Jump to content
karira

White House office to delete its FOIA regulations

Recommended Posts

karira

[h=1]White House office to delete its FOIA regulations[/h]

WASHINGTON — The White House is removing a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, making official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office.

 

 

The White House said the cleanup of FOIA regulations is consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law. The office handles, among other things, White House record-keeping duties like the archiving of e-mails.

 

 

But the timing of the move raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, coming on National Freedom of Information Day and during a national debate over the preservation of Obama administration records. It's also Sunshine Week, an effort by news organizations and watchdog groups to highlight issues of government transparency.

 

 

"The irony of this being Sunshine Week is not lost on me," said Anne Weismann of the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.

 

 

"It is completely out of step with the president's supposed commitment to transparency," she said. "That is a critical office, especially if you want to know, for example, how the White House is dealing with e-mail."

 

Unlike other offices within the White House, which were always exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, the Office of Administration responded to FOIA requests for 30 years. Until the Obama administration, watchdog groups on the left and the right used records from the office to shed light on how the White House works.

 

 

"This is an office that operated under the FOIA for 30 years, and when it became politically inconvenient, they decided they weren't subject to the Freedom of Information Act any more," said Tom Fitton of the conservative Judicial Watch.

 

 

That happened late in the Bush administration, when CREW sued over e-mails deleted by the White House — as many as 22 million of them, by one accounting. The White House at first began to comply with that request, but then reversed course.

 

 

"The government made an argument in an effort to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the lawsuit in order to stop the archiving of White House e-mails," said Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which has used similar requests to shed light on foreign policy decisions.

 

In 2009, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the Office of Administration was not subject to the FOIA, "because it performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the president and his staff and therefore, under our precedent, lacks substantial independent authority."

 

 

The appeals court ruled that the White House was required to archive the e-mails, but not release them under the FOIA. Instead, White House e-mails must be released under the Presidential Records Act — but not until at least five years after the end of the administration.

 

 

In a notice to be published in Tuesday's Federal Register, the White House says it's removing regulations on how the Office of Administration complies with Freedom of Information Act Requests based on "well-settled legal interpretations."

 

 

The rule change means that there will no longer be a formal process for the public to request that the White House voluntarily disclose records as part of what's known as a "discretionary disclosure." Records released by the Office of Administration voluntarily include White House visitor logs and the recipe for beer brewed at the White House.

 

 

"You have a president who comes in and says, I'm committed to transparency and agencies should make discretionary disclosures whenever possible, but he's not applying that to his own White House," Weismann said.

 

 

The White House did not explain why it waited nearly six years to formally acknowledge the court ruling in its regulations.

 

 

Blanton said the outdated regulation is part of a larger problem of outdated FOIA regulations: Most federal agencies haven't updated their rules to take into account changes in law, many of which benefit requesters.

 

 

White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said the administration remains committed "to work towards unprecedented openness in government."

 

 

"Over the past six years, federal agencies have gone to great efforts to make government more transparent and more accessible than ever, including by making more information available to the public via our Open Government initiative and improving the FOIA process," she said.

 

 

In the notice to be published Tuesday, the White House said it was not allowing a 30-day public comment period, and so the rule will be final.

 

 

"It's a little tone deaf to do this on Sunshine Week, even if it's an administrative housecleaning," said Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government initiative for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

 

 

The bigger issue, Blum said, is that the Office of Administration is itself responsible for presidential record-keeping. Given the controversy over former secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's use of a personal e-mail account to conduct official business, there ought to be more scrutiny of record-keeping practices, he said.

 

 

"I think what we've all learned n in the last few weeks is the person who creates a record — whether it's running a program or writing an e-mail — is the one who gets to decide whether it's an official record," Blum said. "And there ought to be another set of eyes on that. That's the essential problem."

