close X
06/26/2018

GAO Report Highlights Agencies Failing to Implement the FOIA

A report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) provides alarming details about the dearth of agency efforts to fully implement the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  GAO previewed a draft of its report in March 2018 when its Director of Information Technology Management Issues, David Powner, testified at a hearing on FOIA compliance before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  At the time, GAO published a concurrent report on how federal courts regularly fail to refer cases to the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted in instances where officials have acted arbitrarily or capriciously in withholding records.  (Cause of Action Institute’s (“CoA Institute”) commentary on that issue can be found here.)  Yesterday’s report finalizes GAO’s findings and incorporates feedback from the eighteen agencies in the sample subject to the audit.

Many Agencies Have Failed to Update Regulations and Appoint Chief FOIA Officers

One aspect of GAO’s audit involved reviewing whether the eighteen agencies properly implemented various requirements introduced by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and the OPEN Government Act of 2007.  Those amendments to the FOIA require agencies, inter alia, to designate chief FOIA officers, publish timely and comprehensive regulations, and update response letters to indicate things such as an extended, 90-day appeal period.  GAO also evaluated what efforts were underway by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Information Policy to develop a government-wide FOIA portal.

The chart above, which is taken from the GAO report, encapsulates some of the unfortunate findings.  Even though it is a statutory requirement, five of the eighteen agencies have not designated a chief FOIA officer in line with applicable requirements (e.g., appointing a senior official at the Assistant Secretary or equivalent level).  Chief FOIA officers are responsible for monitoring agency-wide compliance with the FOIA, making recommendations for improving FOIA processing, assessing the need for regulatory revisions each year, and serving as a liaison with the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy, the Office of Government Information Services, and the Chief FOIA Officers Council.  It remains unclear why some agencies are reticent to comply with this aspect of the FOIA.

Another disturbing finding is that few agencies in the sample timely updated and published regulations to implement the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.  At least five agencies have deficient regulations—such as the Department of State—or have not bothered to issue a preliminary rulemaking—such as the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).  Agencies offered several reasons for why they have not complied with the law, with most citing a lengthy internal review process.  The State Department explained that it had just finished updating its regulations before passage of the FOIA Improvement Act.  The U.S. African Development Foundation, however, claimed that it did not even need “to disclose information regarding fees in their regulation” because it “has not charged a fee for unusual circumstances.”

OMB’s failure to satisfy GAO’s criteria for proper FOIA regulations is unsurprising and indicative of a general disregard for regulatory compliance with the FOIA at the agency.  For example, for the past few years, CoA Institute has carefully tracked whether agency FOIA regulations have been updated to include the current statutory definition of a “representative of the news media.”  Prior to the D.C. Circuit’s landmark 2015 decision in Cause of Action v. Federal Trade Commission, many agencies relied on OMB’s Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines to impose an “organized and operated” standard that deprived nascent media groups of preferential fee treatment.  The OMB Guidelines, which were written in 1987, have never been updated, despite requests from the FOIA Advisory Committee and the Archivist of the United States.  CoA Institute thus filed its own petition for rulemaking on the issue in June 2016, followed by a lawsuit last November after OMB failed to respond.

Agencies Have Made Little Progress on FOIA Backlogs

Another aspect of GAO’s audit involved examining whether the eighteen agencies had made any headway in reducing their FOIA request backlog, as well as cataloging the statutes used in conjunction with Exemption 3 to withhold records from the public.  GAO found that few agencies had managed to reduce their outstanding backlog.  One major reason for the lack of progress on reducing backlogs was the failure of most agencies to implement “comprehensive plans” laying any sort of strategy.  As for GAO’s catalogue of statues used to withhold information exempt as a matter of law, the most commonly cited provisions were 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f), which concerns records about the issuance or refusal of a visa, and 26 U.S.C. § 6103, which protects the confidentiality of tax returns and return information.

GAO’s audit is an important indication of how far many agencies must go to comply fully with the FOIA.  This is particularly true insofar as GAO’s findings can be generalized across the entire administrative state.  Congress, the transparency community, and the American public must exert even greater pressure on Executive Branch agencies to meet their obligations under the law and to improve their commitment to open government.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
06/22/2018

Department of Labor Denies FOIA Appeal After Nearly Four Years, and Unilaterally Narrows the Scope of the Request, Despite OGIS Intervention

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently denied CoA Institute’s long-pending Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) appeal concerning records of consultations between DOL and the Office of the White House Counsel (“OWHC”) on any documents containing “White House equities.”  CoA Institute filed its request on November 26, 2013 and its appeal on September 25, 2014.  After attempting to contact a responsible DOL official on over fifteen occasions, either through email or by voice message, CoA Institute finally asked the Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”) to intervene in October 2017.  Despite DOL’s promise to try to issue a determination this past March, its appeal decision only arrived last week—forty-five months after CoA Institute’s appeal was submitted and long past the applicable FOIA deadlines.

