close X

Search Results for: IRS

Charles Edwards Under Investigation by CIGIE for Misconduct

April 24, 2014 by

Cause of Action, a government accountability group which has investigated former Department of Homeland Security acting Inspector General Charles Edwards, issued the following response to the report released today by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC), Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight:

In addition to being the subject of Thursday’s report released by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Charles Edwards is still under investigation today for allegations of misconduct by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).

Cause of Action’s own two-year investigation into Charles Edwards prompted us to raise concerns to President Obama about the destruction of records and complaints filed about his misconduct that would warrant Edwards’ removal from office and potential criminal liability. We know that the Office of Special Counsel forwarded at least one complaint about Edwards to CIGIE. Additionally, we sued the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) for failing to produce documents related to these misconduct complaints under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  This lawsuit could have been avoided, as DHS OIG voluntarily provided such information to HSGAC. This transparency failure is now costing time and resources in court for what could have been a simple compliance with FOIA.

Under federal law, knowingly destroying records with the intent to obstruct an investigation or the proper administration of any department or agency of the United States is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both. Accordingly, CIGIE should complete its investigation as expeditiously as possible and refer evidence of criminal conduct to the Department of Justice, especially since Edwards remains employed at DHS in a managerial position.

Filed Under: Press Release Tagged With:

Cause of Action Joins Amicus Brief in Minority TV v. FCC

April 21, 2014 by

Cause of Action has joined an amicus brief filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation in the case of Minority TV v. FCC calling on the Supreme Court hear a challenge to the rule that political speech on broadcast television deserves less Constitutional protection than political speech in other media.

In McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court specifically recognized Cause of Action’s unique and important perspective regarding the critical relationship between political transparency and robust free speech.  Here, Cause of Action strongly believes that the Constitution, and the public interest in good government, both require that political speech, regardless of the medium, should always be given the highest level of First Amendment protection.   Therefore, it has asked the Court to take this case.

13-1124 – Southeastern Legal Foundation Coalition Amici Brief by CitizensUnited

Filed Under: Filing Tagged With:

Affordable Care Act Navigator Assistance Grants

April 17, 2014 by

Listed by State recipient, direct grantee, and sub-grantee. 

Alabama

  • Ascension Health – $232,406
    • Providence Health
  • AIDS Alabama – $531,080
    • AIDS Action Coalition (AAC)
    • West Alabama AIDS Outreach (WAAO)
    • Unity Wellness Center (UWC)
    • Montgomery AIDS Outreach, Inc. (MAO)
    • Selma AIDS Information and Referrals (AIR)
    • AIDS Alabama South (AALS)
    • The Right Place
  • AIDS Alabama – $531,080
    • Tombigbee Healthcare Authority
    • Health Resources of West Alabama
    • Tuskegee Area Health Education Center (TAHEC), Inc.
    • Health and Wellness Education Center
    • Sowing Seeds of Hope
    • Monroe County Hospital

Alaska

  • United Way Anchorage – $300,00
    • Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
  • Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium – $299,918

Arizona

  • Arizona Association of Community Health Centers – $1,344,096
    • Kids Health Link
    • Nuestra Salud
    • Pima County Access Program (PCAP)
    • Pima County Health Dep’t
    • St. Elizabeth’s of Hungary
    • United Way of Tucson & Southern Arizona
  • Arizona Board of Regents, Univ. of Arizona – $190,268
  • Greater Phoenix Urban League, Inc. – $523,773
    • Arizona Family Health Partnership (AFHP)
    • Empact-La Frontera (ELF)
    • Coconino County Health Department (CCHD)
    • Tucson Urban League (TYL)
    • Women’s Health Coalition of AZ (WHC)
  • Campesinos Sin Fronteras, Inc. – $71,386

Arkansas

  • Southern United Neighborhoods – $270,193
    • Local 100 United Labor Unions
    • Arkansas Community Institute (ACI)
  • Univ. of Arkansas – $774,745
    • Partners for Inclusive Communities – Dep’t at Univ. of Arkansas

Delaware

  • Chatman, LLC – $510,577
    • Local physicians’ offices
    • Accountable Care Organizations

Florida

  • Univ. of South Florida – $4,213,696
    • FL Covering Kids & Families (CKF) (lead applicant, based in Univ. of South FL)
    • Health Council of SE Florida
    • Kids Healthcare Foundation
    • Primary Care Access Network (PCAN)
    • Health Planning Council of Southwest Florida
  • Epilepsy Foundation of Florida – $637,686
    • Univ. of West Florida in Pensacola
    • Univ. of FL in Gainesville
    • Univ. of North Florida in Jacksonville
    • Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton
    • Nova Southeastern University in Davie
    • Florida Memorial University in Opa-Locka
  • Advanced Patient Advocacy, LLC – $413,152
    • Holy Cross Hospital
    • Bethesda Memorial Hospital
  • Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc. – $446,783
    • Healthcare Access Partnership Initiative (HAPI)
    • Legal Aid’s Housing Project
  • Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners – $600,000
    • Pinellas County Health Dep’t
    • Juvenile Welfare Board
    • St. Petersburg College
    • St. Petersburg Free Clinic
    • Clearwater Free Clinic
    • YMCA
  • National Hispanic Council on Aging – $646,825
    • Local community partners; graduates of the Empowerment and Civic Engagement Training program
  • Mental Health America – $686,691
    • Mental Health America of East Central Florida (MHAECF)
  • Public Health Trust of Miami Dade County dba Jackson Health System – $238,000
    • Jackson Memorial Hospital
    • Holtz Children’s Hospital
    • Jackson Rehabilitation Hospital
    • Jackson South Community Hospital
    • Jackson North Medical Center
    • Jackson Mental Health Hospital

Georgia

  • Structured Employment Economic Development Corporation (SEEDCO) – $2,159,360
    • Boat People SOS
    • Center for Black Women’s Wellness
    • Emory-Grady Urban Health Initiative
    • Georgia Equality & The Health Initiative
    • Georgia Refugee Health and Mental Health
    • Georgia Watch
    • Georgians for a Healthy Future
    • Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition
    • Jewish Family & Career Services
    • Latin American Association
    • Mental Health America of Georgia
    • Parent to Parent, Quality Med-Care Inc.
    • Spring Creek Health Cooperative
  • Univ. of GA – $1,657,378

