corporations in the Pacific Northwest, notwithstanding your agencies’
obligation to do so under Executive Order 13175.
As I am sure you are aware, Executive Order 13175 seeks to “ . . . establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have
tribal implications, [and] to strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships
with Indian tribes . . . .”6 Here, the decision of your agencies to sell the National Archives at Seattle
and relocate its records thousands of miles away will cause significant and immediate harm to the
tribes and native corporations in this region.
As John Hollowed, legal adviser to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, told the press
following a meeting with NARA staff after closure of the Seattle facility was announced,
“Everything of value to the tribes has been taken away by the federal government. Their land, their
right to fish, and the worst travesty was taking away their kids.”7 OMB and PBRB are now further
perpetuating these harms by depriving local tribes even of access to critical historical documents
on these and many other issues.

Photographs of Metlakahtla (Tsimshean) Children in Metlakahtla, Alaska.
Available at the National Archives at Seattle (Box 276).

6

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/11/09/00-29003/consultation-and-coordination-with-indiantribal-governments
7
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/frustrated-tribes-finally-get-hearing-with-national-archives-about-sandpoint-facility-closure/

4

 The National Archives at Seattle houses a significant body of tribal and treaty records relating to
the 272 federally recognized tribes in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Idaho.8 These include
records from Bureau of Indian Affairs offices and Indian agencies and schools in Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington.9 The National Archives at Seattle also houses records transferred to
Seattle when the National Archives facility in Anchorage closed in 2014. The collection that
moved from Alaska includes “everything from village census records from before statehood to
histories of fur seal hunts in the Pribilof Islands.”10
As Chairman Jeromy Sullivan of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe and Chairman David Bean of
the Puyallup Tribe of Indians noted in letters to Acting Director Vought on January 23, 2020, tribes
rely on physical access to critical historical documents and, as a result, sale of the Seattle facility
will have a “profound, negative and irreparable impact.” 11 As Chairman Bean explained, the
facility “houses critical documents associated with litigation that document the Tribe’s effort to
protect our treaty rights and territory.” Id. Chairman Sullivan similarly explained that “[t]he facility
also houses critical and hard-to-reproduce historical information related to the area tribes.” Id.
Indeed, tribal members use NARA records for scores of different reasons, including to establish
tribal membership, demonstrate and enforce tribal rights to fishing and other activities, trace their
lineage and ancestry, and access native school records. If these historical records are removed from
the Pacific Northwest, many tribal members will effectively be denied access to them and will be
prevented from demonstrating and enforcing these important rights. Neither OMB nor PBRB seem
to have given any consideration to the critical role that the National Archives at Seattle serves in
preserving this cultural heritage and community identity.
The decision of your agencies not to meet with or collaborate with local tribal officials as required
by Executive Order 13175 and to wholly ignore the impact that removing tribal records from the
region would have on tribes located in the Pacific Northwest is inexcusable and unacceptable.
III.

The Archives Stores Critical Records Related To The Chinese Exclusion Act

The National Archives at Seattle also contains 50,000 case files related to the Chinese Exclusion
Act of 1882, which was originally passed to limit the number of Chinese laborers entering the
United States. Individuals applying for entry or re-entry into the United States under the Chinese
Exclusion Act had to go through an extensive application process. The Seattle NARA facility has
case files for individuals who entered the United States through ports in Portland and Seattle as
well as individuals who entered through ports that were managed by officials in Seattle.12

8

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/terrible-and-disgusting-decision-to-close-national-archives-at-seattle-ablow-to-tribes-historians-in-4-states/
9
https://www.archives.gov/seattle/finding-aids/bia-subject-guide
10
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2014/06/10/national-archives-departure-impacts-broad-community/
11
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6671516-National-Archives-Puyallup-and-Port-Gamble.html
12
https://www.archives.gov/seattle/finding-aids/chinese-exclusion-act

5

 The Seattle facility’s case files include
identification
photographs,
biographical
information, interrogation notes, copies of
federal and local court records, as well as
personal letters and photographs. Id. They have
been a critical resource to Chinese Americans
looking for information about their ancestors.13
As one individual who successfully mapped
together his family history with the help of
NARA Seattle staff explained, “[i]t’s all there
on paper, so you can literally recreate a picture
of the village and the family tree through these
documents.”14

Photograph from the Chinese Exclusion Act case file of
Soong May Ling (National Archives at Seattle, RS Case File
1483). As an adult, Soong May Ling, also known as
Madame Chiang Kai Shek, played a role in the repeal of the
Chinese Exclusion Act.

To help facilitate access to these records, there is a dedicated staff of local volunteers at the Seattle
facility working to index the Chinese Exclusion Act case files.15 Indeed, the hard work of these
NARA Seattle volunteers is profiled in a Seattle Times video, which shows their efforts in making
these files more readily accessible to the public.16 But removing these files from the Pacific
Northwest would end this work and make local access to these critical historical files impossible.
Once again, your agencies failed to give any consideration to the impact your decision to close the
Seattle archives would have on access to records of significant regional import.
IV.