“White House equities” review and FOIA politicization

In March 2014, CoA Institute published a report revealing the existence of a non-public memorandum from then-White House Counsel Gregory Craig that directed department and agency general counsels to send to the White House for consultation all records involving “White House equities” when collected in response to any sort of document request.  This secret memo stood in stark contrast to President Obama’s January 2009 directive on transparency, as well as Attorney General Holder’s March 2009 FOIA memo.  Although originally praised as setting the bar for open government, the Washington Post eventually described the Obama Administration as one of the most secretive governments in American history.

As part of the system of politicized FOIA review established under the “White House equities” policy, whenever a requester sought access to records deemed politically sensitive, potentially embarrassing, or otherwise newsworthy, the agency processing the request would forward copies of those records to a White House attorney for pre-production review.  Not only did the entire process represent an abdication of agency responsibility for the administration of the FOIA, but it severely delayed agency compliance with the FOIA’s deadlines.  As we have previously suggested, “White House equities” review likely continues under the Trump Administration.

DOL’s deficient processing of CoA Institute’s FOIA request

In this case, CoA Institute’s request sought all records reflecting “White House equities” consultations.  DOL released fifty-seven (57) pages of records with various pieces of information withheld under Exemptions 5 and 6, mostly personally identifying information—such as the names of lower-level DOL employees—or substantive portions of the agency’s conversations with White House attorneys.  Interestingly, DOL never indicated which privileges it sought to apply with Exemption 5.  (CoA Institute argued against the application of the attorney-client, attorney work product, and deliberative process privileges in its appeal.)

Most egregiously, DOL unilaterally limited the scope of its search to include only records reflecting White House review of FOIA requests, rather than the wide range of record requests covered by the Craig Memo:

DOL based its narrowing on stray language in CoA Institute’s request for a public interest fee waiver.  But there is no authority to support an agency limiting the subject-matter scope of a FOIA request based on a fee waiver argument.  A fee waiver request should only impact a requester’s obligations to pay any applicable fees.

DOL’s incorrect appeal decision . . . overdue by over three-and-an-half years

DOL’s appeal determination is troubling.  The agency again chose to ignore the plain language of the Craig Memo, which was cited by CoA Institute and establishes the clear scope of “White House equities” review.  Once more, DOL relied on CoA Institute’s fee waiver request.  But that language simply cannot justify limiting a search to White House consultations on “FOIA requests.”  As some type of consolation, DOL suggested that CoA Institute submit a new request.

After admitting that it had applied the deliberative process privilege, DOL summarily upheld its use of Exemption 5, describing the White House’s pre-production clearance of agency records to be part of DOL’s deliberative processes.  DOL also refused to release the names of the lower-level employees who were involved in “White House equities” consultations, arguing that there was no public interest in the disclosure of their identities.

Concluding thoughts on OGIS and its lack of enforcement power

Congress created OGIS to help mediate disputes between requesters and agencies.  OGIS is meant to provide an alternative to litigation.  Yet OGIS lacks any sort of enforcement authority, and it can only intervene if an agency and the requester voluntarily submit to the mediation process.  Thus, even if OGIS “resolves” a dispute, it has no power to hold the parties to their agreement.  Agencies suffer no consequences for disregarding the outcome of OGIS mediation.  This is a tremendous flaw in how OGIS is designed.

As this email chain demonstrates, CoA Institute asked OGIS to intervene in October 2017; OGIS closed its case in February 2018, following DOL’s commitment to trying to finish its adjudication of CoA Institute’s appeal by March 26, 2018.  That date came and went.