Illinois

  • Southern Illinois Healthcare Foundation – $240,113
    • Southern Illinois Healthcare Foundation (SIHF)
    • Christopher Rural Health Planning (CRHPC)
    • Community Health and Emergency Services (CHES)
    • Rural Health Incorporated (RHI)
    • Shawnee Health Services (SHS)
  • Genesis Health System – $137,283
    • Existing community partners
  • Sinai Health System – $157,271
    • 60 WIC office sites operated by Sinai
    • Chicago Dep’t of Public Health
    • Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County
    • Cook County Dep’t of Public Health
    • Mile Square Health Center
    • Near North Health Service Corporation
    • Stickney Public Health District
    • TCA Health Inc.
    • Regional and local Community Based Organizations
    • Federally qualified healthcare centers such as Lawndale Christian Health Center
    • Faith Based Organizations
  • Dupage County Health Dep’t – $182,543
  • A Safe Haven foundation – $324,736
  • Mercy Hospital and Medical Center – $452,590
  • Puerto Rican Cultural Center, Inc. – $600,000
  • VNA Health Care – $132,737
  • IL College of Optometry – $504,016
  • National Council of Urban Indian Health – $35,000
    • Local Urban Indian Health Program (UIHP) in Chicago
  • SER-Jobs for Progress National, Inc. – $294,182
    • Central States SER

Indiana

  • Affiliated Service Providers of Indiana, Inc. – $897,150
    • Behavioral Health Network
    • Community Mental Health Centers
    • Ivy Tech Community College
  • Plus One Enterprises, LTD, LLC – $130,875
  • Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County – $590,895
  • United Way Worldwide – $424,586
    • State-wide partners and 2-1-1 call center

Iowa

  • Genesis Health System – $128,430
    • Existing community partners
  • Visiting Nurse Services of IA – $257,142
    • HCI Care Services
  • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland – $214,427
    • Ames Center, Ankeny Center, My Health Express, Rosenfield Center, Susan Knapp, and West Center
    • Burlington, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs Center, Creston Center, Dubuque Center, Fort Dodge Center, Iowa City, Mount Pleasant, Quad Cities Center, Red Oak Center, Sioux City Center, Washington

Kansas

  • Ascension Health – $165,683
    • Via Christi Health System (VCHS)
  • Advanced Patient Advocacy LLC – $195,556
    • Overland Park Regional Medical Center
    • Labette County Medical Center
    • Menorah Medical Center
  • Kansas Association for the Medically Underserved – $524,846
    • Kansas Hospital Education and Research Foundation
    • Kansas Insurance Department
    • Kansas Association of Local Health Departments
    • Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas
    • Kansas Association of Area Agencies on Aging and Disabilities (operating as volunteer based Senior Health Insurance Assistance Program)

Louisiana

  • Southern United Neighborhoods – $486,123
    • Local 100 United Labor Unions
    • Affiliated Media Foundation Movement (AMFM)
    • Arkansas Community Institute (ACI)
  • Martin Luther King Health Center, Inc. – $81,066
  • Southwest Louisiana Area Health Education Center – $1,099,985
    • Central Louisiana AHEC
    • North Louisiana AHEC
    • Southeast Louisiana AHEC
  • Capital Area Agency on Aging, District II, Inc. – $100,000

Maine

  • Western Maine Community Action – $475,000
    • Aroostook County Action Program
    • Kennebec Valley Community Action Program
    • Midcoast Maine Community Action
    • Waldo Community Action Partners
    • Washington Hancock Community Agency
    • The Opportunity Alliance
    • York County Community Action Corporation
  • Fishing Partnership Health Plan – $66,846

Michigan

  • Community Bridges Management, Inc. – $896,366
    • ZIAD Healthcare for the Underserved
  • Arab Community Center for Economic & Social Services – $276,593
  • American Indian Health & Family Services of SE Michigan, Inc. – $49,583
  • Michigan Consumers for Healthcare – $1,319,345
    • Michigan Community Action Agency Association
    • Michigan Primary Care Association
    • Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards
    • Michigan Tribal Health Center Directors Association

Mississippi

  • Oak Hill Missionary Baptist Church Ministries – $317,742
    • Mid-South Churches Cooperative Conference (MSCCC)
    • Collaborative of 200 churches and faith organizations
  • Univ. of Mississippi Medical Center – $831,986
    • Mississippi Institute for Improvement of Geographic Minority Health
    • Univ. of Mississippi Adult Hospital
    • University Physicians and Associates
    • Blair E. Batson Children’s Hospital
    • Wiser Hospital for Women and Infants
    • Conerly Critical Care Hospital
    • Holmes County Hospital
    • E-Beat

Missouri

  • Primaris Healthcare Business Solutions – $1,045,624
    • APPLE Project
    • Bi-Lingual International Assistant Services
    • Interfaith Community Services
    • Eastern Missouri Health Services
    • Heartland Resources
    • Missouri Kidney Program
    • OASIS Institute
    • Ozark Action, Inc.
    • Senior Adult Services, Inc.
    • Shepherd Center of Kansas City Central
    • Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging
    • Northwest Missouri Area Agency on Aging
    • Region X Area Agency on Aging
    • Care connection for Aging Services
    • Southeast Missouri Area Agency on Aging
    • Southwest Missouri Office on Aging
    • Central Missouri Area on Aging
    • Mid-East Area Agency on Aging

Montana

  • Intermountain Planned Parenthood, Inc. DBA Planned Parenthood – $295,604
    • Navigators placed in five health clinic sites
  • Montana Primary Care Association, Inc. – $299,382
    • Community health centers around the state
    • Rural Health Development DBA Montana Health Network
    • Big Horn Hospital Association
    • Beartooth Billings Clinic
    • Central Montana Medical Center
    • Dahl Memorial Healthcare Assoc.
    • Daniels Memorial Healthcare Center
    • Fallon Medical Complex
    • Frances Mahon Deaconess Hospital
    • Garfield County Health Center
    • Glendive Medical Center
    • Holy Rosary Healthcare
    • Livingston Health Care
    • McCone County Health Center
    • Northeast MT Health Services
    • Phillips County Hospital
    • Prairie County Hospital
    • Roosevelt Medical Center
    • Roundup Memorial Hospital
    • Sheridan Memorial Hospital Assoc.
    • Sidney Health Center
    • Stillwater Billings Clinic
    • Wheatland Memorial Healthcare

