close X
01/4/2019

Cause of Action Institute Submits Comment Criticizing Proposed Revisions to Department of the Interior’s FOIA Regulations

Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) yesterday submitted a public comment to the Department of the Interior (DOI), criticizing the agency’s proposed revisions to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations.  DOI’s amendments, which were published in the Federal Register in the final days of 2018, have already received negative attention from media sources, which suggest that the changes are intended to frustrate public access to records.  The government, for its part, claims that the revisions are necessary to deal with the marked increase of requests during the Trump Administration and to promote efficiency in the administration of the DOI FOIA program.

CoA Institute’s comment covers a variety of topics, but three are worth highlighting.  First, DOI seeks to prohibit intra-agency forwarding of “misdirected” requests.  But this proposal runs afoul of clear statutory directives.  Under Section 552(a)(6)(A)(ii) of the FOIA, the twenty working-day time frame for responding to a request begins to run once a request is received by an “appropriate component,” that is, the agency office likely to maintain responsive records.  In computing those twenty days, an agency is permitted no more than ten days to redirect any requests that have been sent to the wrong bureau or component.  In other words, so long as the agency has received the request, it is already under an obligation to begin processing it.  This “routing requirement” was introduced by the OPEN Government Act of 2007, and it has been consistently interpreted by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Information Policy as prohibiting agencies from refusing to honor requests that have merely been sent to an incorrect office.

Beyond the legal deficiency in the elimination of intra-agency forwarding, it is not clear whether the change would even promote the efficiency goals envisioned by the rulemaking.  By refusing to forward misdirected requests, DOI may instead create an incentive for requesters to submit nearly-identical requests to multiple bureaus.  That could increase the FOIA backlog.  The elimination of intra-agency forwarding also would unfairly require requesters to identify the precise locations where the agency should conduct its search for responsive records.

Second, DOI wants to require requesters to describe the “discrete, identifiable agency activity, operation, or program” that their records requests concern.  Such ambiguous language imposes an unacceptable burden on requesters, who need only provide a “reasonable description” of the records they seek such that a knowledgeable professional within the agency could locate responsive material with reasonable effort.  DOI would similarly refuse to accept “broad requests,” despite the fact that OIP has advised agencies for over thirty years that “[t]he sheer size or burdensomeness of a FOIA request, in and of itself, does not entitle an agency to deny that request on the ground that it does not ‘reasonably describe’ records[.]”

Third, and finally, DOI proposes to change its regulatory definition of a “record” by deviating from the statutory text and importing language from the Privacy Act.  CoA Institute has diligently followed developments in how the government defines a “record” under the FOIA.  In October 2018, we filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, challenging guidance that would permit agencies to break a single record into multiple smaller records, redacting information that should otherwise be public and that would not meet allowable exemptions under the FOIA statute.  DOI’s proposed rule follows this troubling guidance, particularly in its use of the Privacy Act’s definition of a record as “any item, collection, or grouping of information.”

DOI’s proposed definition of a record also includes items that are “reasonable encompassed by [a] request.”  This phrase seems to contemplate a relationship between the definition of a record and an individual request.  Yet a requester may only seek the disclosure of pre-existing records.  To allow the definition of a record to vary depending on any particular request would move away from an objective standard and allow FOIA officers too much discretion in the processing of potentially responsive materials.

CoA Institute is hopeful that DOI will accept these constructive comments, and others, and make any necessary corrections before publishing its final rule.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [232.77 KB]

Media, Blog Learn More
12/21/2018

CoA Institute Discovers Curious DHS FOIA Notification Process for Employee Records

Earlier today, Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) received a misdirected email from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that apparently was intended to serve as a notification to an unidentified agency employee that certain personnel records were to be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The “awareness” email indicated that employee-related records were scheduled to be released in response to a FOIA request.  It also identified the name of the FOIA requester—a CoA Institute employee—and included an attached file containing the records at issue.  The email was issued “[i]n accordance with DHS Instruction 262-11-001,” which is publicly available on the DHS’s website and appears to have been first issued at the end of February 2018.

