FoxNews.com: Obama administration pledged transparency, but slowed document requests, memos show

Obama administration pledged transparency, but slowed document requests, memos show

By Judson Berger    Published June 20, 2013

Even as the freshly minted Obama administration was pledging a “new era of open government” in 2009, officials were quietly adding new rules that had the potential to slow down public requests for documents.

Those rules, detailed in memos reviewed by FoxNews.com, could even trip up present-day efforts to dig into the IRS’ practice of targeting conservative groups. The rules detailed in the memos largely emanated from the Treasury Department and, specifically, the IRS.

“It would seem to repudiate this notion that this is going to be the most transparent government in history,” said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, the group that first obtained the memos.

The memos follow reports about the administration’s use of private email accounts, and coincide with ongoing debate about government transparency — particularly with recent disclosures about widespread surveillance programs.

Epstein said the document request procedures are “troubling” since the media are “really concerned about the limits of government power.”

According to the documents, the Treasury Department in 2009 set up an additional review for requests involving “sensitive information,” which covered a broad range of items. The White House sometimes got involved, slowing down the process. The IRS also acknowledged having another review process for requests from “major media,” but not for requests from private individuals.

Members of the media often try to obtain documents not readily available by citing a law known as the Freedom of Information Act. The Treasury Department, though, in late 2009 erected speed bumps for some so-called FOIA requests.

The rules were detailed in a November 2010 memo and report sent from the Treasury inspector general to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The documents showed the Treasury Department set up an additional “formal level of review” for requests for “sensitive information.” This category would cover everything from emails to memos to calendars to travel logs for top department officials, legal advisers, senior advisers and others.

Once a request was deemed “sensitive,” it would then go before a “review committee,” made up of officials from several Treasury offices.

Further, the document said a special report would be prepared for IRS requests from “major media.” This covers requests from traditional news media as well as bloggers, and according to the report covered information that “was likely to attract news media or congressional interest, involved large dollar amounts, or involved unique or novel issues.”

This report would then be sent to a higher-up in the division who decided whether the material should be disclosed.

The report repeatedly said that, in most cases, political appointees were not involved in these decisions, and that the agencies have no procedures to allow that.

But Epstein said these rules could cause problems as Congress and the media dig deeper into the origin of the IRS practice of singling out conservative groups for additional scrutiny.

He pointed to another memo, dated April 15, 2009, from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig that urged “executive agencies” to consult with his office “on all document requests that may involve documents with White House equities.” Craig said this pertains to everything from FOIA requests to congressional requests to subpoenas.

This practice apparently dates back to 1993. The Treasury IG memo cited this, and described the White House involvement as “minimal and limited.” However, the report also said the White House involvement “was responsible in several cases for adding a significant processing delay,” which in Treasury’s case slowed them down.

“It actually is heavily ironic in the realm of transparency,” Epstein said.

He pointed to edicts and memos early on in the first term of the administration stressing transparency. Obama issued a January 2009 directive calling for an “unprecedented level of openness.”

Attorney General Eric Holder in March 2009 directed all Executive Branch departments to use a “presumption of openness” when dealing with FOIA requests.

To that end, the administration has instituted several other transparency initiatives. It has followed through on requiring Cabinet secretaries to hold Internet town hall discussions, set up a comprehensive website to track stimulus spending, and set up a national declassification center.

 

HARDI Responds to Motion Opposing Its Standing in Court

A press release from HARDI and reposted here:

HARDI Responds to Motion Opposing Its Standing in Court


Columbus, Oh
io – Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) submitted a court filing Tuesday, May 28, 2013, in the Regional Efficiency Standards lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals. This filing is in response to a motion by the American Public Gas Association (APGA) which seeks to deny HARDI an opportunity to present compelling information before the court.

On May 1, 2013, when the court accepted a stay from the furnace standard, it asked all parties involved to schedule additional briefings with the court. HARDI has sought to comply with the court’s wishes to schedule briefings, but filings by other parties have complicated and delayed the process.