Nebraska

  • Community Action of Nebraska, Inc. – $562,457
    • 9 community action agencies
  • Ponca Tribe of Nebraska – $37,543

New Hampshire

  • Bi-State Primary Care Association – $454,839
    • North Country Health Consortium
    • Ammonoosuc Community Health Services, Inc.
    • Coos County Family Health Services, Inc.
    • Families First Health and Support Center
    • Goodwin Community Health
    • Harbor Care Clinic, A Program of Harbor Homes, Inc.
    • Health First Family Care Center
    • Indian Stream Health Center
    • Lamprey Health Care
    • Manchester Community Health Center
    • Mid-State Health Center
    • Weeks Medical Center
    • White Mountain Community Health Center
  • Planned Parenthood of Northern New England -$145,161
    • Navigators in 6 health clinics

New Jersey

  • Center for Family Services, Inc. – $677,797
    • Wendy Sykes – The Oranges ACA Navigator Project
    • African Americans for Health Awareness
    • Essex County Family Support Organization
    • East Orange/Orange CDC
    • Newark Beth Israel – Geriatrics
    • Healthy Family Adventures
  • Urban League of Hudson  County – $565,000
    • Urban League of Bergen County
    • Urban League of Morris County
    • Urban League of Union County
  • Public Health Solutions – $400,583
    • Newark Emergency Services for Families
    • Partnership for Maternal and Child Health of Northern New Jersey
    • Dep’t of HHS – City of Jersey City

North Carolina

  • Randolph Hospital, Inc. – $352,320
  • Mountain Projects, Inc. – $359,750
  • NC Community Care Networks – $1,988,428
  • Alcohol/Drug Council of NC – $324,798

North Carolina

  • Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board – $186,000
    • Tribal Health Departments
    • Tribal Maternal
    • Child Health Programs
    • Aberdeen Area Indian Health Service Area
    • North Dakota State Dep’t of Health
  • Minot State University – ND Center for Persons with Disabilities – $414,000
    • Family Voices
    • Federation for Families
    • First Link
    • Community HealthCare Association of the Dakotas
    • Northland Healthcare Network

Ohio

  • Ohio Association of Foodbanks – $2,014,750
    • OH Association of Foodbanks
    • Access Health Mahoning Valley
    • Asian Services in Action, Inc.
    • Carmella Rose Health Foundation
    • Cuyahoga Health Access Partnership
    • Community Action Committee of Pike County
    • Disability Rights Ohio
    • Health Care Access Now
    • Heart of OH Family Health Center
    • Hospital Council of NW OH
    • OH Association of Free Clinics
    • OH Dep’t of Health
    • United Way of Greater Cleveland 2-1-1
    • Community Action Program Corporation of Washington Morgan Counties
    • Western Reserve Area Agency on Aging
  • Helping Hands Community Outreach Center – $230,920
    • Local Community Action Partnership
    • Several churches
    • Grassroots community based providers
    • Spirit of Peace CDC
    • Neighborhood Health Association
    • Three NHA FQHC clinics

Oklahoma

  • OK Community Health Centers, Inc. – $860,866
    • OK Primary Care Association
    • 18 health center grantees
    • OK 2-1-1 agencies
    • Legal Aid Services of OK
    • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland – Eastern OK
    • Planned Parenthood of Central OK
  • Little Dixie Community action Agency, Inc. – $580,733
    • Little Dixie Community Action Agency
    • Big Five Community Services
    • Community Development Corporation
    • Community Development Support Association
    • Delta Community Action Foundation
    • Deep Fork Community Action Foundation
    • Great Plains Improvement Foundation
    • INCA Community Services
    • KIBOIS Community Action Foundation
    • Muskogee County Community Action Foundation
    • Northeast OK Community Action Agency
    • Opportunities Inc.
    • SW OK Community Action Group
    • Washita Valley Community Action Council
  • Latino Community Development Agency – $178,500

Pennsylvania

  • Resources for Human Development – $997,801
  • Pennsylvania Association of Community Health Centers – $739,005
    • Health Federation of Philadelphia
    • Pennsylvania Health Law Project
    • Pennsylvania Office of Rural Health
  • Pennsylvania Mental Health Consumers’ Association – $424,625
    • PA Mental Health Consumers Association
    • Mental Health Association in PA
    • Mental Health Center Westmoreland County
  • Mental Health America – $547,754
    • Mental Health Association of SE PA

South Carolina

  • DECO Recovery Management LLC – $1,211,203
    • Benefit Bank of South Carolina
    • South Carolina Office of Rural Health
    • SC Chamber of Commerce
    • SC Hospital Association
  • Cooperative Ministry – $508,313
    • Greater Columbia Community Relations Council
    • SC Progressive Network
  • Beaufort County Black Chamber of Commerce – $234,099

South Dakota

  • SD Community Action Partnership – $336,000
    • Inter-Lakes Community Action Partnership
    • Rural Office of Community Services, Inc.
    • NESDCAP dba GROW South Dakota
    • Western South Dakota Community Action
  • Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board – $264,000
    • Tribal Health Departments
    • Aberdeen Area Indian Health Service Area
    • South Dakota State Dep’t of Health

Tennessee

  • Structured Employment Economic Development Corporation (SEEDCO) – $1,216,013
    • Appalachian Mountain Project Access
    • Bridges
    • Community Development council
    • Family and Children’s Services
    • Knoxville Area Project Access
    • Medical Foundation of Chattanooga
    • Porter-Leath
    • TN Community Services Agency
    • Tennessee Health Care campaign
  • Tennessee Primary Care Association – $781,265
    • East Jackson Family Health
    • Faith Family Medical
    • GetWell Community Clinic