This is not the first time OGIS mediation has proven ineffectual and an agency has refused to honor the promises it made as part of the dispute resolution process.  CoA Institute is currently litigating another FOIA suit against the Department of Treasury over records reflecting the “sensitive review” process, which subjects certain FOIA requesters—such as representatives of the news media—to extra scrutiny.  Treasury and CoA Institute agreed to a series of scheduled interim productions; Treasury missed every one of those deadlines, and it only began to release records once CoA Institute filed a lawsuit.  This is an unacceptable practice, and Congress should look to reform the OGIS process.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
06/21/2018

Federal District Court Excuses IRS’s Refusal to Search for Email Records Concerning White House Interference with the FOIA

Last week, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order denying Cause of Action Institute’s (“CoA Institute”) cross-motion for summary judgment in a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) brought against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  The opinion was long awaited—summary judgment briefing ended over a year-and-an-half ago.  Although we do not intend to appeal the decision, it is worth highlighting some issues with Judge Sullivan’s opinion and the IRS’s arguments.  The case is a fine example of how courts too frequently defer to agencies when it comes to policing their compliance with the FOIA.

Background: “White House equities” review and FOIA politicization

In March 2014, CoA Institute published a report revealing the existence of a non-public memorandum from then-White House Counsel Gregory Craig that directed department and agency general counsels to send to the White House for consultation all records involving “White House equities” when collected in response to any sort of document request.  This secret memo stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s January 2009 directive on transparency, as well as Attorney General Holder’s March 2009 FOIA memo.  Although originally praised as setting the bar for open government, the Washington Post eventually described the Obama Administration as one of the most secretive governments in American history.

As part of the system of politicized FOIA review established under the “White House equities” policy, whenever a requester sought access to records deemed politically sensitive, potentially embarrassing, or otherwise newsworthy, the agency processing the request would forward copies of those records to a White House attorney for pre-production review.  Not only did the entire process represent an abdication of agency responsibility for the administration of the FOIA, but it severely delayed agency compliance with the FOIA’s deadlines.  As we have previously suggested, “White House equities” review likely continues under the Trump Administration.

The specific FOIA request at issue in this case, which was submitted to the IRS in May 2013, sought records of communications between IRS officials and the White House reflecting “White House equities” consultations.  Similar requests were sent to eleven other agencies.  All those agencies produced the requested records; only the IRS failed to locate a single relevant document.  And the IRS only communicated its failure to find any responsive records two years after CoA Institute submitted its request and filed a lawsuit.

Why the IRS failed to conduct an adequate search for records

Our argument for the inadequacy of the IRS’s search for records reflecting “White House equities” consultations focused on several points, but two were especially important.  First, the IRS failed to search its own FOIA office—the most likely custodian of the records and issue.  Second, the IRS improperly refused to search for any responsive email correspondence within the Office of Disclosure.

The IRS inexplicably limited its search efforts to the Office of Legislative Affairs, a sub-component of the Office of Chief Counsel, and the Executive Secretariat Correspondence Office, which handles communications with the IRS Commissioner.  The agency offered no evidence that it sent search memoranda to its FOIA office, which is part of the “Privacy, Governmental Liaison, and Disclosure” or “PGLD.”  In fact, the IRS effectively admitted that it had foregone a search of the Office of Disclosure because a single senior employee testified that he did not believe any responsive records existed.  And because “White House equities” review was not mentioned in the Internal Revenue Manual, the FOIA officer assigned to CoA Institute’s request determined that consultations with the White House would never have taken place.

The IRS also refused to search individual email accounts within the Office of Disclosure because it would be too “burdensome.” Remarkably, the IRS claimed it would “take one IRS IT person at least 13 years” to capture the correspondence of all 165 employees within the Office of Disclosure.  Yet the IRS offered no explanation for why other reasonable options to search email did not exist, such as requiring individual employees to “self-search” email, conducting a preliminary sample search of individuals within the Office of Disclosure most likely to have responsive records, or making use of e-discovery tools like “Clearwell” and “Encase.”

The Court’s Flawed Opinion and Hyper-Deference to the IRS

One major flaw in the Court’s decision concerns its uncritical acceptance of a single IRS attorney’s belief about the existence of responsive records within the Office of Disclosure.  Although the IRS admittedly conducted a keyword search of its tracking system for incoming FOIA requests, it refused to send out search memoranda or engage in other typical search efforts.  The IRS instead relied on the declaration of John Davis, Deputy Associate Director of Disclosure, who claimed that he had never heard of “White House equities” and was unaware of White House consultations ever taking place.  On this basis alone, the IRS concluded it was “unreasonable” to conduct a more vigorous search.  The Court accepted this reliance without any real explanation when it should have given more consideration to the text of the Craig Memo, which was addressed to the entire Executive Branch—including the IRS—and the fact that the eleven co-defendants in the same case all produced responsive records—nearly all of which were email chains.

As for the search of individual email accounts, the Court yet again uncritically deferred to the IRS’s bizarre claim that it would take thirteen years to process CoA Institute’s FOIA request.