HARDI believes the court should deny APGA’s motion and recognize that HARDI has standing to challenge the Direct Final Rule in its entirety.

Jon Melchi, HARDI director of government affairs, said, “HARDI continues to believe the facts of this case are on its side and will take every opportunity possible to communicate those facts. HARDI, with the support of the membership, will continue to fight this case of government overreach which we believe harms the HVAC industry.”

Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, who is representing HARDI in this lawsuit, said, “We hope the court honors the merits that HARDI brings to this case so that they can continue to fight against the abuse of discretion by the Department of Energy that is affecting thousands of Americans.”

 

For more information about HARDI’s case against the Department of Energy click here.

Dan Epstein on WDEL 5/23/2013

 

Dan Epstein discusses IRS scandal on WDEL 5/23/2013

Dan Epstein on KNSI 5/21/2013

 

Executive Director Dan Epstein discusses IRS scandal on KNSI

 

 

Dan Epstein on WIBA 5/20/2013

 

Executive Director Dan Epstein discusses the IRS scandal on WIBA

 

 

FoxNews.com: Dan Epstein: Does the IRS believe that support for Israel is support for terrorism?

Does the IRS believe that support for Israel is support for terrorism?

By Dan Epstein   Published May 16, 2013   

In the wake of recent scandal arising from the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) targeting of social welfare groups for their political beliefs, little has been said about the fact that the IRS also scrutinized several pro-Israel organizations, including Z Street, an organization that applied for 501(c)(3) status.

According to Politico, Z Street was targeted by the IRS because “applications mentioning Israel were getting special attention.”

Another group was asked by the IRS, “Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?  Describe your organization’s religious belief system towards the land of Israel.”

The supposed justification for such questions: “the government shouldn’t bestow a benefit on an individual or organization engaged in illegal activity like terrorism.”

It’s not merely problematic that the IRS’ questions are woefully under-inclusive with regards to preventing the funding of terrorism – indeed they simply equate being in support of Israel (Zionism) as terrorism, which is less a statement about concerns against promoting terrorism than a reflection of patent anti-Semitism.

These questions are also overly inclusive to the degree of violating protected expression, hinting that the IRS sought to discriminate against those groups that held certain religious beliefs – whatever the form.  (If there’s any question as to the anti-Semitism here, simply look at Jeffrey Goldberg’s tweet on a recent Al Jazeera article which equates Zionism with anti-Semitism).

But government myopia has lurked behind state-sanctioned discrimination throughout history.

To illustrate, Jon Waddell, manager of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Determinations Group stated “Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a ‘higher risk of terrorism’… A referral… is appropriate whenever an application mentions providing resources to organizations in a country with a higher risk of terrorism.” Higher risk compared to whom? Libya? Afghanistan?

The idea that supporting Israel is equitable to supporting terrorism is not only racist, it’s false.

The State Department has designated only four countries to be “State Sponsors of Terrorism” – Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria — and in its most recent report on Mideast terrorism, Israel was identified by the State Department as “a resolute counterterrorism partner in 2011.”

Far from being a country whose support constitutes a higher risk of terrorism, the State Department holds the opposite: “Israel faced terrorist threats from Hamas, the Popular Resistance Committees, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), particularly from Gaza but also from the West Bank, and from Hizballah in Lebanon.”

No citizens of Israel are listed on the FBI’s terrorism watch list, but the majority of those who are listed share one thing in common: being anti-Israel.

The idea that the IRS’s targeting of American pro-Israel groups had any sound basis in public policy is not only inaccurate, but has never been justified by U.S. policy, and hopefully never will be.

To give a sense of why the IRS’s anti-Semitism is also dangerous as a policy matter, consider those groups and funding schemes that the IRS has failed to scrutinize in the name of public policy.

On May 30, 2010, the Freedom Flotilla, led by the pro-Hamas Free Gaza Movement, incited violence and the death of nine people in an attempt to defy Israeli law.