Texas

  • United Way of Metropolitan Tarrant County – $5,889,181
    • Alamo Area Council of Governments
    • Brazos Valley Council of Governments
    • City of Houston Dep’t of HHS
    • Community Council of Greater Dallas
    • LIFE Inc. / Disability Connections for Independent Living
    • Panhandle Regional Planning Commission
    • Project Amistad
    • South TX Development Council
    • Starcare Specialty Health System
    • United Way of Central Texas
  • Migrant Health Promotion, Inc. – $589,750
    • Rio Grande Valley of Texas
  • National Hispanic Council on Aging – $646,825
  • Change Happens – $785,000
    • The Children’s Center
    • Children’s Books on Wheels
    • Houston Center for Independent Living
    • Faith-Based Recovery Health and Wellness Network
  • United Way of El Paso County – $642,121
    • AVANCE
    • City of El Paso
    • County of El Paso
    • Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce
    • El Paso Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
    • El Paso Interreligious Sponsoring Organization
    • Educational Service Center
  • Southern United Neighborhoods – $600,678
    • Local 100 United Labor Unions
    • Affiliated Media Foundation Movement
    • Arkansas Community Institute
  • East Texas Behavioral Healthcare Network – $1,337,520
    • Anderson / Cherokee County Enrichment Services
    • Andrews Center
    • Betty Hardwick Center
    • Bluebonnet Trails Community MHMR Center
    • Burke Center
    • Community Healthcore
    • Gulf Bend MHMR Center
    • Gulf Coast Center
    • Lakes Regional MHMR
    • Pecan Valley MHMR Region
    • Spindletop Center
    • Tri-County MHMR Services
  • National Urban League – $376,800
    • Urban League of Greater Dallas & North Central Texas
    • Houston Area Urban League

Utah

  • Utah Health Policy Project – $486,121
    • Association for Utah Community Health
    • United Way
    • Take Care Utah
  • Utah AIDS Foundation – $205,591
    • Utah Pride Center
    • Ogden OUTreach
    • Planned Parenthood
    • National Council of Urban Indian Health

Virginia

  • Virginia Poverty Law Center, Inc. – $1,278,592
    • Young Invincibles project of the Center for Community Change
    • Blue Ridge Legal Services
    • Central Virginia Legal Aid Society
    • Legal Aid Justice Center
    • Legal Aid Society of Eastern Virginia
    • Legal Aid  Society of Roanoke Valley
    • Legal Services of Northern Virginia
    • Southwest Virginia Legal Aid Society
    • Virginia Legal Aid Society
  • Advanced Patient Advocacy LLC – $483,433
    • Chippenham Hospital
    • Johnston-Willis Hospital
    • John Randolph Henrico Doctors Hospital
    • Retreat, St. Mary’s Hospital
    • Memorial Medical center
    • St. Francis
    • Richmond Community Hospital
    • Sentara Northern Virginia Medical Center
    • Fauquier Hospital and Reston Hospital
    • Mary Washington Hospital
    • Stafford Hospital
    • Spotsylvania Regional Medical & Rappahannock General Hospital
    • Lewis Gale Montgomery Regional Hospital
    • Clinch Valley Medical Center
    • Lewis-Gale Alleghany
    • Lewis-Gale Pulaski
    • Lewis-Gale Medical Center

West Virginia

  • Advanced Patient Advocacy LLC – $276,617
    • Raleigh General Hospital
    • HCA St. Francis and Pleasant Valley Hospital
    • Thomas Memorial Hospital
    • Princeton Community Hospital
    • Pavilion
  • National Healthy Start Association – $191,667
  • TSG Consulting LLC – $174,091
    • WV Farm Bureau
    • Partners in Health Network

Wisconsin

  • Partners for Community Development, Inc. – $315,720
  • NW Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, Inc. – $285,035
    • Western Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, Inc.
    • Western Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, Inc.
    • North Central Workforce Development Board, Inc.
    • Workforce Resources, Inc.
    • Workforce Connections, Inc.
  • Legal Action of Wisconsin Inc. / SeniorLAW – $70,000
  • National Council of Urban Indian Health – $35,000
  • National Healthy Start Association – $191,667
  • R&B Receivables Management Corporation DBA R&B Solutions – $104,520

Wyoming

  • Memorial Hospital of Laramie County DBA Cheyenne Regional – $401,281
    • Wyoming 2-1-1
    • 9 Faith Community Nurse Locations
    • 18 Facilities
    • 11 Hospitals
  • Wyoming Senior Citizens, Inc. – $198,719
Filed Under: Blog Tagged With:

Opinion: Despite Pledge of Transparency, Obama Is Clogging Information Flow

April 15, 2014 by

This op-ed originally appeared on NationalLawJournal.com, April 15, 2014

Administration’s overuse of FOIA exception blocks legitimate requests for records.

Daniel Z. Epstein and Mark J. Rozell, The National Law Journal

When President Barack Obama issued a memorandum on his first day in office on the Freedom of Information Act encouraging transparency, it was a promising first step toward being the “most transparent administration in history.” Three months later, however, the president’s chief lawyer secretly advised government agencies to send to the White House all records involving “White House equities” that are identified in response to any document request, FOIA or otherwise.

The largely elusive and undefined term “White House equities” greatly expanded what the White House has access to. Previously its access was limited to documents that originated within the White House.

Consequently, federal agencies are sending politically sensitive requests to the White House for review, delaying the release of records to the media, public requesters and even to Congress, violating the letter and spirit of FOIA.

It is crucial that the public knows what the White House is doing to hinder transparency. For example, in 2010, an Associated Press investigation found that the White House screened the Department of Homeland Security’s FOIA requests related to the economic-stimulus plan, as well as requests for the calendars of cabinet members. Making matters worse, Homeland Security applied extra scrutiny to FOIA requests and congressional requests that sought politically sensitive information. Political staffers at the department demanded to know information about requesters, including their occupations and where they lived.

That the White House proactively seeks to screen requests suggests that the administration is more concerned about negative press than transparency. In April 2012, the media reported that the General Services Administration (GSA) had squandered $822,000 on a posh conference in Las Vegas. The scandal drew heavy criticism for the administration.