In deferring to the IRS, the Court failed to address the IRS’s practice of conducting email searches by manually inspecting the content of individual hard drives, a central reason why an email search would take so preposterously long.  This practice, which requires the IRS to warehouse a lot of old computer equipment, has been repeatedly criticized by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration because it could lead to violations of records management laws.

Additionally, some doubt exists, based on information independently received by CoA Institute from IRS employees, as to the accuracy of the IRS’s claims regarding its ability to conduct an agency- or component-wide search of its email system.  Because FOIA cases rarely make it to trial, it is nearly impossible to pin the IRS down on the accuracy of its claims.  Regardless, the IRS has certainly made a habit of regularly evading its disclosure obligations, a habit buttressed in this instance by an overly deferential judiciary.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Blog, Media Learn More
06/20/2018

CoA Institute Calls on General Services Administration to Revise Proposed FOIA Regulations

Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) submitted a comment today to the General Services Administration (“GSA”) concerning the agency’s proposed rule revising its Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) regulations.  CoA Institute explained that the planned changes could cause confusion by directing agency staff to interpret the FOIA statute and GSA’s implementing regulations in light of outdated fee guidelines published by the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

OMB published its Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines in 1987.  Although the FOIA requires an agency to promulgate its fee schedule in conformity with the OMB Guidelines, they are no longer authoritative because they conflict with the statutory text, as amended by Congress, and judicial authorities.  Over the past thirty years, OMB has made no effort to revise the Guidelines.  They should not be used as a reference point for the proper administration of the FOIA.

One problematic aspect of the OMB Guidelines is the definition of a “representative of the news media.”  The current statutory definition of this fee category, which was introduced by the OPEN Government Act of 2007, differs from the definition provided by OMB.  Indeed, the OMB definition, which incorporates an “organized and operated” standard, has long been one of the more contentious aspects of the OMB Guidelines.  In 2015, however, the D.C. Circuit issued a landmark decision in Cause of Action v. Federal Trade Commission clarifying that OMB’s definition had been superseded by Congress.

The OMB Guidelines also have been rendered obsolete by other jurisprudential developments.  For this reason, in 2016, the FOIA Advisory Committee and Archivist of the United States called on OMB to update its fee guidance.  CoA Institute filed a petition for rulemaking on the issue, too.  Last November, we filed a lawsuit to compel the agency to provide a response to that petition.  Our lawsuit is still pending.  Until the OMB Guidelines have been revised to reflect modern circumstances and the actual text of the FOIA, no agency should direct its staff to consult them in any way as an authoritative guide to interpreting the law.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
06/14/2018

CoA Institute Responds to Opinion in FOIA Case Against IRS

On Tuesday, June 12, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion in CoA Institute’s long-standing FOIA suit against the IRS for failing to produce records regarding possible White House intrusion in to the agency’s FOIA practices. The opinion can be found here.

 

Media, Blog Learn More
06/11/2018

CoA Institute Calls on Department of Agriculture to Revise Problematic FOIA Rule

Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) submitted a comment today to the Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) concerning the agency’s publication of a deficient rule that proposes revisions to the agency’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) regulations.  CoA Institute explained that USDA’s FOIA rule fails to provide a definition of a “representative of the news media” that conforms with statutory and judicial authorities.  The proposed regulations also could cause confusion by directing agency staff to consult outdated fee guidance published by the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

News Media Fee Category

USDA’s proposed regulations improperly retain the so-called “organized and operated” standard in the definition of a “representative of the news media.”  This is an important deficiency because the “organized and operated” standard has been used in the past to deny news media requester status to nascent media groups and government watchdog organizations like CoA Institute.  Indeed, CoA Institute took another agency—the Federal Trade Commission—to court, and argued its case all to the way to the D.C. Circuit, just to get the agency to acknowledge that its similar retention of the “organized and operated” standard was unlawful and led to improperly denying CoA Institute a fee reduction.  The D.C. Circuit eventually issued a landmark decision in CoA Institute’s favor to clarify proper fee category definitions and their application in FOIA cases.

Congress amended the FOIA to provide a straightforward and comprehensive definition of a “representative of the news media.”  USDA—and all other agencies—should not attempt to modify that definition or introduce additional hurdles for news media requesters.

