I wonder if the archivists were in the habit of breaking rules for people, or if this was a special case. And if so, why? That might tell us a lot. Especially since I'm still wondering who blew the whistle at the archives, the people in charge or the underlings?
See previous posts on this thread (#223 is one) that notes that very shortly after Berger was first caught by staff to have taken documents, a potential replacement for the Archives director was approached and eventually the WH requested the sitting director's resignation. It doesn't *seem* to take a rocket scientist to deduce this was the reason.
However, I'm reluctant at this time (though I'm open-minded) to assign culpability to him and feel incomptence or lax oversight over highly sensitive documents was the reason.
Now, what we know is employees appear to have been very concerned once they noticed missing documents, and they took steps to catch him and went to authorities. It's true there may be "good" employees who took steps while "bad" employees aided the misdeeds and we just haven't heard about the "bad employees"...yet.
There are two versions on what happened when Berger was first caught. An official told reporters that employees called Bruce Lindsey after the September visit and requested the return of documents. The sting was set up in October and Berger hired an attorney after being caught again in October. His attorney's version is that Lindsey was not called in September and Berger claims he was not made aware of missing documents until the October visit.
(sheesh, hope that's clear--a review of the timeline linked in #223 to an earlier post should help you sort it out)