close X
07/18/2017

Watchdog Exposes IRS Record Management Failures

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) released an important report yesterday that detailed the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) inconsistent and inadequate records retention policies over recent years. The audit had been requested in March 2016 by the House Committee on Ways and Means.  TIGTA, the IRS’s watchdog, concluded that the agency had failed to “comply with certain Federal requirements that agencies must ensure that all records are retrievable and usable for as long as needed.”  In other words, TIGTA took the IRS to task for having ignored the requirements of the Federal Records Act (“FRA”) and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

Consider some highlights from the report:

  • “The IRS’s current e-mail system and record retention policies do not ensure that e-mail records are saved and can be searched[.]”
  • “[R]epeated changes in electronic media storage policies, combined with a reliance on employees to maintain records on computer hard drives, has resulted in cases in which Federal records were lost or unintentionally destroyed.”
  • “Interim actions taken by the IRS while developing an upgraded e-mail solution do not prevent loss of e-mail records.”
  • The IRS’s “interim e-mail archiving policy for executives” was “not implemented effectively because some executives”—including four members of the Senior Executive Team—did not properly configure their e-mail accounts . . . and the IRS did not have an authoritative list of all executives required to comply with the interim policy.”
  • “Policies requiring the IRS to document search efforts [under the FOIA] were not followed for some cases.”
  • “The IRS does not have a consistent policy to search for records from separated employees.”

TIGTA’s report offers countless examples of how not to comply with federal law.  Yet none of the details are terribly unexpected.  Ever since the Lois Lerner Tea Party targeting scandal broke in 2013, the IRS has been grilled for its shoddy records management.  Cause of Action Institute’s oversight of the agency revealed, for example, that the IRS used to delete BlackBerry messages after only fourteen (14) days because of “routine system housekeeping” and “spacing constraints.” More egregiously, the IRS intentionally failed to capture, preserve, or retain instant messages created on its Microsoft Office Communications Server (“OCS”) platform because of a contractual agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union.  That “memorandum of understanding” sought to “enhance employee work environments and allow employees to more effectively and efficiently collaborate with their colleagues.”  In other words, the IRS had no systemic means of assuring that employees’ communications on OCS were not records subject to the FRA or the FOIA and, if they were, that they were appropriately retained and retrievable.  Our lawsuit against the IRS helped push the agency to implement a new records management system for text and instant messages in line with the requirements of the law.  Unfortunately, as the TIGTA report demonstrates, the agency still falls short with respect to its management of email records.

It is also unsurprising—but still deeply troubling—that TIGTA concluded the IRS “did not consistently ensure that potentially responsive records” were identified, searched, and produced in response to FOIA requests. CoA Institute frequently litigates with the IRS over requests that go unanswered for months.  The fight usually boils down to a disagreement over the adequacy of the agency’s search.  Regrettably, courts give agencies a great deal of deference in justifying the reasonableness of their searches, even when a declarant fails to provide sufficiently specific information about how a search was conducted.  In some of our cases, IRS FOIA officers have merely asked senior employees whether potentially responsive records exist and then called it a day.  That’s unacceptable.  The onus is now on the IRS to make improvements, and it is for Congress and taxpayers to ensure those improvements are made.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
07/18/2017

CoAI Sues for Records of House Committee Chair’s Urging FOIA Obstruction

Records could shed light on DOJ’s communications with Chairman Hensarling, reveal guidance to agencies

Washington D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for records that could reveal whether the agency’s Office of Information Policy or Office of Legislative Affairs was involved with a controversial, and legally dubious, directive from the House Committee on Financial Services concerning the processing of records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  The suit also seeks records of related communications between DOJ and twelve federal agencies under the Committee’s jurisdiction.

In May 2017, CoA Institute filed a FOIA request with the DOJ in response to reports that Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, directed the Department of the Treasury and eleven other agencies to treat all records exchanged with the Committee as “congressional records” not subject to the FOIA.

CoA Institute Counsel Ryan Mulvey: “Through its Office of Information Policy, the DOJ is responsible for overseeing government-wide compliance with the FOIA.  The DOJ likely would have been consulted by agencies that received Chairman Hensarling’s letter, as well as by the Committee itself when it was considering the directive.  The public deserves to know how and to what extent DOJ FOIA experts have been involved in formulating and implementing this new anti-transparency policy.’”

