Tweet
Busted: White House Targets FOIA Document Requesters; Quietly Amended Rules
Birther Report
3/18/2014
Excerpt:
Grading the Government: How the White House Targets Document Requesters
Cause of Action
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
An instructive example of how “White House equities” is construed – and ultimately abused – is the White House’s review of FOIA requests concerning the well-publicized conference spending scandal at the General Services Administration (GSA) E-mails between GSA and the White House Counsel’s Office show that the Administration affirmatively sought to review document requests related to politically-sensitive issues. [...]
FULL REPORT .... : http://causeofaction.org/assets/uplo...ject-FINAL.pdf
ALSO ...: http://causeofaction.org/grading-gov...ent-requesters
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/03...gets-foia.html
Birther Report
3/18/2014
Excerpt:
Grading the Government: How the White House Targets Document Requesters
Cause of Action
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.
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—-
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.
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.
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.
An instructive example of how “White House equities” is construed – and ultimately abused – is the White House’s review of FOIA requests concerning the well-publicized conference spending scandal at the General Services Administration (GSA) E-mails between GSA and the White House Counsel’s Office show that the Administration affirmatively sought to review document requests related to politically-sensitive issues. [...]
FULL REPORT .... : http://causeofaction.org/assets/uplo...ject-FINAL.pdf
ALSO ...: http://causeofaction.org/grading-gov...ent-requesters
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/03...gets-foia.html