The proposal would exempt from disclosure the GPS coordinates of farms as well as basic contact information for owners and operators of farms and food processing facilities. Such entities are corporations, although Sen. Grassley and others are arguing that these locations are both businesses and individual residences, thus they deserve special privacy protections.

We strongly believe that the FOIA already balances the public interest in disclosure with trade secrets, individual privacy, national security and other interests. A better approach would be to reinforce the notion that existing laws such as the Freedom of Information Act already protect personal privacy.

New, unnecessary exemptions set a bad precedent for keeping the public informed of important public safety events.  For example, the FOIA’s existing balanced protections were adequate when the USA Today reported on why a recall of tainted beef didn’t include lunchboxes, waste in the food subsidy payments system or shortcomings in the federal farm loan program.

Supporters had planned late Wednesday to add it to the farm bill by unanimous consent, and after Senator Leahy objected and expressed his concerns, it appeared there would be a floor vote.  Even had the amendment passed, it would have at least put senators on the record supporting or opposing the amendment. Instead, the Senate went into its Memorial Day recess all next week and expects to address the issue when it returns and continues consideration of the farm bill.

Sen. Leahy has repeatedly shown his commitment to defending FOIA on nitty-gritty issues, and we appreciate his commitment to government transparency and his staff’s hard work and responsiveness in defending the public’s right to know what its government is doing.

As we have said repeatedly, proposals to exempt certain information from disclosure come up regularly in Congress.  They cut into FOIA on a piecemeal basis and collectively do great damage to the underlying principle that government activities and operations ought to be transparent to the public while protecting privacy, trade secrets, national security and other specific interests. (For a 3-minute review of the problem and what Congress can do about it, view this 3-minute talk I gave to a room full of congressional staff during at a transparency event organized by the Advisory Committee on Transparency.

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.

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

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.

• There is definitely more interest. We had expected as much, since the FOIAonline portal offers distinct benefits for individual agencies and requesters, as well as members of each group in the aggregate, but it’s nice to have this recognized by additional agency FOIA personnel.
• There are plenty of existing contracts. Which is how things should be; we’re glad agencies have invested in their FOIA-processing systems. We’d just like to see agencies consider FOIAonline as an option when the opportunity arises.
• There is a lot of voicemail. Given the chronic laments of both FOIA requesters and agency staff, that a lack of resources prevents agencies from responding to FOIA requests and related questions as quickly as they’d like to, this is not a surprise. (We hope the people whose numbers we called were busy helping other callers at the time.)
• There is some confusion. We did have one agency respond that FOIAonline is for agencies which don’t have an electronic processing system. To which we’d say, (1) We certainly hope any non-electronic agency at least investigates FOIAonline; (2) Even an agency with an electronic processing system may benefit from joining FOIAonline; and (3) We hope that nobody thinks “We’ve already got an electronic system so we shouldn’t even check out FOIAonline.”
• Talking about these issues will help FOIAonline evolve. The EPA, Department of Commerce, and OGIS/NARA have developed FOIAonline through a thorough process, continuing to refine the system and reach out to stakeholders, and while they have summarized some of their most frequent answers, we think our survey can provide additional information and perspective.

While none of the above items may be a complete surprise, the first round of responses does make us optimistic that agencies are aware of FOIAonline, that they are aware of the benefits it is capable of offering, and that the current scope of agency involvement is a function of its recent development. One agency FOIA staffer explained that while the agency wasn’t ready to commit to FOIAonline yet, it did seem like it was the future.

So, we want to make sure it’s the best, most comprehensive and efficient future we can build.

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rick Blum

571-481-9322 or info (at) sunshineingovernment.org

March 12, 2012

SGI “Sunshine in Government Award” Honors EPA Employees for Innovative FOIA Technology,

Senator who Stood for Flow of News on World Affairs and National Security

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.

SGI is honoring two government employees, Tim Crawford and Larry Gottesman, for their leadership in the creation of FOIAonline, a unified system re-using existing government technology that agencies can use to manage requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FOIAonline system allows the public to make, track and receive responses to their requests. While remaining a vital tool to obtain information held by government, FOIA too often involves lengthy delays, lost requests, unanswered help desk calls and a flurry of paper documents ping ponging around federal offices. The new system became operational on October 1, 2012, and is currently used by a handful of the 100 agencies subject to FOIA. It is a cost-effective, build-for-one, available-for-all service that will allow the government to spend less taxpayer money while improving FOIA processing.

In addition, SGI is honoring Senator Ron Wyden for his commitment to the flow of news and information about world affairs and national security matters. Late last year Senator Wyden publicly opposed the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 because it contained language that would have significantly restricted the flow of news about foreign affairs and national security. In a speech from the floor of the United States Senate explaining his concerns, Senator Wyden recalled his father, who as a journalist wrote about the Bay of Pigs invasion and developments leading the U.S. to use the first atomic bomb. “Accounts like these are vital to the public’s understanding of national security issues,” Wyden said. “Without transparent and informed public debate on foreign policy and national security topics, American voters would be ill-equipped to elect the policymakers who make important decisions in these areas.”

The Sunshine Award was created to honor individuals who have made a significant contribution over time to open government at the federal level. SGI chooses honorees based on several criteria: Each recipient contributes significantly to the public’s understanding of open government laws or how these laws impact people’s everyday lives, protects the public’s rights under open government laws such as the Freedom of Information Act; and serves in government making current, concrete and oftentimes unrecognized contributions to protecting or strengthening open government.

The award itself is a handsome clear sculptured obelisk reflecting the importance of transparency in government.

The Sunshine in Government Initiative is a coalition of media groups committed to promoting policies that ensure the government is accessible, accountable and open. Public oversight is the ultimate safeguard of democracy. It is the inalienable right of citizens to examine and judge their government; and that right is served when news media act on behalf of the public to gain access to information.

For media inquiries, please contact Rick Blum, SGI Coordinator at (571) 481-9322 or sunshineingovernment.org.

-30-

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

The “FOIA Online” site, which OGIS, EPA, and the Department of Commerce launched last fall as a web-based aggregation of FOIA requests and responses, is designed for agencies, requesters, and the general public. So far, six agencies are participating. Ultimately, though, we want each of the hundred federal agencies to provide FOIA requests and responses to the collection, to fulfill its potential.

Thus, we are asking you to pick an agency below, ask them a few questions and report the answers to us. It should take you 5 minutes.

We are gathering the answers. Our hope is to boost awareness and participation.

It may help to describe FOIA Online briefly before asking the following questions, e.g., “FOIA Online is a system to let the public and agencies view and process FOIA requests online.”

1. Is [the agency] familiar with FOIA Online?
2. If so: Is [the agency] committed to being on FOIA Online within the next year?
3. What factors contributed to [the agency's] decision?

We will keep track in the tables below. To volunteer to contact an agency, email us at FOIAsurvey@sunshineingovernment.org. You may wish to contact the FOIA Public Liaison or the Chief FOIA Officer; FOIA.gov has posted a list of agencies’ FOIA personnel contact information (see the link below the buttons on that page for the full agency list).

Thank you for your interest and support. Stay tuned for further updates.

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.