A federal judge in Washington, D.C. found that the Justice Department could not withhold files from the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics of their criminal investigation of U.S. Rep. Don Young of Alaska.

The Justice Department did not file any charges against Young and withheld the files on privacy grounds. -db

From the Anchorage Daily News, January 11, 2012, by Richard Maurer.

Full story

A recent study found that under the Obama administration, in 2010 federal agencies used exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 33 percent more than they did under George W. Bush in 2008.

Watchdog groups are now trying to hold Obama to his pledge to make his administration the most transparent and accountable in history. -db

From Federal Times, December 15, 2011, by Sean Reilly.

Full story

The Justice Department has proposed a rule change for the FOIA to allow government agencies to deny that records do not exist when they do. As it stands now the government can withhold information and issue a Glomar denial that says they neither confirm nor deny the records exist.

Open government advocates say that the rule change would deliver a blow to transparency in that with the proposed rule, those seeking information would be inclined to forego appealing denial of the request concluding that the information doesn’t exist. -db

From ProPublica, October 24, 2011, by Jennifer LaFleur.

Full story

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is suing the Securities Exchange Commission  for documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act showing what the SEC is doing to improve detection and enforcement on financial fraud.

CREW submitted the FOIA request to the SEC in June but has received no documents on their request. -db

From The Hill, October 13, 2011, by Peter Schroeder.

Full story

The Obama administration released a report about their progress in increasing transparency. They cited increased grants of Freedom of Information Act requests; the declassification of sensitive data; and the use of technology to improve access to government spending and information on government agencies.

The report was well-received by open government advocates, but they noted that much more needs to be done. -db

From The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, September 16, 2011, by Jamie Schuman.

Full story

—

Obama administration officials are saying that obtaining government documents through the FOIA is necessarily a lengthy process and contacting government officials directly would yield better results. -db

NextGov
November 15, 2010
By Aliya Sternstein

The White House’s open government leader said Americans should not bother filing requests for government documents under the Freedom of Information Act and instead should contact open government officials at agencies who can post or e-mail the materials faster.

Beth Noveck, deputy chief technology officer for open government, on Monday said the purpose of the Obama administration’s transparency agenda is to institutionalize a culture in which agencies proactively release data so that disclosing government information is the default. She was addressing complaints about denials of FOIA requests at an event hosted by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a liberal think tank. The talk centered on the conflict between national security and government transparency.

“Why are you writing to the lawyers? We all know it’s going to take months and months. That’s how FOIA works,” said Noveck, who is on leave as a professor at New York Law School, where she researches intellectual property and constitutional law. “The manual nature of the process is so egregious . . . so burdensome.” A more effective way to obtain information would be to contact the designated open government officer at a particular agency — or herself, Noveck said.

For example, in response to public requests, the Patent and Trademark Office this summer partnered with Google to offer bulk downloads of patent materials, such as published applications, grants and assignments, as well as trademark documents, including registrations and applications.

But legal experts debating data disclosure disagreed with Noveck’s advice about bypassing FOIA, arguing that the White House needs to expedite the process. “They should make FOIA work,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “You shouldn’t have to go around [the process] and call Beth Noveck,” she added, noting the general public probably does not know who she is.

Federal FOIA staff say their offices lack the staff, funds and technology to process requests expeditiously, according to a survey CREW released in late September. One respondent said: “I don’t see anyone providing more money or resources to support transparency in government. The only change is the public seems to think they will get more and so we have seen an increase in requests, or requests coming back again — overwhelming an already overloaded system.”

Sloan added that citizens, not the executive branch, have pushed to make the White House more open. Senior officials frequently tout the fact that this is the first administration to release White House visitor logs. But CREW had to sue the administration to force disclosure of those lists, she noted.

“The government is only as open as we make it,” Sloan said. “It requires us to remain ever vigilant . . . and to insist that it remain open.”

The discussion also touched on the potential harm caused by the publication of classified data, such as the tens of thousands of unredacted documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan posted by the website WikiLeaks. Most of the panelists argued the courts should have more say than the executive branch in deciding what information becomes public.