OMB And PBRB Acted In Violation Of FASTA

Your decision also should be reconsidered and reversed because it suffers from numerous legal
deficiencies. First, OMB did not satisfy even its most basic statutory obligations under Section 11
of FASTA, including the requirement that it work with GSA to develop and circulate standards
and criteria for the PBRB to use in evaluating potential properties for sale. As even PBRB itself
concedes in its report, “[u]nfortunately, the PBRB did not benefit from the Section 11 FASTA
directive that OMB, in consultation with GSA, develop standards and criteria to use in evaluating
agency submissions and making recommendations to the PBRB.” PBRB High Value Assets

13

https://www.kuow.org/stories/first-panic-then-a-battle-to-keep-the-national-archives-in-seattle
https://iexaminer.org/concerns-raised-about-closure-of-national-archives-in-seattle-which-contains-chineseexclusion-act-records/
15
https://www.archives.gov/seattle/volunteer#profiles
16
https://www.seattletimes.com/video/5978784223001/its-like-reading-someones-life-seattles-chinese-exclusionact-files
14

6

 Report at 10 (the PBRB Report).17 PBRB thus made its recommendations outside the statutory
process contemplated by Congress.
Indeed, as the Board further admits, “[t]o the best of PBRB’s knowledge, the standards and criteria
were never developed.” Id. (emphasis added). OMB’s failure on this point is particularly difficult
to understand given that FASTA became law in December 2016. OMB and GSA thus had nearly
three years to develop and circulate the criteria prior to the PBRB’s issuance of recommendations.
OMB’s complete failure to satisfy Congress’s directive to promulgate these standards was
arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the law.
Second, as evidenced by the PBRB Report, the agency’s process for evaluating data and
identifying appropriate properties for sale was highly problematic even apart from its failure to
receive or consider statutorily-mandated standards and criteria for decision-making. For example,
although FASTA became law in December 2016, it was not until almost two and a half years later
in May 2019 when even a minimum quorum of five members were appointed to the agency. And,
despite the agency’s short, six-month window for identifying and recommending high-value
properties for sale, the PBRB Report makes clear this process was similarly problematic:





The Board’s members “did not have Government ID’s for over 2 months after being sworn
in.” Id. at 12.
The PBRB “had no staff for the first 4 months” of its brief, six-month decision-making
period, leaving “substantial work to be accomplished in just 8 weeks.” Id.
The Board further concedes that it “faced, and continues to face, challenges in gathering
the data needed to support decision making for complex real estate transactions.” Id.
Finally, the Board also acknowledged “extraordinary issues with data gaps and data
integrity” in the data used for its decision making. Id. at 13. As one witness testified at a
PBRB public meeting, the Board’s data suffered from numerous problems and might, for
example, incorrectly show a federal building was located “in the middle of an ocean.”
PBRB June 17, 2019 Public Meeting at 107.18

Third, state and local officials were denied the opportunity to present information and data to the
PBRB on the importance of maintaining the archives facility in Seattle. See FASTA, PL 114-287,
130 Stat. 1463, § 12(d)(1). The Board conducted no consultation with state and local officials
prior to recommending the facility for sale and thus likely acted with no knowledge of the
importance of the land and the records housed there. Id. § 12(d), (2). Nor were any public hearings
held in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, or Alaska, where members of the public could have provided
input. Id. § 12(f). Thus, there was no meaningful consideration of the significant negative impact
closure of the National Archives at Seattle will have on the “public access to agency services.” Id.
§ 11(b)(3)(J).
Shipping these records to Riverside or Kansas City will effectively eliminate public access to the
records, creating insurmountable obstacles for local tribal members and other affected
17

https://www.pbrb.gov/assets/uploads/20191227%20High%20Value%20Assets%20Report%20as%20Required%20
by%20FASTA.pdf
18
https://www.pbrb.gov/assets/uploads/Public%20Meeting%20Transcript%20June%2017%202019%20(1).pdf.

7

 communities in the Pacific Northwest seeking access to critical historical resources. This decision,
which was based on incomplete and flawed information and was made outside the statutory
requirements of FASTA, is ultra vires and should be reconsidered and overturned.
V.

Conclusion

I urge you to reconsider the sale of the National Archives at Seattle. Reconsideration is warranted
in light of PBRB’s and OMB’s failure to consider the unique historical nature of the archives
location and the import the records hold for tribes and native corporations in the Pacific Northwest
as well as the local Chinese-American and Japanese-American communities.
In addition, reconsideration is also required in light of the Board and OMB’s indefensible choice
to ignore Executive Order 13175 and to rely on flawed and incomplete data.
Although I hope to avoid litigation, my team is preparing to take legal action to defend access to
these important historical records and prevent your agency’s unlawful decision from taking effect.
Please respond no later than close of business on Wednesday, March 18, 2020 with your assurance
that the records housed at the Seattle facility will remain in Washington State. I am open to meeting
with you between now and March 18th in order to have a direct conversation about resolving these
issues and keeping these records in Washington state.
Sincerely,

BOB FERGUSON
Washington State Attorney General
cc: Emily Murphy
Administrator
General Services Administration
1800 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20405
emily.murphy@gsa.gov
William J. Bosanko
Chief Operating Officer
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
william.bosanko@nara.gov

8