Because Congress is not subject to the FOIA, a request for records that have been exchanged with the legislative branch can present unique difficulties for an agency.  The law and well-established court precedents require that Congress manifest a clear intent to maintain control over specific records to keep them out of reach of the FOIA.  Chairman Hensarling’s directive is ineffective in this respect.  The mere fact that an agency possesses a record that relates to Congress, was created by Congress, or was transmitted to Congress, does not, by itself, render it a “congressional record.”  Any deviation from the acknowledged standard for defining a “congressional record” would frustrate the FOIA and impede transparent government.

CoA Institute’s complaint is available here.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Media, Press Release Learn More
07/14/2017

CFPB’s Woeful Defense of its Final Arbitration Rule

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has taken steps to finalize its long-awaited disaster of a rule that would ban certain arbitration clauses in consumer finance contracts. This will severely harm economic liberty and cause banks to shift excess costs on to consumers, apparently all to benefit an elite group of plaintiffs’ lawyers eager to file massive class actions and pocket huge attorneys’ fees.

Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) has written extensively on this, including submitting a regulatory comment during the rule’s open period. In its final rule, CFPB responded to CoA Institute’s comments directly. For example, we detailed precisely how CFPB ignored the requirements of the Information Quality Act (“IQA”), which requires that agencies disseminate only “quality” information that meets Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) defined standards of “objectivity, utility, and integrity.”  Furthermore, we alleged that CFPB failed to conduct a peer review of the study, as required by OMB.  In its final rule, CFPB writes:

One nonprofit commenter challenged the Bureau’s Study for its alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Information Quality Act and a related OMB bulletin, asserting that the Study should have undergone a rigorous, transparent peer review process to ensure the quality of the disseminated information.

CFPB’s answer to our comment is vapid and incomplete:

In response to concerns about the Bureau’s compliance with the Information Quality Act, the Bureau did comply with the IQA’s standards for quality, utility, and integrity under the IQA Guidelines.

The footnote CFPB placed at the end of this sentence, which one assumes would support the Bureau’s assertion, merely links to the agency’s IQA guidelines website. CFPB makes no effort to answer CoA’s detailed criticisms or explain why the Bureau’s study met objectivity, utility, and integrity standards.  One is left to draw the inference that CFPB simply has no defense for the glaring vulnerabilities in the Arbitration Study.  The Bureau’s only play is to blindly link to IQA guidelines and hope we take their word for it.

CFPB put similarly little effort into responding to our allegations regarding peer review.

Moreover, the Study did not fall within the requirements of the OMB’s bulletin on peer review, contrary to what the commenter suggested. The bulletin applies to scientific information, not the “financial” or “statistical” information contained in the Study. The Federal financial regulators, including the Bureau, have consistently stated that the information they produce is not subject to the bulletin.

In our initial comment, CoA Institute anticipated CFPB might make this argument:

CFPB may be claiming [an exemption from the peer review rules] under the authority of Section IX of the OMB Peer Review Bulletin, which finds that “accounting, budget, actuarial, and financial information, including that which is generated or used by agencies that focus on interest rates, banking, currency, securities, commodities, futures, or taxes[]” are exempt from peer review. However, neither the Arbitration Study nor the proposed regulations fall under any of these categories. It is a social and behavioral study—concentrating not only on award numbers, but also consumer preference and awareness.

Essentially, the CFPB appears to be playing games of semantics, differentiating “financial” information from “scientific” information. As anyone who has a degree in economics knows—such as this author—it is very much a science.  The agency cannot be allowed to wriggle out of an important peer-review requirement by simply stretching dictionary definitions.

Furthermore, even if CFPB were not required to conduct a peer review, why wouldn’t they? If the CFPB is as confident in its results as it seems to be, why not bolster the study’s integrity by having outside academics go through the very routine peer review process?  This lends credence to the idea that this study was rigged from day one to get to a pre-determined result: arbitration is bad.

CFPB attempted to sow confusion regarding what peer review is and how it is conducted:

Although the Bureau did not engage in formal peer review, it did include with its report detailed descriptions of its methodology for assembling the data sets and its methodology for analyzing and coding the data so that the Study could be replicated by outside parties. The Bureau is not aware of any entity that has attempted to replicate elements of the Study; to the extent that the Bureau’s analysis has been reviewed by academics and stakeholders those individual critiques are addressed above. The Bureau has monitored academic commentary in addition to the comments submitted and continues to do so.