Under Instruction 262-11-001, the DHS is required to “inform current [agency] employees when their employment records . . . are about to be released under the FOIA.”  “Employment records” is defined broadly to include any “[p]ast and present personnel information,” and could include any record containing personal information (e.g., name, position title, salary rates, etc.).  Copies of records also are provided as a courtesy to the employee.

The DHS instruction does not attempt to broaden the scope of Exemption 6, and it recognizes that federal employees generally have no expectation of privacy in their personnel records.  More importantly, the policy prohibits employees from interjecting themselves into the FOIA process.  This sort of inappropriate involvement has occurred at DHS and other agencies in the past under the guise of “sensitive review,” particularly whenever politically sensitive records have been at issue.

Nevertheless, the DHS “awareness” policy still raises good government concerns.  As set forth in the sample notices appended to the instruction, agency employees are routinely provided copies of responsive records scheduled for release, as well as the names and institutional affiliations of the requesters who will be receiving those records.

To be sure, FOIA requesters typically have no expectation of privacy in their identities, and FOIA requests themselves are public records subject to disclosure.  There are some exceptions.  The D.C. Circuit recently accepted the Internal Revenue Service’s argument that requester names and affiliations could be withheld under Exemption 3, in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103.  Other agencies, which post FOIA logs online, only release tracking numbers or the subjects of requests.  In those cases, a formal FOIA request is required to obtain personally identifying information.

Regardless of whether the DHS policy is lawful, it is questionable as a matter of best practice.  Proactively sending records and requester information to agency employees could open the door to abuse and retaliation, particularly if an employee works in an influential position or if a requester is a member of the news media.  The broad definition of “employee record” also raises questions about the breadth of implementation.

Finally, there are issues of fairness and efficiency.  If an agency employee knows that his records are going to be released, is it fair to proactively disclose details about the requester immediately and without requiring the employee to file his own FOIA request and wait in line like anyone else?  The public often waits months for the information being given to employees as a matter of course, even though the agency admits that there are no cognizable employee privacy interests at stake.

More importantly, an agency-wide process of identifying employees whose equities are implicated in records and individually notifying them about the release of their personal details likely requires a significant investment of agency resources.  Would it not be more responsible to spend those resources on improving transparency to the public at large?  To reducing agency FOIA backlogs?  Notifying employees whenever their information is released to the public is likely only to contribute to a culture of secrecy and a further breakdown in the trust between the administrative state and the public.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

2018.02.20 DHS Instruction 262-11-001

2018.12.20 DHS Notification Email

Media, Blog Learn More
12/12/2018

Investigation Update: VA releases 2014 memo on “sensitive review,” but fails to conduct an adequate search for more recent FOIA guidance

  • In August 2018, a group of eight Democratic Senators, wrote to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to express alarm over the possible politicization of the agency’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) processes. Specifically, they were concerned about the involvement of political appointees in the FOIA decision-making process.
  •  Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) submitted a FOIA request to the VA seeking records about the agency’s “sensitive review” process, but the agency only disclosed a single document. After considering CoA Institute’s appeal, the VA Office of General Counsel ordered supplemental searches for additional records.
  • “Sensitive review” raises serious transparency concerns because the involvement of political appointees in FOIA administrative can lead to severe delays and, at worst, improper record redaction and incomplete disclosure.
  • Whenever politically sensitive or potentially embarrassing records are at issue, politicians and bureaucrats will have an incentive to enforce secrecy and non-disclosure.

Earlier this year, CoA Institute opened an investigation into the sensitive review process at the VA. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the public has long been aware of internal practices at the agency that could open the door to FOIA abuse. During the Bush Administration, the VA issued a directive concerning the processing of “high visibility” or “sensitive” requests that implicated potentially embarrassing or newsworthy records. The Obama White House subsequently updated that guidance in October 2013, when the VA instructed its departmental components to clear FOIA responses and productions through a centralized office. This clearance process imposed a “temporary requirement” for front office review and entailed a “sensitivity determination” leading to unnamed “specific procedures.”

