Excerpt: "Endless delays. Inflated costs.
Stonewalling officials. And in at least one case, redactions made in duct tape.
Welcome to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - bureaucracy's house of
horrors and the subject of a two-day hearing in the House this week aimed at
spotlighting what lawmakers say is a broken system."
FOIA hearings. (photo: The Hill)
Government Secrecy Put On Trial
By
Megan R. Wilson and Dustin Weaver, The Hill
02 June 15
Endless delays. Inflated costs. Stonewalling officials.
And in at least one case, redactions made in duct
tape.
Welcome to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) —
bureaucracy’s house of horrors and the subject of a two-day hearing in the
House this week aimed at spotlighting what lawmakers say is a broken system.
While FOIA was passed to bring the government’s work
into the light, it has resulted in the creation of a maddening system that
thwarts reporters, advocacy groups and lawyers at every turn.
Members of both parties have expressed increasing
frustration over the backlog in obtaining open records and the slow-walking of
requests, with the scrutiny amplified by the battle over access to Hillary
Clinton’s emails at the State Department.
“What’s frustrating for reporters, open government
organizations and members of the public is that the Obama administration made a
really strong commitment to transparency at the beginning of their tenure,”
said Adam Marshall, a legal fellow at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press.
“Unfortunately,” Marshall said, “that has not
translated into real significant differences in the day-to-day experiences of
the public.”
Legislation has been introduced in the House and the
Senate that would crack down on FOIA obstruction while making reforms to
streamline the process.
Seeking to drum up support for legislative action, the
House Oversight Committee has invited multiple panels of witnesses, including
members of the press, to tell their tales of woe.
The witness list includes Jason Leopold, a reporter at
Vice News who had been dubbed a “FOIA terrorist” by a federal agency and has
led the push to release Clinton’s emails; David McCraw, the vice president
assistant general counsel for The New York Times; Tom Fitton, the president of
Judicial Watch; and Sharyl Attkisson, a former CBS reporter who says she was
rebuffed when investigating the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Lawmakers will come to the hearing armed with
ammunition of their own, thanks to Chairman Jason Chaffetz’s (R-Utah) open call
for FOIA complaints that was circulated around Washington.
The committee’s request unearthed several eye-popping
cases that lawmakers could bring up when five FOIA officers testify on
Wednesday.
Among them was the case of ThinkGlobal, an online
print and publishing company that sought documents from the Commerce
Department’s International Trade Administration.
The company was told the documents could be provided —
but at a cost of $2.3 million. After a year of appeals and follow-ups, the
documents were handed over at a final cost of $190.
The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute says
it ran into difficulty when seeking the emails that Lisa Jackson, the former
head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sent under an alias.
The EPA told the group it had identified 120,000
records that could be covered under the group’s request — but suggested
releasing them all could take 100 years.
“As a reminder, to fairly manage our limited resources
so as to equitably respond to other Americans who have submitted FOIA requests,
100 documents per month is the production schedule” for this request, the EPA’s
FOIA office wrote in its response. At that rate, 1,200 documents would be
released each year, meaning the request would take a century to complete.
“This is a very well-thought-out defiance,” said Chris
Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “This is a
very well-thought-out bird they’ve flipped.”
While some FOIA responses aren’t illegal, they
occasionally take a turn toward the absurd. One set of documents provided to
The Hill had duct tape obscuring redacted text, rather than the usual black
marks.
The complaints about records requests aren’t limited
to the Obama administration.
The Oversight panel has been flooded with examples of
denials, delays and excessive secrecy stretching back almost 20 years.
The National Security Archive, an independent research
organization, waited 17 years for the National Archives and Records
Administration to provide four 50-year-old documents concerning U.S.-Guatemala
relations. The documents ultimately arrived with heavy redactions, the group
said in a letter to the Oversight Committee.
Advocates say agencies also misuse exemptions in FOIA
law to redact information that should be public knowledge, often to avoid
embarrassment.
In 2012, the American Immigration Lawyers Association
(AILA) asked for records on complaints against immigration judges, according to
a letter filed to the Oversight Committee by Public Citizen.
Only after AILA sued in 2013 did the government begin
releasing the documents. Extensive portions were blacked out, with the
documents labeled “non-responsive” to the request, which is not a valid reason
to exempt information under FOIA law.
“The district court judge ultimately ordered the
agency to release such [“non-responsive”] information, and the subsequent
releases reveal that many of the redactions were made to shield information
that was plainly responsive to the plaintiff’s request but embarrassing to the
agency,” Public Citizen said.
The House hearings, occurring both Tuesday and
Wednesday, are aimed at drawing attention to legislation moving through
Congress intended to reform the open records process. A previous version, which
was opposed by some federal agencies, failed to move forward last year.
The new bills would require agencies to post more
documents online, codify the presumption of openness ushered in by the Obama administration,
strengthen the FOIA ombudsman’s office, and sunset the use of exemptions for
sensitive government deliberations after 25 years.
Officially called the (b)(5) exemption, the latter
provision is often derided as the “withhold because you can” clause, and is
widely abused in FOIA responses, according to experts.
In one example, the CIA declined to release records to
the National Security Archive about the Bay of Pigs operation in 1961, citing
the (b)(5) exemption because draft reports about the invasion could “confuse
the public.”
While advocates support the proposed FOIA reforms,
they fear little will change until government officials can be punished for
non-compliance.
“Abuse of (b)(5) is a problem, but the problem is they
can get away with it because FOIA is on an honor system that has no
accountability for being dishonorable or breaking the law,” Horner said.
“If you want to solve all of these other problems,
then make it matter.”
© 2015 Reader Supported News
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