This is not an adequate substitute for the OMB required peer review. CFPB appears to be shifting the blame on outside groups for not “replicating” the study.  This is something the agency could have and should have coordinated on its own.

CFPB appears to know its study has glaring weaknesses that threaten the integrity of its final rule. Remember, Dodd-Frank requires that any arbitration rule be “consistent” with the underlying study. If the study is bad, so is the rule.

This rule threatens economic freedom and is based on a rigged study that used junk data and methodology. Whether through litigation, legislation, or a new rulemaking, it must go.

Media, Blog Learn More
07/13/2017

CoAI to President Trump: Appoint Commissioners to FTC

Letter urges swift action to break deadlock, free U.S. businesses from unwarranted, abusive enforcement actions

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) sent a letter to President Trump, imploring him to move quickly to appoint one or more commissioners to fill current vacancies at the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The letter suggests that just one additional commissioner could break deadlock to halt the agency’s pattern and practice of regulatory overreach and rein in recent unconstitutional enforcement actions that harm the economy and the rule of law.

The letter states that although the FTC’s acting chair, Maureen Ohlhausen, “has done a commendable job of addressing the excesses and lawlessness that plagued the agency, the acting chair cannot fully right the ship unless and until you appoint one or more commissioners who share her commitment to advancing economic liberty and believe that responsible businesses should have the freedom to succeed, unfettered by rogue regulators chasing chimerical harms.”

The letter states:

“The acting chair’s ability to promote competition and protect the free market and consumers from overregulation and overreach is hamstrung by the current gridlock on the Commission. Although Congress intended for the Commission to be an independent, bipartisan, five-member administrative body, there are currently only two commissioners: Acting Chair Ohlhausen, a Republican, and Commissioner Terrell McSweeney, a Democrat.

“Because a majority of commissioners must vote to approve most Commission actions, and because only one of the two current commissioners shares the administration’s commitment to cutting bureaucratic red tape to grow the economy, the Commission is hopelessly deadlocked on important policy issues affecting the entire private economy, such as the FTC’s controversial efforts to regulate data security, technology, and privacy for all U.S. businesses citing its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to prohibit ‘unfair’ or ‘deceptive’ business practices.”

The letter highlights several controversial “midnight” enforcement actions initiated just before the Trump administration began, that were undertaken in the absence of proven consumer harm. For instance, as the acting chair explained in her dissent from one such “midnight” enforcement action:

“[I]n the Commission’s 2-1 decision to sue Qualcomm, I face an extraordinary situation: an enforcement action based on a flawed legal theory (including a standalone Section 5 count) that lacks economic and evidentiary support, that was brought on the eve of a new presidential administration, and that, by its mere issuance, will undermine U.S. intellectual property rights in Asia and worldwide. These extreme circumstances compel me to voice my objections.”

The letter concludes, “[T]he acting chair should not be the lone (and thus powerless) voice of reason and sound economic policy on the Commission. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that you expeditiously appoint one or more Commissioners to the FTC at your earliest convenience to assist the Acting Chair in furtherance of this Administration’s efforts to reduce regulatory burdens and improve Americans’ liberty to create.”

The letter was signed by John J. Vecchione, president and CEO of CoA Institute. The full letter is available here

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Media, Press Release Learn More
07/13/2017

CoAI Seeks Supreme Court Review of Job-Killing Fishing Regulation

High Court may be last hope to halt regulation that will put 60 percent of New England ground fishermen out of business

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) has filed a petition for writ of certiorari urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the legal arguments of our clients, groundfisherman David Goethel and a group of Northeast fishermen, who sued the U.S. Department of Commerce after the agency shifted the costs for at-sea monitors onto industry. At more than $700 per day at sea, these costs are more than double what many small-boat fishermen take home from an average day of fishing.

Both the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire and the First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling that the fishermen’s suit was untimely based on when the rule was first disseminated, even though the regulatory costs were not shifted to industry until several years later.

CoA Institute Vice President Julie Smith: “Our clients deserve an opportunity to be heard on the merits. Fishermen who have done nothing wrong should not be put out of business by an unlawful regulation.”

