Livestock owners’ “phone directory” info should not be covered with blanket of secrecy

(Updated 5/23/13 at 1:18pm)

Corrected 5/23/13 at 1:30pm

The full Senate is taking up the farm bill (S. 954), and one amendment three amendments (Amendment 970, 1011 and 1097) from Senator Charles Grassley contain nearly identical language that would eliminate basic “phone directory” information from disclosure, including the name, address, contact info (including email address), GPS coordinates and other identifying information of livestock owners and operators. They claim it’s a defense against domestic terrorism.

The EPA in the last few weeks released such information under FOIA to one (or more) environment groups. That release was criticized by some in Congress. However, the controversy around farmer and rancher’s address and contact information goes back a while to when the USDA was trying to create a system to trace back foodborne illness outbreaks to the source (e.g., the farm) within 72 48 hours to abide by trade agreements. (And it may go back further than that.)  There was much opposition among ranchers and farmers to that program, known as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  Eventually, that program was dropped.

During past discussions about this data, we tried to accommodate those concerns and carefully consider when the journalists would find that information useful in reporting (such as when an outbreak occurs) and find some compromise text, but we did not find anyone pushing the exemption who was willing to compromise.

The amendment is ill-considered and should not be voted on in such a rushed manner, especially when the interests in disclosure are as significant as the safety of the food supply. At a very minimum the public has an interest in learning the location of farms implicated in a health scare so the public can evaluate how those responsible for the safety of the food supply are responding.  The current amendment fails to balance any interest in keeping the records confidential with the public interest in disclosure.  The amendment creates a bad precedent for the federal government and for the public that has a strong interest in having full and fair information about newsworthy events regarding the safety of the food supply. Operators of any type of business already have exemptions written into FOIA to protect trade secrets and individual privacy.

This amendment is bad for transparency and accountability and shouldn’t be taken up until sponsors work to address the concerns with the proposal.

CBO releases cost estimate on FOIA bill, but doesn’t address savings

The CBO score is out on the FOIA reform bill and it estimates the bill would add $20 million over 5 years in federal expenses. It’s a frustrating analysis because it does not reflect any savings from making FOIA processing more efficient by, e.g., using a shared FOIA processing service such as FOIAonline.  Such problems are typical with CBO cost estimates, and traditionally it is very difficult to get CBO to adjust their scores.  Congress will have to find savings of at least equal to the net cost from the legislation to meet pay-as-you-go requirements before the bill could be approved.  Or Congress could waive that requirement, but that is highly unlikely.

This supports adjusting the bill to tie closing of contracts with a shift to FOIAonline or other system that makes the process more efficient.  Such systems could, for example, allow various agencies to “talk” to one another digitally while processing a FOIA request.

CBOscore_hr1211

SGI Statement on the Justice Department obtaining AP phone records

The action of the U.S. Department of Justice is an affront to the relationship between the government and news media that our nation’s founders established over two centuries ago.  Journalists experienced in reporting on global affairs and national security respect the government’s need to keep information confidential to protect national security and carefully consider the government’s concerns when reporting on such matters.

Last year Congress rejected a package of changes from the Senate Intelligence Committee that would have redefined the relationship between the government and press on reporting related to global affairs and national security. Until the Justice Department’s actions are better explained, they appear to be another reaction that unnecessarily threatens the balance between the government’s right to keep secrets to protect national security and the public’s right to be informed about global affairs. While delicate and sometimes tense, this balance has never been disrupted to the point that our national security is breached; quite the contrary, in fact:  thorough reporting on national security issues almost always serves the public ‘s and government’s interests and makes our nation safer.

The Sunshine in Government Initiative is a coalition of media associations promoting greater transparency in the federal government. Members include the American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Online News Association, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Society of Professional Journalists.

Sunshine in Government Award honors innovation in FOIA, Senator who defended news coverage

In honor of Sunshine Week, the Sunshine in Government Initiative (SGI) is pleased to recognize three leaders in government who will receive SGI’s Sunshine in Government Award (“Sunshine Award”) for their commitment and work to strengthen open government.

Transparency and the Obama administration

Update (2/21/2013):  Here’s the online version of the story: http://fxn.ws/YDAU7F

I had the pleasure of talking about transparency (video) and the Obama administration this afternoon on Fox News.

Take your FOIA requester to work day?

FOIA officers: I’d like to see what you do all day.  Really.