Jerome A. Barron, a George Washington University law professor who in the early 1970s was a consultant to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, aka the Watergate Committee, said, “As was the case at the time of the Pentagon Papers, there is no law that allows U.S. law enforcement to enjoin the press,” or even determine whether WikiLeaks is a journalistic institution.

The papers, which were leaked by a former government contract employee in 1971, contained a secret study on U.S. involvement in the early prosecution of the Vietnam War.

“Humanitarian considerations outweigh First Amendment considerations sometimes,” Barron said. “What I think is most important is a judicial role.”

Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, added the issues creating tension are not so much secrecy vs. national security, but secrecy vs. wrongdoing in the context of national security. For instance, information documenting interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that could be considered international war crimes, should not be covered up, he said. “I pine for the days when the courts would make those kinds of determinations instead of the government making them on their own,” Warren said.

Copyright 2010 NextGov     FAC Content Use Policy

The American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Alliance for Justice are urging the Senate to pass a bill allowing television coverage of Supreme Court hearings. -db

American Civil Liberties Union
Press Release
October 28, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A coalition of public interest advocates led by the American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Alliance for Justice sent a letter to the Senate today urging action on a bill that would allow television coverage of open Supreme Court proceedings. In the letter, the groups argue that broadcasting Supreme Court arguments would lead Americans to have a greater understanding of the justice system and the government overall.

The bill, S. 446, was introduced by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) early last year and was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June on a bipartisan vote of approval.

“The Court decides too many questions of monumental importance to the American people to deny them the opportunity to observe its proceedings,” the groups said in the letter. “Even the majority of those who are able to visit the Court in person receive just three minutes to watch before they are shuffled out to make room for others waiting on line. The Court’s public-seating area accommodates only 300 visitors. Not surprisingly, most Americans increasingly favor television coverage of the Court.”

Though some oppose cameras in the courtroom because they believe broadcasting trials would distort the serious decision-making process of the courtroom, today’s letter challenges that argument by pointing out that the Supreme Court has no juries to expose nor any witnesses to intimidate. Further, S. 446 would allow for exceptions in any case that would violate the due process rights of any party. The groups also point out that cameras in the courtroom have been used without negative consequences in both the United Kingdom and Canada, which have allowed broadcasting of their highest courts’ arguments for years.

“Allowing cameras to broadcast Supreme Court arguments will bring a crucial part of our government’s proceedings to the vast majority of the American public for the first time,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, ACLU Legislative Chief of Staff and First Amendment Counsel. “A democracy cannot thrive without transparency or an engaged public. This bill will help to educate our citizens about how our highest court operates and ensure that there is no branch of government that is inaccessible. This bipartisan bill should be passed swiftly by both the Senate and the House in the coming post-election session.”

The letter to the Senate can be found here: www.aclu.org/free-speech/coalition-letter-urging-passage-s-446-bill-allowing-broadcast-supreme-court-arguments

FAC Content Use Policy

In surveying hundreds of Freedom of Information Act  employees in federal agencies, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) found the public and the employees still thwarted from getting information requested under the FOIA. -db

CREW
September 30, 2010
By crewstaff

The mid-way point of the Obama administration seemed like a good time to assess how well its transparency agenda is doing and, in particular, whether agencies have improved their administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent out a survey to hundreds of agency FOIA personnel to get their on-the-ground input about what is and is not happening at their agencies and what impediments they see to implementing the FOIA. The results reveal that major roadblocks continue to prevent both requesters and agency FOIA personnel from getting what they need under the FOIA.

We heard the same lament from respondents over and over: there is insufficient staff, funding, and training to make the FOIA truly work well. 54% of respondents identified insufficient staff as the greatest impediment to effective FOIA implementation. This recurring problem has plagued agencies throughout the FOIA’s existence, and has resulted in long backlogs of requests across the government.