Another record recently disclosed to CoA Institute illustrates how the VA again updated its sensitive review process in February 2014. According to the memorandum, the agency intended to continue its “long standing” procedure for notifying leadership of incoming FOIA requests that may be “substantial interest to the Office of the Secretary.” Exact guidance on the sorts of requests that would trigger such review, however, was still under development at the time. It is unknown how the notification process was implemented in the absence of that guidance.

To date, the VA has failed to disclose any further records about sensitive review. CoA Institute successfully appealed the Office of the Secretary’s final response, and the agency’s Office of General Counsel ordered additional searches on remand. A precise deadline for a supplemental response was not given, but we will provide updates as any additional records become available.

In light of its commitment to open government, CoA Institute has been a leader in examining cases of sensitive review at other agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration. We also have analyzed the practice at the Environmental Protection Agency on several occasions (here, here, and here). A recent press report concerning the EPA confirmed our warnings about the potential for delay when “sensitive” or politically charged records are targeted for special processing.

Regardless of which party or president controls the government, sensitive review poses a serious threat to government transparency. Alerting or involving political appointees in FOIA administration can lead to severe delays and, at its worst, contribute to intentionally inadequate searches, politicized document review, improper record redaction, and incomplete disclosure.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [68.44 KB]

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

____________________________________________________________

Media Contact: Matt Frendewey, matt.frendewey@causeofaction.org | 202-699-2018

Media, Blog Learn More
11/14/2018

CoA Institute opens government-wide investigation into agency implementation of the FOIA’s “foreseeable harm” standard

Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) launched an investigation last week into the Administration’s implementation of the Freedom of Information Act’s (FOIA) “foreseeable harm” standard.  That provision, which was added to the statute with passage of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, is designed to ensure that federal agencies only withhold requested records when they “reasonably foresee” that disclosure would harm an interest protected by a statutory exemption.  This “foreseeable harm” standard builds upon the so-called “presumption of openness,” which was introduced on a discretionary basis by the Obama White House.

Among other things, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 amended the FOIA to codify the “foreseeable harm” standard and require agencies to go beyond mere formulaic justifications for redacting records. Congress thus raised the standard by which an agency must evaluate its withholdings.  It is no longer enough that an agency make a case for the technical application of an exemption; it must instead articulate precise reasons why specific records, or portions of records, could be reasonably foreseen to harm a cognizable interest.  The unambiguous language of the “foreseeable harm” standard manifests Congress’s intent to require something more of an agency when it defends its withholding.

CoA Institute’s latest investigative efforts are particularly necessary given the complete failure of the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy (OIP)—which is tasked with providing guidance to the rest of the Executive Branch on proper administration of the FOIA—to publish any government-wide directives on the proper interpretation and implementation of the “foreseeable harm” standard.  Moreover, individual agencies have failed to proactively disclose any policies they may have developed, and federal courts have been slow to grapple substantively with the import of the new standard.

Based on records obtained from prior FOIA productions or publicly available sources, CoA Institute has identified passing references to agency-specific guidance on the “foreseeable harm” standard at three agencies, including the (1) Environmental Protection Agency, (2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the (3) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The actual substance of such guidance remains undisclosed.  But the records requested by CoA Institute in a recent batch of twenty-five FOIA requests should provide helpful insight into the administration of the FOIA and the “foreseeable harm” standard at these three agencies and many others.

Government accountably is a core pillar of our constitutional democracy.  And because the FOIA process is an integral vehicle for maintaining transparency, it is essential that we understand how agencies are upholding their statutory obligations, or whether they are politicizing the FOIA process by keeping information secret and out of public hands. CoA Institute will continue to track and publicize the responses to its requests as they are received.