A FOIA investigation conducted by Cause of Action, a Washington-based nonprofit government watchdog group, found that only a few weeks later, Seth Green­feld, a senior assistant general counsel at the GSA, forwarded five FOIA requests related to the conference to Jonathan Su at the White House Counsel’s Office. According to documents Cause of Action procured via FOIA, Greenfeld wrote to Su, “Per your request, here are the five FOIA requests that in some manner ask for the 2010 Western Regions Conference website and its contents.” The president is effectively using the notion of “White House equities” to turn the FOIA process on its head. Although Congress designed FOIA to allow the public to know what the government is up to, the White House review process allows the government to know what the media are up to, potentially chilling the free press.

SIGNIFICANT DELAYS

A number of agencies target media requesters for extra review, including the departments of the Treasury, Defense, and Housing and Urban Development, often delaying production to well past FOIA deadlines. A March 23, 2010, request from Cox Television was significantly delayed after the GSA provided records to the House of Representatives and the White House for “comment,” according to a report from the GSA inspector general. The request sought e-mails “between the GSA and the staffs of U.S. Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Silvestre Reyes, and Zack Space.” At the time of the inspector general’s September 2010 report, the request had been pending for 118 days. The response deadline for FOIA, however, is 20 days, or at most 30 days in “unusual circumstances.”

The use of “White House equities” to screen document requests also hinders congressional oversight. Records from the Department of Interior, for example, show that the National Park Service failed to respond to a March 27, 2013, congressional document request, instead sending the documents to the White House, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Justice for review. When the documents had still not been produced after six months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was forced to issue a subpoena. Similarly, emails obtained by Cause of Action from the Environmental Protection Agency indicate that White House review delayed an April 10, 2013, document request from the House oversight committee to the agency. In response, the committee sent a Nov. 8, 2013, subpoena to the EPA for communications with White House officials concerning the delay.

The Obama administration cannot credibly claim to be transparent when it publicly issues memoranda advocating for openness in the FOIA process, but then secretly instructs agencies to refer all records with “White House equities” to the White House for review. Not only is the FOIA process significantly and illegally stalled by White House review — a fact that agencies zealously guard from requesters — but it permits the political interests of the administration to trump the important policy goals of FOIA. The White House’s attempts to subvert the purposes of FOIA by demanding to review potentially damaging and politically sensitive requests may protect the President’s own interests, but at the expense of the governmental transparency and accountability he had promised to advance.

Daniel Z. Epstein is executive director of Cause of Action, and Mark J. Rozell is acting dean of the School of Public Policy at George Mason University and author of the book “Executive Privilege.”

Filed Under: News Tagged With:

Related Documents: White House Equities in FOIA Requests

April 2, 2014 by

White House and Department of Justice Memos

May 20, 2014

FOIA request to EPA regarding:

  1. All documents and communications between and among employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and employees of the Executive Office of the President, including, but not limited to, the White House Office and the Office of  Management and Budget, referring or relating to congressional requests for information. The relevant time period for this request is April 15, 2009 to May 15, 2014.
  2. All documents produced to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in response to their November 7, 2013 subpoena served upon EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

In 2013, Cause of Action sent 20 FOIA requests to various agencies regarding the review of agency records by the Office of White House Counsel.

AgencyRequest DateFinal ResponseResponse Time*Documents
NARA11/26/2013
12/9/20138No responsive docs
NASA11/26/2013
12/24/201319No responsive docs
SBA11/26/2013
2/21/2014 58No responsive docs
GSA11/26/2013
1/9/2014
30PDF
Education8/9/2013
9/3/201316
EPA7/2/2013
9/30/2013
62PDF
DOI**8/9/2013
11/8/2013
53PDF
USDA11/26/2013
2/27/2014
62PDF
DOL11/26/2013
6/27/2014147
Commerce11/26/2013
7/25/2014166PDF
Energy**6/26/2013
10/27/2014335
DHS11/26/2013
Response Pending238
DOJ11/26/2013
Response Pending238
DOT11/26/2013
Response Pending238
HUD11/26/2013
Response Pending238
State11/26/2013
Response Pending238
VA11/26/2013
Response Pending238
DOD**8/9/2013
Response Pending312
HHS**8/9/2013
Response Pending312
Treasury (IRS)**5/29/2013
Response Pending363

*As of November 6, 2014

** Government shutdown ran October 1 through October 16, 2013 (10 business days) which is subtracted from pending days.

FOIA Appeals

March 27, 2014: FOIA Appeal to USDA

April 2, 2014: FOIA Appeal to GSA

Agency Inspectors General’s Reports on FOIA

In the wake of the DHS FOIA scandal, Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa sent a joint August 25, 2010 letter to 29 Inspectors General, asking them to investigate: (a) whether FOIA requests were given more scrutiny based upon the identity of the requester, and (b) the extent to which political appointees were systematically made aware of the requests and participate in FOIA decision-making. Cause of Action sent FOIA requests to the agencies that had not publicly posted their responses to the inquiry.

Federal AgencyRequest DateFinal ResponseResponse Time Link to Report
DHS OIGPublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
DOE OIGPublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
DOT OIGPublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
EPA OIGPublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
NRC OIGPublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
SEC OIGPublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
SSAPublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
StatePublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
Treasury IGPublicly postedPublicly postedPublicly postedReport
FHFA5/30/2013
5/31/2013
2Report
HHS OIG5/30/2013
6/3/2013
3Report
SBA5/30/2013
6/6/2013
6Report
DOI OIG5/30/2013
6/7/2013
7Report
DOL OIG7/9/20147/18/20147Report
GSA OIG5/30/2013
6/12/2013
10Report
OPM OIG5/30/2013
6/12/2013
10Report
DOC OIG5/30/2013
6/14/2013
12Report
NASA OIG5/30/2013
6/14/2013
12Report
FTC 5/30/2013
6/17/2013
13Report
GAO5/30/2013
6/17/2013
13Report
HUD OIG5/30/2013
6/21/2013
17Report
VA OIG5/30/2013
6/24/2013
18Report
DOD OIG5/30/2013
6/27/2013
21Report
NARA OIG5/30/2013
7/8/2013
28Report
Education OIG5/30/2013
7/23/2013
39Report
DOJ5/30/2013
9/18/2013
80Report
USDA OIG5/30/2013
9/20/2013
82Report
EAC OIG5/30/2013
9/30/2013
88Report
CIA OIG5/30/2013
Failed to fulfill request

 

Filed Under: Investigation Tagged With:

FOIA Production: HHS Secretary Sebelius Calendars

March 18, 2014 by

Cause of Action recently received via FOIA the work calendar of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from January 2013 to the present.