New problems emerged as well. Two widely touted FOIA initiatives – creation of chief FOIA officers and FOIA public liaisons at each agency – have had little or no impact on how agencies administer the FOIA. In the same vein, despite memoranda from the president and attorney general mandating a more transparent government, survey results suggest agencies give widely varying priority to the FOIA. 24% believe the FOIA is handled appropriately at their agencies, while 20% say it is not considered important. And while FOIA professionals are aware of the new FOIA policies, this has yet to translate into a major shift in the FOIA culture across the federal government.

The survey results also reveal a great divide between requesters and agency FOIA personnel that no open government directive or initiative has yet to bridge. While FOIA professionals believe requesters don’t adequately understand the FOIA process, a majority embrace increasing communication and contact between the two groups.

In this time of across-the-board agency budget cuts, it is not surprising the administration has focused on non-monetary changes, such as revamped policy statements and increased duties for already existing agency personnel. But its commitment to transparency must be judged by results, and the information CREW has received suggests the steps taken so far fall far short of what is needed – more money, more staff, and a radical shift in attitude to change the pervasive culture of secrecy to one of openness and responsiveness.

Copyright 2010 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington     FAC  Content Use Policy

CREW and the National Security Archive are asking government agencies to intensify efforts to conserve e-mails as they suspect that even more Bush e-mails are missing than thought previously. -db

Copyright 2010 NextGov

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a Freedom of Information Act request concerning what they claim are government efforts to block interviews with Jack Abramoff now serving a prison term for conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion in an influence-peddling scandal in Washington. -db

THE WRAP
May 5, 2010
By Steve Pond

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff is currently incarcerated in federal prison in Maryland, but is the Bureau of Prisons also keeping him under wraps when it comes to filmmakers and the media?

That’s the charge made by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which on Wednesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents related to the BOP’s possible efforts to keep Abramoff from doing on-camera interviews for “Casino Jack and the United States of Money.”

The film, which premiered at Sundance in January, deals with the tangled corruption scandal predicated by Abramoff, who is currently serving time on fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges. It was directed by Alex Gibney, an Oscar nominee for “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” and winner for “Taxi to the Dark Side.”

(Read more: Hollyblog: ‘Casino Jack’ Director: On Stalking Abramoff)

In a recent interview with Filmmaker magazine, Gibney said he “came very close” to getting Abramoff (right) to do an on-camera interview, but was thwarted by the Department of Justice.

“I think Jack actually was willing,” said Gibney, who met with Abramoff in prison three or four times and found him “a very likable guy, very funny, good storyteller, very charismatic.”

Gibney said he halted production for a year waiting to get Abramoff, but in the end the Department of Justice “used carrots and sticks to persuade Jack not to be interviewed.”

CREW’s Freedom of Information Act request seeks “all records of communications between the Federal Bureau of Prisons (‘BOP’) and Alex Gibney, Zena Barakat, and/or Jigsaw Productions, either initiated or received by the BOP, that refer, mention, or pertain in any way to Jack Abramoff.”

The request was filed on May 5 by Anne L. Weismann, chief counsel for CREW. The nonprofit ethics organization says it was “acting on information that the BOP actively prevented Mr. Abramoff from speaking to anyone connected to the movie and also seeks to learn whether the BOP may have prevented Mr. Abramoff from speaking to other members of the media.”

Before he became a lobbyist in the 1990s, Abramoff was active in Republican political circles; he also wrote and produced the 1989 action film “Red Scorpion,” with Dolph Lundgren.

In 2006, Abramoff pled guilty to three felony counts of conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion relating to issues of Indian gaming. Two and a half years later, he was found guilty of more fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal in Washington. The ensuing investigation also led to the conviction of a dozen others, from lobbyists and congressional aides to one congressman and two Bush White House officials.

Gibney’s documentary opens in theaters April 7.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information Act request in May of 2008 for records regarding PTSC among soldiers but has not received the relevant e-mails and records and now fear that the VA destroyed the documents. -db

AllGov
February 28, 2010
By Noel Brinkerhoff

After learning that the Department of Veterans Affairs was under-diagnosing cases of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among soldiers, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sought documents from the agency to learn more. But instead of complying with CREW’s May 2008 Freedom of Information Act request, VA officials destroyed relevant emails and records, leading to a lawsuit by the non-governmental organization.