A while ago I had the opportunity to talk with about 100 FOIA officers in the federal government about FOIA from the requester perspective.  I mentioned that the determined, distrustful and demanding face of many FOIA requesters hides a lack of understanding about what FOIA officers within agencies go through to respond to requests.  And I made an offer:  I’d like to follow a FOIA officer at any agency around for a day to see what FOIA officers need to do every day to push FOIA responses out the door.  Do they spend their day on the phone tracking down which offices may hold relevant information?  Do they hunch over desks redacting documents?  Do they badger government employees to go through their files and find documents, or convince reluctant employees that disclosing information upon request is not only lawful but required?  Once a response is ready to go out the door, do they consume energy filing reports to log their efforts for the annual reports?  I’d really like to know, and I’m willing to relay my experience to the public through this blog.  This is not a hit job — I promise no gotcha journalism.  I just want to know what it’s like to respond to FOIA requests, reduce backlogs, avoid unnecessary delays, and make sound decisions to disclose or withhold.

Are relationships with requesters really as bad as the stereotypical image of yelling, demanding requesters? Or is my hunch right that mostly callers are respectful if a little perplexed and uneducated about the reviews and steps necessary before a response goes out?

So this is a genuine appeal to FOIA officers everywhere to help me understand how your day goes.  Maybe you don’t want me hanging around all day.  A half day might work. Or even a one-hour call. I’m flexible. Let’s talk.

House panel’s pointed letter to Justice sends impatient message on #FOIA

In a renewed and welcome spirit of bipartisanship, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee earlier this week sent a letter to the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) asking pointed questions about OIP’s actions to encourage agencies to comply with FOIA by reducing backlogs, reigning in the use of statutory exemptions and updating FOIA regulations.  We’re especially appreciative that Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) mentioned a database of the statutory exemptions to FOIA that we compiled and ProPublica published a while ago.

This is a great time for FOIA because so much has evolved since Congress enacted the 2007 FOIA amendments (pdf) five years ago. FOIA Online is now a realistic option for agencies to go digital with their FOIA operations while realizing huge savings for the federal government, an important aspect to getting any legislation through Congress.

Congress could mandate that agencies move to FOIA Online as their current contracts for FOIA processing expire, invest the savings from the move to a shared service to improving FOIA.  Improvements could include developing further the FOIA Online system, targeting efforts to improve FOIA processing and reduce backlogs and delays, and quickly convening a FOIA Delays Commission to compile and identify other areas for improvements.

There are many problems with FOIA administration today and many areas for improvement.  Some require executive branch action while others would require legislation.  Any legislative actions around FOIA will have attract the support of Senate and House leaders, a growing number of whom want to see the Freedom of Information Act inform the American public while protecting what deserves protection and serve as a dependable tool for obtaining from government vital information in a timely, efficient and impartial manner.

Senate drops controversial Title V proposals, passes FY13 intel authorization bill (S. 3454)

The nine members of the Sunshine in Government Initiative are pleased the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (S. 3454) does not include proposals that would have curtailed the flow of information to the public about national security and foreign affairs. The media takes seriously the obligation to consider potential harms from disclosures of sensitive information while reporting the news. These proposals simply went too far in cutting off vital information to the public about world events and national security issues and had not been subject to adequate consideration by Congress.

Senate drops anti-leaks proposals

The nine members of the Sunshine in Government Initiative are pleased Senate negotiators dropped controversial proposals in the Intelligence  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (S. 3454) that would have harmed news reporting on national security and foreign affairs.

The media takes seriously the obligation to consider potential harms from disclosures of sensitive information while reporting the news. These proposals simply went too far in cutting off vital information to the public about world events and national security issues and had not been subject to adequate consideration by Congress.

What they are saying: Criticism of anti-leaks provisions of intel authorization (S. 3454)

Criticism of sections 505 and 506 of S. 3454, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (emphases added):

The legislation would end contacts that often benefit both the government and the public by allowing the exchange of accurate information about vital national security issues and intelligence activities, including abuses requiring attention. As executive editor of The Washington Post for 17 years, I know firsthand that such conversations also help the news media avoid publishing information that, inadvertently, might harm national security.

Without access to knowledgeable career officials, it would be much more difficult for the news media to determine the accuracy of information or whether its publication or broadcast could truly harm national security.

Especially in times of war, declared or undeclared, it is important to maintain the right balance between accountability and national security.

 –Washington Post op-ed by former executive editor Leonard Downie Jr., December 6, 2012