The petition states:

“The First Circuit, in defiance of this Court’s precedents, refused to reach the merits of the fishermen’s challenge, holding that even though the fishermen would certainly face enforcement action for failure to comply with the Government’s unlawful monitoring requirement, they missed any opportunity to seek preenforcement review of that regulation. By requiring Petitioners to, quite literally, ‘bet the boat,’ the First Circuit has committed clear error in ignoring this Court’s precedents on pre-enforcement review…

“Here, the Government waited five years before deciding to implement the industry-funding requirement for the groundfish At-Sea Monitoring Program. Petitioners promptly filed suit, but, so far, have been denied a decision on the merits of their case. This Court should grant review to settle these . . . important questions of law and vindicate its own precedents, which will give the New England fishing industry a second chance at life.”

David Goethel: “After 30 years of fishing, I can’t afford to fish any longer if I’m forced to pay for at-sea monitors. These regulatory costs will devastate small boat fishermen like myself. The Supreme Court may be our last hope to save an industry that for centuries has provided a living for fishermen in New England.”

Northeast Fishery Sector 13 Manager John Haran: “The fishermen in my sector can’t sustain this industry funding requirement and many will be put out of business if this mandate remains in place. The livelihoods of generations of proud fishermen in New England are at stake.”

Case Background:

In November 2015, the Department of Commerce finally announced the date by which sector fishermen, who fish for cod, flounder and certain other ground fish, must not only carry third-party contractors known as “at-sea monitors” on their vessels during fishing trips, but also pay out-of-pocket for the cost of those monitors.  CoA Institute’s clients filed suit to challenge this “industry funding” requirement, which will devastate the Northeast fishing industry, at the price of many jobs and family livelihoods.

In July 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissed the lawsuit. CoA Institute appealed the decision and in April 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling, but without addressing the merits of the case. The Circuit Court held that the fishermen’s suit was untimely, and must have been filed within thirty days of the original agency rule that mandated industry-funding, despite the fact that the requirement never enforced for nearly half a decade.  Interestingly, while the First Circuit did not address the merits of the case, it did emphasize the devastating economic impacts of the regulation and, in a rare move, urged congressional action to clarify the law regarding who should pay for the at-sea monitors.

To learn more, visit the Cause of Action Institute website.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Media, Press Release Learn More
07/6/2017

Is NOAA deleting records? CoA Institute sues for important communications about fisheries regulation

In passing the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the Federal Records Act, Congress intended for internal agency communications to be logged and, in many cases, retrievable under the FOIA.  Attempts by agencies and officials to evade such transparency violate the core principles of government accountability and recently resulted in a highly publicized scandal that enveloped Secretary Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president.

So in the wake of the Clinton e-mail scandal, have agencies learned their lesson?  For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), this doesn’t appear to be the case.  Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) recently submitted multiple FOIA requests for NOAA’s records retention policies and internal communications from the time period surrounding the recent New England Fishery Management Council (“NEFMC”) meetings.  In addition to asking for emails, CoA Institute also requested Google Chat/Google Hangout (“GChat”) records.

Anyone who regularly uses G-Mail is familiar with GChat and its “off the record” feature, which disables message logging.  Unfortunately, a 2012 NOAA memo indicates that NOAA enabled the “off the record” feature agency-wide.  There’s no indication that NOAA is using any other method to log these communications.  This likely violates the Federal Records Act and frustrates public efforts to file FOIA requests seeking to better understand government decision-making.

CoA Institute is interested in the communications between NOAA officials during the recent NEFMC meetings.  These meetings were important because, at their conclusion, the NEFMC voted to adopt an amendment that would extend coverage of “at-sea monitors” on the fishing industry.  This could have devastating effects on the ability of small-boat fishermen to continue to pursue their livelihoods.  This amendment now goes to the Secretary of Commerce for his approval, and it is critical that the public understand the thought process used by NOAA to get this result, which would be revealed by reading its internal communications.

NOAA’s response to CoA Institute’s FOIA request was unusual.  First, it declared the request was non-billable, meaning CoA Institute would not need to pay fees for compiling the information.  This is appropriate given both the public interest in these records and CoA Institute’s status as a news media requester organization.  NOAA later rescinded its non-billable determination and demanded CoA Institute submit more information relevant to the fee waiver request.  CoA Institute did so, but, to date, NOAA has not responded.  In our letter, we express concern with how NOAA is handling this request:

If NOAA is concerned that records responsive to this request will cast the agency in an unflattering light or reveal that its recordkeeping practices are in violation of law, it cannot weaponize fee waivers to prevent disclosure. To do so would not only be a violation of the law, but it would strike a grave blow to transparency.