CREW first heard of the under-diagnosing of PTSD through reports of an email by VA employee Norma Perez discussing the policy. When the agency did not produce the email and other documents, while claiming it had handed over everything, CREW realized something was wrong. Then, VA officials admitted to destroying in December 2008 many emails and backup tapes, including the Perez email.

“We don’t think we have all the records, and now we know that some of the key records were destroyed,” Anne Weismann, CREW’s chief counsel, told Truthout. “I can’t really speak definitively on the scope of the problem because we don’t have all the records yet. Most critically we’re missing some key documents surrounding this one email, which we have not because the VA gave it to us but because someone in the organization bravely decided to leak it.”

Copyright 2009 AllGov.com

The Washington Post reports that federal agencies are still balking at releasing records to the public, claiming that it would interfere with internal decision-making or compromise national security. In Obama’s first year, the number of Freedom of  Information Act lawsuits filed exceeds the number filed in each of Bush’s last two years. -DB

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has sued the SEC for failing to provide records of reforms implemented in the wake of Bernard Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme. -DB

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
January 7, 2010
By Amanda Becker

The government accountability group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has sued the Securities and Exchange Commission over its failure to provide documentation of reforms implemented in the wake of the largest investment fraud in the nation’s history.

CREW filed a Freedom of Information Act request in October asking the SEC for all records related to the “decisive and comprehensive steps” it said it had taken after Bernard Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme went undetected for 16 years.

The SEC said these reforms included establishing specialized enforcement divisions, streamlining the management structure of the divisions and attracting new talent.

On Oct. 23, an attorney at the SEC told CREW that it would not be able to complete its request within the standard 20-working-day window and would provide a further response within 30 business days. The same letter also granted CREW’s request to waive the fees associated with the request.

But the records never materialized.

“To date, the SEC has neither produced a single document to CREW nor withheld or otherwise accounted for any responsive documents. Nor has the SEC informed plaintiff of an anticipated date for completing the processing of plaintiffs FOIA request,” said the complaint filed by CREW.

Copyright 2010 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Despite his pledges to bolster open government, so far, according to Clint Hendler of the Columbia Journalism Review, President Barack Obama has only posted modest gains in transparency. -DB

Columbia Journalism Review
Opinion
January 05, 2010
By Clint Hendler

In the year since President Obama took office, he has made significant progress on transparency and access issues. Still, there have been plenty of missed opportunities and much work still to be done.

State Secrets

Background: Since it was formally recognized in a controversial 1953 Supreme Court case, the state secrets privilege allows the executive branch to exclude, usually without judicial review, pieces of evidence that, they assert, might jeopardize national security from litigation. Not only did the Bush administration make greater use of the privilege than its predecessors, his administration also asserted that it could use the privilege to exempt entire categories of government action out of the bounds of litigation.

What Obama’s done: During his presidential campaign, Obama expressed reservations with the Bush administration’s application of the privilege. When asked about the issue at a spring press conference, Obama said that “the state secret doctrine should be modified.” In the fall, his Justice Department issued a new internal policy that would require greater internal review before making a state secrets claim. The guidelines, which are not judicially enforceable nor binding on any future administration, fell far short of what civil libertarians and transparency advocates had hoped for. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has held the Bush line on state secrets in a series of cases dealing with the previous administration’s interrogation and intelligence practices. The administration has declined to endorse one popular fix, the State Secrets Protection Act. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were co-sponsors of the bill while they were senators.

Grade: D

Past coverage from CJR:

Pressing On State Secrets, February 11, 2009. Obama and State Secrets? Shhh…, April 10, 2009. Obama Speaks on State Secrets, April 30, 2009.

Other resources: Policies and Procedures Governing Invocation of the State Secrets Privilege,” Attorney General Eric Holder. (pdf) Background on the State Secrets Privilege, American Civil Liberties Union. The State Secrets Privilege: Selected Case Files,” Federation of American Scientists.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Background: Enacted with President Johnson’s signature in 1966, the Act remains a keystone of the open government movement. Shortly after coming to office, Bush’s first Attorney General, John Ashcroft, issued an order suggesting that federal employees, faced with a records request, should broadly apply portions of the law allowing the government to withhold certain categories of records, overturning a more access-friendly Clinton standard. In the latter part of the Bush administration, data suggested that many agencies took longer to respond to FOIA requests than they did at the beginning of the decade.