FOIA Request

January-April 2013 Production

April-October 2013 Production

Findings:

  1.  January 23, 2013: Sebelius met with Anne Filipic, Enroll America’s President. [See Prod. 1 at p. 49].

EA Meeting

 a. Between January and May 2013, Secretary Sebelius met or held calls with the leadership of Kaiser Family Foundation, AcademyHealth, Recording Industry Agents and Representatives, Universal Studios, Musicares Foundation, Comcast, H&R Block, Safeway (other pharmacies: Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Rite Aid, Kroger, Target, SuperValu, Public, Costco, Winn-Dixie, Meijer, Inc.,) Blue Cross/Blue Shield, National Urban League, Johnson & Johnson.

b. Administration officials confirmed previously Sebelius raised $10 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and $500,000 from H&R Block for Enroll America.

2. February 13, 2013: Sebelius met with Enroll America and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) staff in Chicago  [See Prod. 1 at pp. 80-81].

a. SEIU is a member of Enroll America’s advisory council [Note: Cause of Action filed a 13909 complaint as well as a Form 211 Application  with the Internal Revenue Service regarding Enroll America’s [political] activities].

b. Sept. 9, 2013: Sebelius held a partnership announcement with the SEIU in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [See Prod. 2 at pp.315-316].

c. Sept. 25, 2013: Sebelius delivered remarks at an SEIU Executive Board Meeting. [See Prod. 2a t pp. 346-347]

3. March 23, 2013: Sebelius spoke over the phone with Chris Wyant, Managing Director at Enroll America to discuss 3rd Anniversary Action for the Affordable Care Act. [See Prod. 1 at p. 182]

4. May 1, 2013: Sebelius, President Obama, and Valerie Jarrett met with the Presidents of several  large foundations including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Kresge Foundation, California Endowment, Open Society Institute, W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Ford Foundation [See Prod. 2 at p. 36].

 POTUS meeting w foundations_1

 a. The Open Society Institute was founded by multibillionaire George Soros in 1993.  OSI claims to be “a nonpartisan, nonpolitical entity” whose funding agendas are “wholly separate” from “George Soros’s private political activities.”

b. Since 2001, the California Endowment has given $4.9 million (29 grants) to Families USA Foundation, a pro-Obamacare activist group.  Families USA co-founder and executive director Ron Pollack also founded Enroll America.

c. According to a Feb. 19, 2014 story, Enroll America officials said the group has raised $27 million so far from entities that include the Ford Foundation and the California Endowment.

5. July 22, 2013: Sebelius held a stakeholder roundtable in TX with the State Director for Enroll America, Mimi Garcia, in attendance. [See Prod. 2 at pp. 206-207]

 

meeting w TX EAa. In November 2013, Project Veritas exposed the Communications Director for the TX division of Enroll America discussing illegal political activity.

6. August 19, 2013: Sebelius traveled to Houston, TX and delivered remarks for the Young Invincibles enrollment class with the Texas Organizing Project (TOP) in attendance. [See Prod. 2 at pp. 283-284]

Meeting w TOPa. TOP has used tax-exempt contributions funneled to it from the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund for illegal political activity and operates as a re-branded ACORN entity (see here).

7. February 5, 2013: Sebelius had a phone call with Senator Ben Nelson, CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). [See Prod. 1 at p. 72]

a. See “Cornhusker Kickback”: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered  $100 million in Medicaid funding, also known as the “Cornhusker Kickback,” to Nelson to help win him over* as the 60th vote on the Senate’s healthcare reform bill last December.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With:

Grading the Government: How the White House Targets Document Requesters

March 18, 2014 by

Grading the Government:

How the White House Targets Document Requesters

In 2010, The Associated Press (AP) uncovered how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) blatantly politicized the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process by having senior political appointees review requests.  The story read:

For at least a year, the Homeland Security Department detoured requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive, according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by The Associated Press.

 

The department abandoned the practice after AP investigated.  Inspectors from the department’s Office of Inspector General quietly conducted interviews last week to determine whether political advisers acted improperly.

E-mails obtained by AP through FOIA indicated that documents implicating “White House equities” were sent by DHS to the White House Counsel’s Office for review. But what, precisely, are White House equities?  And under what authority is that term defined or is White House review permitted?

In a subsequent hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Jason Chaffetz questioned Mary Ellen Callahan, the Chief Privacy Officer of DHS, about the meaning of White House equities:

Mr. Chaffetz. Let me read another paragraph.  “Two exceptions required White House review, request to see documents about spending under the $862 billion stimulus law, and the calendars for cabinet members, those required White House review,” is that correct? 

 

Ms. Callahan. The calendars–anything that has White House equities would require White House review. That is—-

 

Mr. Chaffetz. What is a White House equity?  What does that mean?

 

Ms. Callahan. In the circumstances with the Secretary’s calendar to the extent that she was in the White House, or that was a–disclosing some sort of element.  This is a typical process of referring FOIA requests to different departments.  It may be their underlying records.  That is a standard process throughout the—

 

Mr. Chaffetz. The other part of that is under the $862 billion stimulus; is that correct?  Is that part of the White House equity?  It says “Two exceptions required White House review.  Request to see documents about spending under the $862 billion stimulus law,” is that correct?

 

Ms. Callahan. That is correct.

 

Mr. Chaffetz. Why?  Why does that require a special White House review?

 

Ms. Callahan. Sir, I’m the chief FOIA officer; I’m not a policy person in this area.

 

Mr. Chaffetz. So is that a directive that you got from the White House?

 

Ms. Callahan. I believe I was instructed by the Office of the Secretary to do that, and we processed it—-

Three years after the above testimony, Cause of Action confirmed that Congressman Chaffetz was right about the source of authority that required “special White House review.”  In an April 2009 memo that we obtained from the Department of Justice (DOJ) last year, the Counsel to the President reminds department and agency general counsels to send to the White House for consultation all records involving “White House equities” collected in response to any document request.  This unpublicized memo stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s January 2009 memo on FOIA and transparency, and Attorney General  Holder’s March 2009 FOIA memo, each of which were publicly lauded as models of transparency.