With today’s lawsuit, NOAA has no choice but to produce the requested records.  If the agency is unable to locate any GChat records because they were improperly deleted, NOAA must publicly admit this, immediately take steps to recover the records, and change its policies for future record retention to comply with the law.

Eric Bolinder is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
07/6/2017

The White House Should Follow Arizona Governor Ducey’s Lead and Implement an Online Portal Where Americans Can Suggest Regulations to Eliminate

On January 9, 2017, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced a new program designed to reduce outdated and burdensome regulations and to promote economic growth and job creation. His goal is to eliminate 500 regulations by the end of 2017.  To achieve this goal, Governor Ducey created a website—RedTape.AZ.Gov—where Arizonans can “crowdsource” recommendations on which regulations should be eliminated and submit those recommendations directly to the governor’s office.[1]  The website provides an easy, streamlined way for citizens to assist in the regulatory reform of their state.  This approach recognizes and honors what F.A. Hayek called the knowledge problem, that is, that the information necessary to make informed and efficient decisions is decentralized and that the top-down model is doomed by its arrogance.

President Trump’s White House should follow suit if it is serious about reducing the strain old regulations put on the country. President Trump issued Executive Order 13,777 on February 24, 2017, which requires that agencies designate a Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) to implement a regulatory-reform agenda that implements, inter alia, Executive Order 13,771, which requires agencies to remove two regulations for each new one they issue.[2]  Neither of those orders contain a way for ordinary Americans to provide transparent input into this important process.  Several agencies have decided to open public-comment periods so that stakeholders and the public can provide input, but this approach leaves the comments scattered by agency and makes it difficult to aggregate.[3]  In addition, not every agency has decided to offer a public-comment period, leaving ordinary Americans without a voice.

The White House subsequently issued Executive Order 13,781 on March 13, 2017.[4]  This order created a website that allowed the public to submit comments on ways to optimize and reorganize the federal government.  While Executive Order 13,781 is a step in the right direction, it contains two fatal flaws.  First, the comment period closed on June 12, 2017 when it should be kept open permanently.  Second, the White House said it received over 100,000 comments during the comment period, but those comments are not available to the public.[5]  Cause of Action Institute submitted a FOIA request to the Office of Management and Budget, which administered the website, seeking access to those comments.[6]  Even though that request is still pending, the White House can take immediate steps to launch an improved website.

To foster and promote transparent regulatory reform, Cause of Action Institute recommends the White House launch a new website devoted to receiving recommendations from the public.  The recommendations could then automatically be forwarded to each agency’s RRO.  To ensure a transparent comment process, the recommendations should be accessible to the public and easily searchable by agency, topic, regulation identifier number, and other filters.  The website could foster public discourse by allowing the public to upvote or downvote comments, respond to specific comments, and suggest related regulations to comment on.  Finally, the website should not have a deadline for submissions but instead permanently allow Americans to make recommendations to reform the administrative state.  By providing a central, permanent website for submitting and reviewing recommendations, the White House can achieve its regulatory reform agenda more efficiently and promote accountability while ensuring that all Americans have a voice in the process.

Travis Millsaps is counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

[1] Press Release, Gov. Doug Ducey, Governor Ducey Announces RedTape.AZ.Gov (January 9, 2017), https://azgovernor.gov/governor/news/2017/01/governor-ducey-announces-redtapeazgov.

[2] See Exec. Order No. 13,777, 82 Fed. Reg. 12285 (Mar. 1, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/24/presidential-executive-order-enforcing-regulatory-reform-agenda; Exec. Order No. 13,771, 82 Fed. Reg. 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/30/presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-and-controlling.

[3] See Evaluation of Existing Regulations, 82 Fed. Reg. 17793 (proposed April 13, 2017), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-0042.

[4] See Exec. Order No. 13,781, 82 Fed. Reg. 13959 (Mar. 16, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/13/presidential-executive-order-comprehensive-plan-reorganizing-executive.

[5] See Reorganizing the Executive Branch, The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/reorganizing-the-executive-branch (last visited June 29, 2017).

[6] Press Release, Cause of Action Institute, White House Should Release 100K Public Comments on Reforming Government (June 19, 2017), https://causeofaction.org/white-house-release-100k-public-comments-reforming-government/.

Blog, Media Learn More