Obama’s actions: On the first full day of his administration, Obama signed a presidential directive ordering the attorney general to develop new guidance to replace the Bush-era standards. Eric Holder issued new guidance essentially restoring the Clinton standard in March. The administration’s Open Government Directive calls for greater monitoring of agency FOIA backlogs, and requires the worst offenders to craft plans to reduce them by 10 percent annually. The record has been more mixed in FOIA litigation: the Obama administration reversed its initial decision to release photos depicting detainee abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq, pursuant to an ACLU FOIA lawsuit, and began laying the groundwork for a long shot appeal that would, at a minimum, delay release. Meanwhile, Congress passed a law, with administration support, exempting the photos from disclosure; the administration promptly made use of it, effectively stemming their release.

Grade: B

Past coverage from CJR:

Holder Has A New FOIA Policy, March 26, 2009. Interview: Amrit Singh, August 24, 2009.Interview: Jameel Jaffer, May 4, 2009.

Other resources: Presidential Memorandum, Freedom of Information Act, The White House. Guidance on the Freedom of Information Act, March 19, Justice Department. (pdf)

Open Government Directive

Background: While local and state governments have had more success, the federal government moves slowly, and has so far done little to use the Internet to change the way our elected officials and civil servants interact and communicate with the public.

What Obama’s done: On his first full day in office, President Obama signed a memorandum charging the nation’s Chief Technology Officer—a newly created position—with returning, within four months, a set of recommendations for what the administration termed the Open Government Directive, a document outlining ways for the government to operate with greater “transparency, public participation, and collaboration.” Obama’s nominee for the CTO position went unconfirmed until May 21, and at the four-month mark, the administration launched a public comment process, soliciting public input on what should be in the Directive. On December 8, the administration finally hosted a Webcast to mark the release of the Directive, which was met with mostly positive reviews. It remains to be seen if sufficient bureaucratic willpower exists to bring the directive to fruition.

Grade: Incomplete

Past coverage from CJR:

Obama WANTS YOU to comment on the Open Government Directive, May 21, 2009. FOIA after the Open Government Directive, December 8, 2009.

Other resources:

Presidential Memorandum, Transparency and Open Government, January 21, 2009. Open Government Directive, Office of Management and Budget, December 8, 2009. (pdf) “Open for Questions” Webcast, December 8, 2009. Open Government Initiative, White House website. Open Government Directive Timelines, Sunlight Foundation, December 8, 2009.

Online Data

Background: A prime goal of the modern-day transparency movement is to get government to release the many kinds of scientific, analytic, enforcement, and regulatory data it routinely collects and develops. Making serious steps to do so is a tall order, and even if everyone inside government agreed that doing so was a good idea, many basic hurdles exist. Disseminating data online isn’t a priority for the agencies, or their budget makers. What little online data and information that is available from any individual component of the government won’t necessarily be in an open standard.

Obama’s actions: On May 21, the administration launched data.gov, a Web site to increase access to government data in open, machine-readable formats. The Open Government Directive calls for agencies to identify and release three high-value data sets by January 22, 2010. Even if those goals are reached, there will be a long way left to go.

Grade: D+

Other resources: Data.Gov Concept of Operations Draft, December 3, 2009. (pdf) Evolving Data.gov with You, Federal CIO Council.

White House Visitor Records

Background: The Secret Service maintains a database that records the comings and goings of nearly every visitor to the White House. When those records were requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the Bush administration, the White House responded by claiming the data were actually presidential records, which are treated differently—and are impossible for citizens to obtain during a president’s term.