The following agencies are part of CoA Institute’s “foreseeable harm” standard investigation:

  1. Department of State
  2. Department of the Treasury
  3. Internal Revenue Service
  4. Department of Defense
  5. Department of Justice
  6. Department of the Interior
  7. Department of Agriculture
  8. Department of Commerce
  9. Department of Labor
  10. Department of Health & Human Services
  11. Department of Transportation
  12. Department of Energy
  13. Department of Education
  14. Department of Veterans Affairs
  15. Department of Homeland Security
  16. White House Office of Management and Budget
  17. General Services Administration
  18. Small Business Administration
  19. Office of Personnel Management
  20. Council of Inspectors General on Integrity & Efficiency
  21. Federal Trade Commission
  22. Amtrak
  23. Administrative Conference of the United States
  24. Environmental Protection Agency
  25. Presidio Trust

A copy of the FOIA request directed to the Department of Defense, which is substantially similar to all the other requests, can be seen below:

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [211.26 KB]

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Blog, Media Learn More
11/13/2018

HUD Emails Reveal Significant Agency Confusion Regarding 2013/2014 Multi-Billion Dollar Mortgage Settlements

More than three years ago, Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information related to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) involvement in the 2013/2014 multibillion-dollar mortgage settlements between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Citigroup. The settlements, drafted by a number of government agencies including HUD, were intended to make the banks pay compensation for their alleged involvement in faulty residential mortgage securities practices that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.

The agreements included “consumer-relief provisions” that required or permitted banks to provide billions of dollars in “donations” to government-approved third parties in lieu of paying funds to the U.S. Treasury. CoA Institute was suspicious of how this money would be given out, and we suspected favored special interest groups from the Obama-era were lobbying high-level HUD officials and seeking hand-outs. In 2016, CoA Institute filed a complaint after HUD failed to produce records responsive to our 2015 FOIA request, and in late 2016, the agency began producing responsive documents. As CoA Institute explained in a 2017 blog post, many of the early communications produced show evidence of the behavior we’re most concerned with. However, the most recent productions reveal an additional troublesome fact – there was a significant amount of uncertainty among influential HUD officials regarding the details of the agreements that led to HUD employees scrambling to answer settlement-related questions posed by popular media outlets.

The following screenshots are excerpts of internal HUD email communications regarding an inquiry from Fox News in 2015, about a year after the settlements were finalized. A Fox News reporter questioned whether La Raza and NeighborWorks America, both intermediaries[1], were “HUD-approved” and eligible to receive funding under the terms set forth in the settlements. Despite being responsible for providing the list of eligible beneficiaries for consumer-relief donations, HUD officials reveal in these communications a significant amount of uncertainty, confusion, and disagreement regarding what organizations are eligible to receive such donations. Specifically, they struggled to determine whether intermediaries and housing counseling agencies or solely housing counseling agencies were entitled to receive the funding. The screenshots included below are only pieces of the full email thread that continued for many pages as HUD personnel went back and forth with each other in an attempt to find answers.

Most of the individuals included in these emails were not only senior HUD officials at the time of the correspondence, but they were also in similar, if not the same, positions at the time the settlements were drafted. Those individuals included: Michelle Aronowitz was the Deputy General Counsel for Enforcement and Fair Housing from October 2009 until January 2017; from about 2009 until 2017, Jacob Press was a legal counsel and worked in HUD’s congressional relations office; Edward Golding was a senior advisor until April 2015 when he became the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing; Sarah Gerecke remains the Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Office of Housing Counseling, the same role she had when the settlements were drafted.

The confusion illustrated in these communications raises a number of questions, including why didn’t these prominent HUD officials know which types of organizations (e.g., intermediaries, housing counseling agencies, etc.) were eligible to receive funding? And, why did it take so long to determine which organizations were considered “HUD-approved housing counseling agencies”? These are questions that should have been resolved in 2013 when the settlements were being drafted rather than a year after they were finalized. This confusion further illustrates the disturbing nature of these agreements, which benefited a substantial number of third-party organizations at the expense of those harmed.

A complete copy of the most recent HUD production that contained these emails can be viewed here and here.

[1] HUD-Approved Intermediaries provide supportive housing counseling services through a network of affiliates or branches. Services include training, pass-through funding, technical assistance, and overseeing their networks to ensure services are satisfactory. In contrast, HUD-Approved Housing Counseling Agencies directly provide advice on buying a home, renting, defaults, foreclosures, and credit issues.

Libby Rudolf is a litigation support analyst at Cause of Action Institute.