White House Equities

The White House Counsel’s Office is receiving, reviewing, and actually demanding access to information that it previously would not have been able to review under FOIA.

The practice of sending agency records to the White House for review is not entirely new.  In 1993, for example, DOJ instructed agencies to send “White-House-originated” records to the White House Counsel’s Office whenever they were located in response to FOIA requests.  However, the current White House consultation policy is substantially broader in scope.  First, it expands the types of documents subject to White House review to include “Congressional committee requests, GAO requests, [and] judicial subpoenas.”  Additionally, these documents need not “originate” from the White House, as the DOJ instructed in 1993, but need only involve “White House equities,” an undefined term that can be construed to include any records in which the White House might be interested.  Cause of Action continues to investigate the breadth of the term “White House equities” to determine where and when the White House is influencing FOIA and Congressional document requests.

In early April 2012, the media reported that GSA had squandered $822,000 taxpayer dollars on a posh conference in Las Vegas — a scandal that drew heavy criticism for the Administration.  Only a few weeks later, on May 1, 2012, Seth Greenfeld, a senior assistant general counsel at GSA, forwarded five FOIA requests related to the conference to Jonathan Su, a lawyer at the White House Counsel’s Office and Special Assistant to the President.  Greenfeld told Su, “Per your request, here are the five FOIA requests that in some manner ask for the 2010 Western Regions Conference website and its contents.”

GSA’s Office of Public Affairs also sends notification of sensitive FOIA requests to the White House Office of the Press Secretary.  On January 16, 2013, then-GSA Deputy Press Secretary Dan Cruz e-mailed White House Assistant Press Secretary Matt Lehrich to alert him of a request from Brad Heath at USA Today. The request asked for the job descriptions and responsibilities of employees working in communications for federal agencies.

Outside scrutiny of FOIA requests to GSA is not new, according to a report from the GSA Inspector General (IG).  A March 23, 2010 request from Cox Television was significantly delayed after GSA provided the responsive documents to both the House of Representatives and the White House Counsel’s Office for comment. The request sought e-mails “between the GSA and the staffs of U.S. Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Silvestre Reyes, and Zack Space.”  At the time of the IG report in September 2010, the request had been pending for 118 days.  The statutory response deadline for FOIA is 20 business days, or 30 business days in unusual circumstances.

The White House also requested to see FOIA requests related to renovations to the Secretary’s bathroom at the Department of the Interior (DOI), as discussed in an April 12, 2013 e-mail from Greenfeld to Su. The DOI bathroom renovation cost taxpayers $222,000 and was widely reported in January 2013.

The fact that the White House actively sought not merely proposed production but actual requests from media requesters provides some evidence that the Administration was sensitive to the media.  In fact, the Department of the Treasury, Department of Defense, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have their own sensitive review process for media requesters.   All the more egregious is the fact that the President has used White House equities to reverse the FOIA process:  FOIA is designed to inform the public on government behavior; White House equities allow the government to withhold information from the media, and therefore the public, by having media requests forwarded for review.  This not only politicizes federal agencies, it impairs fundamental First Amendment liberties.

No established law, regulation or guidance defines “White House equities” yet the term is widely used by the Federal Government.

At the Department of the Interior (DOI), the meaning of “White House equities” is unclear even to FOIA specialists.  FOIA Specialist Richard Ha described the nature of documents prepared for White House review in a December 14, 2012 e-mail to DOI FOIA Officer Clarice Julka:

DOI OS FOIA office located and organized responsive electronic mail from 42 [individuals] into 42 pdf files, one pdf file for each individual. Six pdf files had joint DOl-White House records that could be interpreted as White House equities. These six pdf files either had electronic mail sent to, from, or cc’ed White House officials; or had some discussion of White House activities. (emphasis added)

The Department of the Treasury’s Inspector General described equities as “having an interest in the requested material,” and noted that “White House equities were involved when a member of the White House staff was a recipient or a commenter in an e-mail chain.”  Under DOJ’s 1993 guidance, it is unclear that e-mails sent to or carbon copied to White House officials would be considered documents “originated” from the White House and eligible for review in a document request.  Nevertheless, the Treasury IG found that of 13 requests that Treasury sent to the White House for review, “none of the document sets that [the IG] reviewed appeared to originate with the White House,” with the exception of some e-mail written by White House officials.

Congressional document requests have been significantly delayed by White House review.

Congressional requesters have also had their document productions slowed by White House review, as evidenced by  a FOIA request that Cause of Action sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding White House review on July 2, 2013. The EPA responded to our request after 64 business days on September 30, 2013 with internal e-mails showing that White House review delayed an April 10, 2013 joint document request from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.  In response to our findings, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on  November 8, 2013, subpoenaed the EPA for communications with White House officials regarding the agency’s delay to a congressional document request.

Documents obtained from the DOI show that the National Park Service failed to respond to a Congressional document request after sending documents to the White House for review. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked the National Park Service for documents on March 27, 2013 with a due date of April 10, 2013. The documents were sought in preparation for a hearing on April 16, 2013 regarding “The Federal Effort to Minimize the Sequester’s Impact on Access to Our Nation’s Capital and National Treasures.”  After failing to provide documents for the hearing, DOI’s Deputy Director in the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs Jason Buckner emailed DOI’s Associate Solicitor-General Edward Keable about a possible subpoena for the documents. The documents were collected and sent to White House Counsel Daniel Dominguez, Office of Management and Budget’s Thomas Hitter, and DOJ Office of Legal Counsel’s Paul Colborn for review on April 17, 2013. After more than six months, the documents still had not been delivered and the Committee issued a subpoena on October 30, 2013.

CoA Infographic CORRECTED

White House review delays the release of records and violates both the letter and spirit of FOIA.

The White House Counsel’s Office does not passively review or provide only “advice” on agency document requests, but instead is relied upon by the agencies as an authoritative decision-maker. The e-mails Cause of Action obtained from the EPA reveal that agency employees asked the White House Counsel’s Office if they “concur” on the release. One subject line read: “WHO documents to classify for FOIA response,” which suggests that the White House Counsel’s Office would take part in redacting or withholding documents.