Obama’s Actions The new administration initially claimed the same “presidential records” line as their predecessors. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington eventually brought suit against this White House for the records. Months later, they agreed to drop their litigation in response to the administration’s pledge to release the visit data monthly. The administration maintains that these releases are discretionary, meaning that they haven’t conceded that the records are properly accessible under FOIA. The administration has also said it will not release records relating to personal visits, nor information describing “particularly sensitive” meetings, nor visits that could endanger national security. The administration is also declining to release comprehensive visit data from the first seven months of the administration.

Grade: A-

Past CJR coverage:

Logged Out, June 19, 2009> target=_blank>Guess Who?, October 29, 2009. White House Promises to Reveal Visitor Logs, September 4, 2009.

Other resources:

White House Voluntary Disclosure Policy Visitor Access Records.

Shield Law

Background: While forty-nine states have some version of the privilege, there is no federal statute or national case law that allows journalists to decline to testify about information they may have obtained in the course of their reporting. Even though past attempts have drawn support from both sides of the aisle, the Bush administration was a steadfast opponent of creating a reporters’ privilege.

What Obama has done: Obama spoke highly of creating a federal shield law while a senator and a presidential candidate. He even was a cosponsor of a media coalition favored bill to do so in the 110th Congress. But as president, he gave journalists and lobbyists working on behalf of establishing a federal shield law a scare by demanding changes to the bill that weakened its protections. Eventually, a compromise was brokered that the bill’s advocates agreed would still result in a worthy privilege. His administration stands fully behind the modified legislation, which now awaits debate and approval before the full Senate.

Grade: B

Past CJR coverage:

A Change That’s Hard to Believe In, October 2, 2009. Compromise Reached on Senate Shield Law, October 30, 2009. A Shield for Bloggers?, November 12, 2009. The Shield after Senate Judiciary, December 14, 2009.

Other Resources: Special Report: Shields and Subpoenas, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Background Briefings

Background: Routine off-the-record briefings are a creature of Washington, and while it may be naïve to think that they’ll ever fully disappear, there’s little to recommend the practice. What reason is there—other than to avoid accountability for what is being said—that the administration can’t let reporters tell the public which “senior administration official” is describing the administration’s position on, say, detainee policy, or stimulus progress, or how the president arrived at his decision on Afghanistan? (Scott McClellan, Bush’s press secretary from 2003 to 2006 said the practice didn’t make much sense to him, and decided not to conduct them.) Anonymity has a place in Washington reporting: when someone could suffer repercussions for divulging information that their boss would rather not have the public know, for example. But when your anonymous briefing has been arranged by the White House press shop, it’s hard to see how it’s justifiable. Meanwhile, journalists desperate for whatever information they can get are in little position to decline a conduit of information that other colleagues will agree to use.

Obama’s actions: While there was some movement among journalists in Washington in the twilight of the Bush administration to raise protests about routine off-the-record briefings, journalists made a serious stand at the dawn of the Obama administration, which had promised a new era of transparency and openness. After receiving letters and complaints from the White House Correspondents Association and a group of D.C. bureau chiefs, top White House communications officials met with journalists to discuss the issue. Print journalists were irked that the anonymous “senior administration officials” were, after conducting their background briefings, turning around and mouthing the same talking points on television. While many journalists acknowledge that the briefings have been trimmed and the most egregious abuses eliminated, the tool is still being used. When the administration announced its acquisition of Illinois prison facility to house former Guantanamo detainees, the anonymous briefers even declined to identify themselves to the reporters on the call.

Grade: F

Copyright 2010 Columbia Journalism Review

White House computer technicians discovered 22 million e-mails lost during the Bush administration. Two groups had filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the e-mails in connection to the firing of U.S. attorneys and the Valerie Plame-CIA scandal. -DB

Before filing the complaint in a District of Columbia federal court Monday, Judicial Watch made multiple unfulfilled FOIA requests and conducted failed negotiations with the Obama administration over visitor logs from January 20 to August 10, 2009, according to the group’s release.

The Obama administration announced in September a new discretionary policy of voluntarily publishing the White House visitor logs on its Web site beginning Dec. 31. The move was made in response to lawsuits for visitor logs brought by another government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, against both the Bush and Obama administrations. The records Judicial Watch seeks, however, remain largely private.