The flotilla was funded by the Free Gaza Movement,  which is a project that the IRS has allowed to receive tax-deductible contributions through an IRS-approved financial sponsor, the American Educational Trust, a 501(c)(4) based in Washington, D.C. Apparently fundraising for enemies of the United States is not the type of red flag that concerns the IRS.

Indeed, as another example, consider that the International Solidarity Movement, which has ties to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, receives tax-deductible contributions through its financial supporter, the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute, an IRS-designated 501(c)(3) charity.

So we have an IRS that willfully prevents the free exercise of American groups that support a country that has been a “resolute counterterrorism partner” of the United States since its inception and yet an IRS that has supported entities which have funded the pro-terrorism Free Gaza Movement and International Solidarity Movement.

If only this was a regrettable moment of anti-Semitism in the country with the world’s oldest Constitution committed to liberal democracy.  But, sadly, it presents a much deeper problem: an administration that has convinced its agencies that violating freedom in contexts that have no rational relationship to the prevention of terrorism, is, indeed, good policy for America.

Dan Epstein, executive director, Cause of Action, a non-profit, nonpartisan government accountability organization.

CoA Argues in 9th Circuit to Help Save Drakes Bay Oyster Farm

Drake’s Bay Oyster Farm Fights to Stay Open

The future of the company is now in the hands of three judges

By Joe Rosato Jr.
|  Tuesday, May 14, 2013  |  Updated 7:25 PM PDT
The owners of Drake s Bay Oyster Company on Tuesday asked a Federal Appeals Court to grant it an injunction to remain in business while the case plays out in court. Joe Rosato Jr. reports.

The owners of Drake’s Bay Oyster Company on Tuesday asked a Federal Appeals Court to grant it an injunction to remain in business while the case plays out in court.

Attorneys for Cause of Action, the government watchdog group representing the oyster farm, appeared before a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The group is appealing then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision in November to refuse to extend the oyster company’s lease on National Park land.

The 9th circuit is reviewing a U.S. District court’s refusal to grant the oyster farm a preliminary injunction, halting the federal closure order. In the meantime, the oyster farm which employs 30 people continues to operate on a temporary emergency order.

“We hope the decision will come down that we get the injunction,” said Kevin Lunny, co-owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Company. “We continue to plant our oysters and we continue to plant food for the San Francisco Bay Area.”

In court Tuesday, attorneys for Lunny laid out their case that Salazar relied on faulty scientific data in order to make his decision. But Federal judge Paul Watford questioned whether Congress had granted Salazar the power to make the decision at his own discretion.

“At the end of the day,” said Watford, “the secretary said the more important objective is to give effect essentially to Congress’ intent that this area be returned to wilderness status.”

Attorneys for the Department of Justice, which is defending Salazar’s decision, echoed that the former interior secretary was within his right to end the farm’s lease.

“His decision was based on the incompatibility of commercial activities in wilderness on a policy basis,” said government attorney David Gunter, “not on any disputed science.”

The panel of judges didn’t immediately issue a ruling, and has no timetable for issuing its decision. Meanwhile, strange bedfellows have come to Lunny’s cause. Famed chef Alice Waters has filed a brief in support of the farm, and Republicans attached a proposal to extend the farm’s lease twenty years, to a proposed bill to open the Keystone Pipeline in Alaska.

“We’re appreciative of anybody who be willing to stand up for what’s right,” responded Lunny. Environmental groups who have called for the oyster operation’s removal say the case could set a precedence for groups hoping to open National Park lands to commercial enterprises.

“There are definitely special interests out there who are not looking out for the American people, “said Neal Desai of the National Parks Conservation Association, which supports the farm’s removal. If Lunny prevails at the federal appeals court, the case would return to the same Oakland U.S. District Court which denied the oyster farm’s initial request for an injunction.

Standing out front of the federal court, dressed in a suit and tie, Lunny considered the long legal road ahead.

“Our livelihood’s threatened right now by the fact that we may or may not be able to continue farming,” Lunny said.