 

Media, Blog Learn More
10/23/2018

CoA Institute Files Brief in Support of Effort to Make Georgia Legislature Comply with Open Records Act

Files 50-state survey with Georgia Appeals Court

Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) filed an amicus brief today in support of a lawsuit requiring Georgia’s legislature to comply with the state’s open records act. The brief includes a 50-state survey on whether other state legislatures are subject to open records laws. The results of the survey show that 38 states provide the public with access to legislative records, while only a small minority, 11 states, exclude their legislatures from public-disclosure laws. Of those that exclude their legislature, eight states do so in express statutory terms.

The brief is in support of a lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ) after they sent a series of public records requests to offices of the Georgia legislature seeking access to information about the state’s licensure requirement for music therapists. Yes, you read that correctly, licensure requirements for music therapists. The legislature claimed it was categorically exempt from Georgia’s open records law, and the superior court agreed. The case is now before the Georgia Court of Appeals.

CoA Institute’s survey reveals three important trends that should inform the Court’s decision:

  • When a state’s open records law does not cover the legislature, it’s usually explicitly statutorily exempt. Georgia law does not explicitly exempt the legislature;
  • In the absence of an express exclusion, broad terms are commonly interpreted to include the legislature, either in whole or in part; and
  • When there is any remaining ambiguity, the presence of statutory exemptions concerning specific legislative offices or records implies that the legislature must be covered; Georgia has these exemptions.

When IJ filed its requests, and the court below issued its order, the Georgia Open Records Act included two exemptions for legislative records. The first of these provisions exempted records from a series of legislative offices: the Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Office, the Senate Research Office, and the House Budget and Research Office. The second provision, which is still in force, exempts certain records from the Office of Legislative Counsel. These offices are all contained within the legislative branch. Neither exemption would make any sense if the General Assembly were not, by default, covered by the Open Records Act.

To accept Georgia’s position, as adopted by the court, would render the Act’s explicit, narrow exemptions mere surplusage, violating a core canon of statutory construction. Therefore, the Court of Appeals should recognize that the presence of the exemptions for certain legislative offices as means that the broader legislature must be covered. This interpretation would conform Georgia’s approach to the broad trends that Cause of Action Institute identified in the 50-state survey.

The full amicus brief is available here.

James Valvo is Counsel & Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute. You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

Media, Blog Learn More
10/18/2018

Cause of Action Institute Files Lawsuit Against Commerce Department for Failing to Release Tariff Exemption Material & Information

Washington, D.C. (Oct. 18, 2018) – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute), a government watchdog organization, today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Commerce for failing to turn over public documents related to trade tariffs and tariff exemptions. CoA Institute first launched the investigation into the tariff exemption process after it was reported that some of the largest steel and aluminum manufacturers in the country had successfully blocked every tariff exemption filed by smaller U.S manufacturing companies.

John Vecchione, president and CEO of CoA Institute, issued the following statement:

“Tariffs manipulate the free market by creating government-controlled barriers that harm hardworking Americans and putting the economic health of our country at risk. We now have a system where the Executive Branch has the power to pick winners and losers. Our investigation seeks to uncover the process by which tariff exemptions are approved and denied, ensure the tariff-exemption exclusion process is free of political and corporate influence, and seek to uncover any communication between government officials and the companies successfully blocking tariff exemptions.”

Background and timeline:

Attachments:

  • Complaint – Cause of Action Institute v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 18-2397. Tariff Exemptions
  • FOIA #1 – Request for work calendars of staff and leadership at the U.S. Department of Commerce that may create or influence tariff and tariff exemption policy
  • FOIA #2 – Employee records relating to tariff exemption process, guidance and employees involved in the decision-making process
  • FOIA #3 – Any and all communication between staff and leadership at the U.S. Department of Commerce and companies benefiting from tariffs and those filing tariff exemptions

See also:

About Cause of Action Institute

Cause of Action Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit working to enhance individual and economic liberty by limiting the power of the administrative state to make decisions that are contrary to freedom and prosperity by advocating for a transparent and accountable government.

Media Contact:
Matt Frendewey
matt.frendewey@causeofaction.org
202-699-2018

Media, Press Release Learn More