Judicial Watch’s case will likely hinge on whether the visitor logs are considered “agency records” subject to FOIA, since the Obama administration — employing the same argument as the Bush administration — claims the records belong to the White House and are thus exempt. At least one federal judge, however, has rejected that argument.

The lawsuit comes after a series of negotiations between Judicial Watch and the Obama administration. The White House asked Judicial Watch to scale back its request during an Oct. 27 meeting with Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president. In a Nov. 30 followup letter, Eisen mentioned national security concerns as a rationale for withholding some visitor logs, an issue neither the Bush nor the Obama administration had previously cited,reported msnbc.com.

“The courts have affirmed that these White House visitor records are subject to release under FOIA law. If the Obama administration is serious about transparency, they will agree to the release of these records under the Freedom of Information Act,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a release.

Copyright 2009 Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Citizens for Responsiblity and Ethics in Washington has asked the Senate ethics committee to look into the practice of stalling or halting laws or nominations without public announcement given a 2007 law barring the practice. -DB

The transcript of Dick Cheney’s FBI interview on the Valerie Plame incident was released to the public last week. Both the Bush or Obama administrations tried to keep the transcript secret. -DB

After the Obama administration agreed to start releasing visitor logs starting December 31,  the watchdog group Judicial Watch was denied access to White House visitor logs from January 20 through September 15 of this year and does not understand why only these records merit protection. The Secret Service just says the records do not come from a government agency and so are not subject to the Presidential Records Act. -DB

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
October 19, 2009
By Miranda Fleschert

Despite the Obama administration’s recent legal settlement to begin releasing White House visitor logs later this year, it has denied a different public interest group’s recent request for those same records in the meantime.

In denying a request by watchdog group Judicial Watch, the U.S. Secret Service, through the Department of Homeland Security, said that White House visitor logs fall under the Presidential Records Act and are not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act because they do not originate with a federal agency.

Last month, the Obama administration announced its plan to voluntarily publish White House visitor logs on its Web site beginning Dec. 31 in response to lawsuits for visitor logs brought by another government watchdog group. The records that were the subject of Judicial Watch’s request here — from Jan. 20, 2009 through Sept. 15, 2009 — will remain largely private.

“The Obama White House has yet to explain why visitor logs from its first eight months will be afforded special protection,” Judicial Watch said in its release. The Obama administration maintains it needs time to review the records for national security concerns.

The new discretionary policy to release the logs came as part of a FOIA lawsuit settlement with the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW initiated FOIA lawsuits in an effort to learn the names of health care and coal executives who met with Obama’s White House and and religious leaders who met with the Bush administration. As part of the settlement of four FOIA cases, the Obama administration agreed to release to CREW some specific names of White House visitors during its first eight months in office.

Judicial Watch, however, received a blanket denial to its request even though a federal court has ruled that visitor logs are subject to FOIA. In January, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the Secret Service must release the visitor logs to CREW. The administration dropped its subsequent appeal after reaching the settlement agreement with CREW.

Anne L. Weismann, chief counsel for CREW, explained that because the White House agreed to voluntarily release the records “we are still in disagreement as to the status. The White House continues to maintain that these are presidential records and we continue to maintain that they are not.”

Weismann said that the administration might interpret Judicial Watch’s request for every visitor’s name as unduly burdensome. In its requests, CREW sought specific names.

Still, Weismann is surprised by the outright denial of Judicial Watch’s request. “I would have thought in light of our agreement that [the Obama administration] would have reached out,” she said. “If the White House doesn’t try to resolve this with Judicial Watch, this could be the case that pushes the legal issue forward.”

A release issued by Judicial Watch made it clear the organization would continue to seek release of the records in question. “Just because the Obama White House says FOIA law doesn’t cover White House visitor logs doesn’t make it so. The Obama administration is not above the law,” said president Tom Fitton in the release. “These visitor logs are subject to release under FOIA and the courts have affirmed this. Judicial Watch has no intention of abandoning its pursuit of these records. We will go to court, if necessary.”

Copyright 2009 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press