OMB Fee Guidelines

USDA’s FOIA rule also proposes to retain references to the OMB’s 1987 FOIA fee guidelines, which are the genesis of the “organized and operated” standard.  Specifically, USDA would like its disclosure officials to estimate fees in accordance with the OMB fee guidelines.  But those guidelines are outdated and unreliable.  Over the past thirty years, Congress has amended the FOIA on numerous occasions, courts have developed overriding FOIA jurisprudence, and technology has evolved in significant ways.  Yet OMB has made no effort to revisit its fee guidance.  That guidance should not be used as a reference point for the proper administration of the FOIA.

In 2016, the FOIA Advisory Committee and the Archivist of the United States called on OMB to update the fee guidelines.  CoA Institute even filed a petition for rulemaking on this issue.  Last November, we filed a lawsuit to compel the agency to provide a response to that petition.  Until OMB acts to revise its fee guidelines, USDA should not direct its staff to consult them in any way as authoritative.

Other Agencies Have Followed CoA Institute’s Advice

CoA Institute has succeeded in convincing a number of other agencies to abandon the OMB’s “organized and operated” standard in favor of a proper definition of “representative of the news media” in line with the FOIA statute and controlling case law.  Those agencies include, among others, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Special Counsel, Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Department of Homeland Security.  We hope that USDA similarly will revisit its FOIA rule and eliminate the “organized and operated” standard in lieu of a proper definition of a news media requester.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
05/31/2018

What Happens When Government Emails are Allegedly “Fatally Lost”?

President Trump’s phone and email behavior are coming under scrutiny for security reasons, but regardless of the device used, the type of email account being used could be a bigger concern.  Did you know that a government official’s use of private email to conduct government business is wrong?  If the Hillary Clinton email scandal didn’t showcase that, consider one of our recent and ongoing investigations into former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s work-related email records, which were hosted on a personal AOL account.

In September 2016, the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee held a hearing at which then-Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy testified that the State Department had undertaken minimal efforts to retrieve Powell’s work-related email.  In October 2016, Cause of Action Institute sought access to Secretary Powell’s work-related emails under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  At the same time, we advised the Secretary of State and the Archivist of the United States of their obligations under the Federal Records Act (“FRA”) to recover those same email records.  Once it became apparent that the State Department would not respond to our FOIA request, and the obligation to initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of Secretary Powell’s work-related email would not be met, we filed suit in federal district court.  In January 2018, when the court denied the government’s first motion to dismiss, it described the State Department’s efforts at recovery as “anemic.”  As we’ve noted, U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden explained that “[t]he Defendants’ refusal to turn to the law enforcement authority of the Attorney General is particularly striking in the context of a statute with explicitly mandatory language.”  “[T]here is a substantial likelihood that [CoA Institute’s] requested relief would yield access to at least some of the emails at issue.”

After being repeatedly asked by the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) to contact AOL directly for Powell’s emails, the State Department never did so until CoA Institute filed its lawsuit.  But the State Department continues to use the line that the emails have been “fatally lost” and that our lawsuit should therefore be dismissed.  The Defendants argue that, even if they cannot prove fatal loss or completely recover unlawfully removed records, their obligation to initiate action through the Attorney General (and thus marshal the law enforcement authority of the federal government) can be excused if they have no “reason to believe” records are recoverable.

We’re currently pushing back on that argument, as it rests on a fundamental misapprehension of the FRA.  We have asked the court to order the Secretary of State and the U.S. Archivist to initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of Powell’s email, as required by law.  This would entail enlisting the law enforcement authority of the federal government to investigate the possibility of forensically recovering the records at issue, among other things.  Such techniques have been successful in previous cases of unlawfully removed federal records, as evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and the FBI’s recovery of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s text messages.

The problem with the Defendants’ position is that it ignores the clear text of the FRA and thirty years of precedent, which recognizes a non-discretionary obligation for an agency head to go to the Attorney General whenever its own recovery efforts have failed.  In this last line of their closing brief, the Defendants sum up their argument: “We recognize that the Court has previously rejected the contention that the FRA requires referral only when an agency has reason to believe that records can be recovered but respectfully reserve the right to seek further review should the Solicitor General determine that such review is warranted.”

This case illustrates how careless the federal government can be with the protection of government work – the use of a personal account and the subsequent years-long legal battle to recover Secretary Powell’s work-related emails are a failure of our government to follow both the FRA and the FOIA.  Secretary Powell should never have used a personal email account, and the State Department should have acted quicker to recover and preserve vital records of government business that were stored on a third-party commercial server.  If it is this difficult to recover materials that ultimately belong to the American people, the work of the government becomes more and more opaque and the gap between the American people’s knowledge and the federal government’s behavior only widens.

Mary Beth Gombita, Cause of Action Institute.

Blog, Media Learn More