The White House review process predictably delays the agency’s ability to timely respond to FOIA requests.  Cause of Action obtained first-hand evidence of this from GSA’s processing notes pertaining to one of our FOIA requests.  These notes indicate that the GSA Office of General Counsel was confused as to why it received the request so late.  Specifically, Senior Assistant General Counsel Seth Greenfeld asked General Counsel Kris Durmer why his office was receiving the request fifteen days after the agency received it, commenting that “our response time is ticking.” Durmer replied: “WH Counsel Justin Florence (202) [redacted].”

GSA Email

Delays caused by White House review often extend well beyond fifteen days.  For example, DOI’s Inspector General found a series of six-year-old FOIA requests from a Los Angeles Times reporter that had been held up in White House review for two years.  The requests dealt with “communications between the White House and high-ranking Interior officials on various politically sensitive topics.”  Despite a clear timeline of political meddling, but citing a lack of definitive proof, the IG concluded that “the considerable delays involved could [only] indicate political appointee involvement.” (emphasis added)

Because 5 U.S.C. § 552 legally mandates that agencies “promptly” produce documents, FOIA officers are not inclined to inform FOIA requesters that a request has been sent to languish at the White House.  Occasionally, however, this is not the case, as with a request to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by CJ Ciaramella at the Washington Free Beacon, which spent 62 business days in White House review.  Ciaramella reported:

“Your request was completed and ready to go in October, but it had White House materials,” an HHS FOIA specialist said over the phone in November when asked for an update.  “It’s been sent up to them for review.”  More than three months later, the Free Beacon received 200 pages of e-mails, nearly every one redacted.

In 2013, Cause of Action sent 20 FOIA requests to various agencies regarding the review of agency records by the Office of White House Counsel. As of March 1, 2014, only 4 agencies have produced documents with a median response time of 57 days.

According to documents from GSA, DOI, and EPA, at least 18 FOIA or other document requests were sent to the White House for review between 2012 and 2013. USDA’s response to our request was so heavily redacted that even e-mail subject lines were blacked out; there was no way to tell how many or which FOIA requests were sent for White House review.

Cause of Action is still waiting for documents from 16 federal agencies, with the Department of Treasury having the longest pending request of 202 business days. The Department of Energy is a close second at 169 business days. The requests to the Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services have been pending for 138 business days.

Response TimeAgencies
Within 20 days
0
21-30 days
1
After 30 days
3
Not fulfilled after 73 days
16

AgencyRequest DateFinal ResponseResponse Time*Documents
NARA11/26/2013
12/9/20138No responsive docs
NASA11/26/2013
12/24/201319No responsive docs
SBA11/26/2013
2/21/2014 58No responsive docs
GSA11/26/2013
1/9/2014
30PDF
Education8/9/2013
9/3/201316
EPA7/2/2013
9/30/2013
62PDF
DOI**8/9/2013
11/8/2013
53PDF
USDA11/26/2013
2/27/2014
62PDF
DOL11/26/2013
6/27/2014147
Commerce11/26/2013
7/25/2014166PDF
Energy**6/26/2013
10/27/2014335
DHS11/26/2013
Response Pending238
DOJ11/26/2013
Response Pending238
DOT11/26/2013
Response Pending238
HUD11/26/2013
Response Pending238
State11/26/2013
Response Pending238
VA11/26/2013
Response Pending238
DOD**8/9/2013
Response Pending312
HHS**8/9/2013
Response Pending312
Treasury (IRS)**5/29/2013
Response Pending363

*As of April 11, 2014

** Government shutdown ran October 1 through October 16, 2013 (10 business days) which is subtracted from pending days.

Requests that Received White House Review 2012-2013:

Based upon the four FOIA productions that we have received thus far, these are the eighteen identifiable document requests were subjected to White House review from 2012-2013.

EPA

  1. Congressman Paul Broun, Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
  2. House Oversight and Government Reform, Majority Office
  3. James Goodwin, Center for Progressive Reform
  4. Unnamed requester for former EPA Administrator Jackson’s 2009-2010 schedule
  5. Jason Smathers, frequent requester at MuckRock.com
  6. Response to Issa/Vitter letter to EPA regarding FOIA practices at EPA
  7. Landmark Legal Foundation

DOI

  1. Connie Brooks, C.E. Brooks & Associates P.C.
  2. House Oversight and Government Reform, Majority Office
  3. Michael Kunzelman, The Associated Press
  4. Buster Johnson, Chairman of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors
  5. Earthjustice

GSA

  1. All FOIA requests related to GSA Las Vegas scandal
  2. Brad Heath, USA Today
  3. Scott MacFarlane, Cox Media
  4. Russ Ptacek, WUSA9
  5. Jennifer Peebles, Washington Examiner
  6. Kate Bailey, Judicial Watch

Why is “the most transparent administration in history” interfering in the FOIA process?

The Obama Administration cannot credibly claim to be transparent when it publicly issues memos about the presumption of openness in the FOIA process, but then instructs agencies in a non-public memo to forward records with “White House equities” to the White House for review.  Not only is the FOIA process significantly stalled by White House review—a fact that agencies zealously keep secret from requesters—but it permits the White House’s political interests to trump the correct application of the FOIA, a disclosure statute whose purpose is ensure an informed citizenry.

Federal agencies and the White House are failing to provide the promised transparency to the American people, but there are changes that would improve the process for FOIA requesters. First, White House review should be strictly limited to “White House-originated” records, as set forth in the 1993 DOJ guidance.  The Office of White House Counsel should not be able to review documents and requests just because they include politically sensitive information.

Second, agencies should be required to inform requesters in writing whenever records are forwarded to the White House for review. There is ample precedent for this notification. Guidance from DOJ’s Office of Information Policy suggests that “[w]hen providing updates to requesters on the status of their requests, [agencies should] include information concerning ongoing consultations.”  Further, agencies are required to notify requesters when they forward Exemption 4-related records to business submitters pursuant to Executive Order 12600.

Lastly, agencies should be required to identify in their annual FOIA reports the total number of requests involving White House review, including the median processing time. Again, there is precedent for this.  Currently, agencies are required to report the total number of consultations they receive from other agencies, including the number of consultations they processed and that remain pending.

 

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: