close X
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.

Media, Blog Learn More
08/16/2018

Department of Veterans Affairs Discloses 2014 Guidance on Intra-Agency Consultations for FOIA Requests of “Substantial Interest” to Agency Leadership

The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) has released a February 2014 memorandum reiterating the need for “consultations” on certain Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests, including those of “substantial interest” to the agency’s political leadership.  Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) obtained the record after submitting a disclosure request in the wake of Senate Democrats expressing concern over possible politicization of VA FOIA processes.

The memorandum, which is addressed to “Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and Other Key Officials,” indicates that VA regulations require intra-agency consultation or referral whenever incoming FOIA requests implicate records that originate with another component or prove to contain “information” of “substantial interest” to another VA office.  While “referral” entails the effective transfer of responsibility for responding to a request, “consultation” refers to discussing the release of particular records.

Consultation within an agency or with other entities can be a positive practice that ensures records are processed in accordance with the law.  Indeed, in some cases, “consultation” is required.  Executive Order 12600, for example, requires an agency to contact a company whenever a requester seeks confidential commercial information potentially exempt under Exemption 4.  Yet consultations occur in less-easily defined situations, too.

The FOIA only mentions “consultation” in the context of defining the “unusual circumstances” that permit an agency to extend its response deadline by ten working days.

[“Unusual circumstances” include] the need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.

Unfortunately, the phrase “substantial interest” is not itself defined.  This is where problems begin.  The Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) guidance on consultation suggests that a “substantial interest” only exists when records either “originate[] with another agency” or contain “information that is of interest to another agency or component.”  The DOJ’s FOIA regulations, and the Office of Information Policy’s model FOIA regulation, while not dispositive, do provide a little more context.  They suggest “consultation” should be limited to cases when another agency (or agency component) originated a record or is “better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure.”

CoA Institute has long sought clarification on the exact nature of a “substantial interest.”  In November 2014, we submitted a public comment to the Department of Defense (“DOD”) arguing that consultation should be restricted to situations where another entity has created a responsive record or is “better positioned to judge the proper application of the FOIA exemptions, given the circumstances of the request or its familiarity with the facts necessary to judge the proper withholding of exempt material.”  Although our proposed definition was admittedly non-ideal—DOD did not accept that portion of our comment—it hinted at the troubling abuse, politicization, and unjustifiable delay that can occur with consultation.

The best example of such abuse and politicization is found with “White House equities” review, which is carried-out as a form of “consultation.”  As CoA Institute has repeatedly documented, however, this form of “consultation” extends far beyond “White House-originated” records or records containing information privileged by White House-controlled privileges.  Instead, pre-production White House review has been extended to almost anything that is potentially embarrassing or politically damaging to the President.  In May 2016, CoA Institute sued eleven agencies and the Office of the White House Counsel in an effort to enjoin the Obama Administration from continuing “White House equities” review, but that lawsuit was dismissed.  It is unclear to what extent President Trump has continued the practice, although at least one other oversight group has uncovered evidence of recent White House review of politically sensitive records from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

As for the VA, the recently disclosed memorandum is silent about the precise meaning of a “substantial interest.”  But, at least for the “substantial interest” of the agency’s political leadership, the memorandum indicated that “[f]ollow-up guidance will be forthcoming.”

This is especially troubling.  Last week, I discussed how DOD failed to address Inspector General recommendations concerning the agency’s so-called “situational awareness” process for notifying political leadership about “significant” FOIA requests that may “generate media interest” or be of “potential interest” to DOD leadership.  I noted that agencies hide behind technical phrases—like “substantial interest” or “situational awareness”—while allowing non-career officials to inappropriately interfere with FOIA processes.  This could be what is happening with the VA.  Why is special “guidance” needed to identify the “substantial interest” that the VA Secretary may have in a specific request?  Does this not hint of the same sort of inappropriate “sensitive” review implemented at countless other agencies?

CoA Institute has appealed the VA Office of the Secretary’s response.  The 2014 memorandum was the only record produced in response to our FOIA request.  The “follow-up guidance” should also have been located and disclosed.  It must be made public.  Other VA offices are still processing portions of our request; the Office of Inspector General, for its part, was unable to locate records about recent investigations into FOIA politicization.  As further information becomes available, we will post additional updates.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
08/9/2018

CoA Institute President and CEO John Vecchione Discusses CoA’s Two Lawsuits Against the DOJ

 

Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) President and CEO John Vecchione appeared on the Daily Ledger to discuss CoA’s two lawsuits against the DOJ for failing to comply with numerous FOIA requests.

The interview comes after CoA Institute filed two complaints against the DOJ in six days for failing to respond to Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests. CoA’s first suit was a result of DOJ’s failure to respond to three requests in regards to the use of a personal email by  former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki, and DOJ’s Director of Public Affairs Sarah Isgur Flores.

CoA’s second law suit, filed on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation, comes after the FBI failed to respond to a FOIA requesting communication records and work product relating to  Daniel Richman, a “Special Government Employee” (SGE) hired by former FBI Director James Comey. Richman gained notoriety when James Comey admitted to using Richman to leak memos to the media.

 

 

Media, Blog Learn More
08/8/2018

DoD Watchdog Details Agency’s Failure to Address FOIA Shortcomings

The Inspector General (“IG”) for the Department of Defense (“DOD”) recently published its annual compendium of unimplemented recommendations given to various DOD components and military departments in past investigations, audits, and inspections.  The list of unresolved matters is rather lengthy—some issues are more serious, others less so.  Relevant here, the watchdog highlighted two outstanding recommendations concerning the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and, more specifically, the formalization and publication of Pentagon guidance on “sensitive review.”

Both of these FOIA-related recommendations originate with an August 16, 2016 IG report that was prepared at the request of Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (“HSGAC”).  Senator Johnson initiated an investigation in 2015 into interference by political appointees within the Obama Administration in agency FOIA processes.  Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) actively followed the HSGAC inquiry and sued one agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, for refusing to release its response to the Committee.

“Sensitive review” refers to the practice of giving certain FOIA requests extra scrutiny, usually because the records sought are potentially newsworthy or politically embarrassing.  In its most benign form, sensitive review involves notifying an agency’s public affairs team, communications specialists, or political leadership of incoming requests and outgoing productions.  At its worst, it entails the active involvement of non-career officials in processing and redacting records, which results in significant delays and sometimes completely prevents the disclosure of records that the public has a right to access.

Sensitive review has been increasingly in the news.  A week ago, I described CoA Institute’s new investigation into politicized FOIA at the Department of Veterans Affairs, following allegations raised by Democrats on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.  Last month, I explained how an official from the Environmental Protection Agency told Ranking Member Elijah Cummings at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the Trump White House had supposedly added an “extra lawyer of review” for “politically charged” or “complex requests.”  And, earlier this year, I revealed records exposing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration for heightening sensitive review by, among other things, targeting attorney and media requesters.

Although recent news reports suggest that “sensitive review” is a novel practice, that is not so.  Intra-agency FOIA politicization, and related practices such as “White House equities” review, did not originate with the Trump White House, but date to the Obama Administration and beyond.  Indeed, as I have explained here and here, the Obama White House was particularly notorious for its efforts to delay and block disclosure of politically damaging or otherwise newsworthy records.  President Trump is taking advantage of President Obama’s legacy of secrecy.

All this is confirmed by the case of the DOD.  In its 2016 report, the IG explained that it had failed to identify any instances of “noncareer officials” either “adversely affecting” or “unduly influencing” the agency’s FOIA process.  But the watchdog’s cautious language and technical phrases failed to mask other troubling practices, including a special “situational awareness process” for “significant” requests.  DOD guidelines governing that process still have not been incorporated into the agency’s FOIA regulations, FOIA manual, or FOIA directive.  (The IG also faulted DOD for failing to update its regulations in light of the Open Government Act of 2007 and Executive Order 13392, but that was remedied with the finalization of new regulations in February 2018.)

CoA Institute has obtained copies of two versions of DOD’s “situational awareness” protocol (here and here), one of which dates to December 2012.  Both records similarly define “significant” requests—that is, requests deserving of special treatment—to include anything likely to “generate media interest” or be of “potential interest” to DOD leadership.  Requests implicating Members of Congress or President Obama, even during his time as a senator, also were included.

In addition to “situational” notification, component FOIA officers were expected to provide weekly updates on “significant” requests to the front office and delay any response or production of records until clearance was provided by departmental disclosure leadership.

This requirement was emphasized for “White House or Congressionally related” FOIA requests.

Although alerting or involving agency leadership, including political appointees, in FOIA administration does not violate the law per se—and may, in rare cases, be appropriate—there is never any assurance that the practice will not lead to severe delays of months and even years.  The danger for politicization is evident.  “Notification” and “situational awareness” can too easily lead to political leadership controlling the disclosure of public records.  That result cannot be tolerated.

Although DOD has yet to incorporate its sensitive review protocol into formal and publicly available guidance, it is also unknown whether the policy has changed or been enhanced in any way in recent years.  Considering the unresolved IG recommendations, CoA Institute has submitted a FOIA request to DOD seeking further information.  We will continue to report on the matter as records become available.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute



2018 08 08 Final and Approved DOD Sensitive Review FOIA Request (Text)

Media, Blog Learn More
08/7/2018

Cause of Action Institute Files Suit Against DOJ for Emails Relating to Daniel Richman: Second lawsuit in six days against DOJ for failing to comply with FOIA

WASHINGTON, D.C. – August 7, 2018 – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”), on behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation (“DCNF”), filed a complaint against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) seeking access to all communication records relating to Daniel Richman, a “Special Government Employee” (SGE) hired by former FBI Director James Comey. Richman gained notoriety when James Comey admitted to using Richman to leak memos to the media.

John J. Vecchione, president and CEO of Cause of Action Institute issued the following statement:

“For the second time in less than a week, we are compelled to sue DOJ, in this case on behalf of our client, the Daily Caller News Foundation, for failing to follow the law and release emails relating to former FBI Director James Comey and other high ranking and controversial DOJ employees. These are matters of high public concern. This is an unacceptable pattern of behavior and we will not back down in our pursuit of government transparency and accountability.”

In April 2018, DCNF filed a Freedom of Information request (FOIA) requesting “…all communications between the bureau and Mr. Richman concerning his SGE work assignments, all intra-bureau communications about Mr. Richman and his assignments and activities, as well as all work product delivered to Director Comey or to others within the bureau … additionally all of Mr. Richman’s work product whose messages were conveyed to the public in FBI comments, speeches and printed material.”

The FBI confirmed receipt of the FOIA and granted DCNF a media waiver concerning fees. However, since May 7, the FBI has refused to produce the documents or provide an update on the status of the FOIA.

Mr. Richman played a significant role in a contentious matter of government accountability and the records pertain to both the conduct and communications between two high-profile and controversial government officials. Consistent transparency and the subsequent production of these records by the FBI are imperative to maintaining the trustworthiness and integrity of the government.

The full complaint can be viewed below.

Last week CoA Institute filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice due to their failure to release Comey’s personal emails that were used in his official capacity.

About Cause of Action Institute

Cause of Action Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, dedicated to providing government oversight, transparency and advocating for economic freedom and individual opportunity advanced by honest, accountable, and limited government.

Media Contact:

Matt Frendewey
matt.frendewey@causeofaction.org
202-499-4231

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [160.61 KB]

Media, Press Release Learn More
08/1/2018

Democratic Senators Seek Records about “Sensitive Review” from VA, Ask Inspector General to Open Investigation into FOIA Politicization

Last week, a group of eight Democratic Senators, led by Ranking Member Jon Tester of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, wrote to the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) to express concern over the possible politicization of the agency’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) processes.  The senators requested various records concerning the involvement of political appointees in the FOIA decision-making process, as well as other “sensitive review”-type policies.  They also wrote to the VA’s Inspector General to request an investigation into these allegations.  Among other things, the legislators sought “an assessment of the role that political appointees play in the FOIA process, what types of oversight exist to ensure employees are providing all responsive material, and who makes determinations about what is or is not responsive to a request[.]”

Sensitive FOIA review has been increasingly in the news.  The most recent reports have focused on the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).  According to EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson, the Trump Administration has added an “extra layer of review” for “politically charged” or “complex requests.”  Other officials claim that “sensitive review,” and similar practices such as “White House equities” review, actually originated with the Obama White House.  This latter claim is better supported by the historical record, as I (here and here) and others (here) have repeatedly argued.  The Obama Administration was notorious for its efforts to delay and block the disclosure of politically damaging or otherwise newsworthy records.  This is not to say the Trump Administration is innocent—it has likewise contributed to obfuscation and an overall erosion of transparency.  My posts earlier this year on sensitive review at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration demonstrate as much.

In the case of the VA, the agency’s watchdog previously argued, in 2010 and 2015, that there has not been regular inference by political appointees in the FOIA process.  But the public has long known of internal practices at the VA that likely contribute to politicization.  In August 2007, for example, the agency issued a directive concerning the processing of “high visibility” or “sensitive” FOIA requests that implicate potentially embarrassing or newsworthy records.

The potential for politicization only worsened during the Obama Administration.  An October 2013 memorandum instructed all Central Office components to clear FOIA responses and productions through Jim Horan, Director of the VA FOIA Service.  (Mr. Horan is still part of the leadership in the Office of Privacy and Records Management.)  This clearance process imposed a “temporary requirement” for front office review—although it is unknown whether the practice continues—and entailed a “sensitivity determination” leading to unnamed “specific procedures.”

Regardless of which party or president controls the government, sensitive review raises serious concerns.  Although alerting or involving political appointees in FOIA administration does not violate the law per se—and may, in rare cases, be appropriate—there is never any assurance that the practice will not lead to severe delays of months and even years.  At its worst, sensitive FOIA review leads to intentionally inadequate searches, politicized document review, improper record redaction, and incomplete disclosure.  When politically sensitive or potentially embarrassing records are at issue, politicians and bureaucrats will always have an incentive to err on the side of secrecy and non-disclosure.

Considering the new allegations of FOIA troubles at the VA, CoA Institute has submitted a FOIA request seeking further information about the agency’s sensitive review policy.  We will continue to report on the matter as information becomes available.

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




 

Blog, Media Learn More