 

Read More: White House office to delete its FOIA regulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

White House scraps transparency rule during Sunshine Week

***************************************************

 

by Benjamin Mullin

Published Mar. 17, 2015 8:54 am

Updated Mar. 17, 2015 9:28 am

 

 

‘It’s a little tone deaf’

The White House is doing away with a regulation that "subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act," Gregory Korte reports for USA Today. The office, which maintains White House records, has been legally exempt from the FOIA since 2009. Still, the decision "raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, coming on National Freedom of Information Day." (USA Today) | "'It's a little tone deaf to do this on Sunshine Week, even if it's an administrative housecleaning,' added Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government initiative for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press." (UPI)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

US News by Steven Nelson. 17.3.2015.

***********************************

The Obama administration announced Tuesday it will ditch regulations that subjected large portions of White House correspondence to public record requests, a decision dirided by transparency advocates who wryly noted it was issued during a week celebrating open access to Government. Read more at:

 

'Most Transparent' White House Dumps FOIA Regulations for Itself - US News

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

By Poughkeepsie Journal, March 19. 2015

***********************************

USA govt. officials choke off the public right to know in some many dastardly ways. They can deny legitimate requests. They can take an inordinate amount of time answering public inquires.

More read at;

Obama is failing the disclosure test

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Has he not visited the largest democracy and learnt some thing from them, and if I am correct, one of his adviser must be an Indian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
       
      Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00342 dated 5/5/’06
       
      Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19



      Appellant: Shri Jai Kumar Jain
      Respondent: Delhi Development Authority Facts:
       
      Applicant Shri Jai Kumar Jain, Joint Secretary, DDA Market Association,
      Rohini, Delhi made an application on 16.2.06 to PIO Shri Pankaj Kumar, Jt.
      Director (Lands), DDA seeking the following information:
      Photocopy of page Nos. 10 to 29 and from page No. 56 to date of File No. F-93(234)2000/CE
      Is there any difference between Built up property and property constructed on plot purchased from DDA. If so what and why.
      How many shops are lying vacant in each of scheduled caste and unreserved category in CSC No. 2, Sector 2, Rohini. Why allotment of vacant shops for scheduled castes is not being made or tender issued.
      For how many years tender for shops meant for scheduled caste in CSC No 2 Sector No. 2 has not been issued.
      In how much time the dispute in property Dep’t. of DDA is settled by the DDA. If not settled, then what action is taken by DDA.
      DDA is supposed to issue reply in respect of property cases within 15 days. But some officers of various Depts. do not reply in time. In such cases whether any action is to be taken by Senior Officers or not. On not receiving any response, applicant made an appeal on 16.3.06 to the
      Appellate Authority and on still not receiving a response he has appealed before this Commission.
      The matter was heard on 15.9.06. The following are present:-
      1. Shri Jai Kumar Jain
      2. Shri Yash Pal Garg, Dir (CL)
      3. Shri Bharat Mehta, Dy. Dir. (CE)
      4 Shri Pankaj Kumar, Dy. Dir. (CL) 2
       
      DECISION NOTICE
       
      It stands established that the information sought vide application of 16.2.06
      has been agreed to be provided by the Commercial Lands Department of DDA only on Sept. 7, 2006. The issues, therefore, are two:-
      Fixing of a specific time schedule for allowing appellant Shri Jai Kumar Jain to inspect the files and take photocopies of the required notings, and
      whether penalty will lie u/s 20(1) of failure to supply the information for the above period. In regard to (1) above, Shri Yash Pal Garg, Director, Commercial Lands and PIO has agreed to dispatch photo copies of the concerned file notings by speed post to appellant Shri Jai Kumar Jain at his postal address: Shop No. 3, CSC No. 2, Sector-2, Rohini, New Delhi on 18.9.2006. Photocopy of the dispatch receipt will be submitted to this Commission on that date for inclusion in the record.
      Regarding (2) above, it seems that Shri Bharat Mehta, Dy Director (C.E.)
      had in fact responded to the application indicating that the required information could not be supplied under clause 8(1)(j) and 2.2 of the RTI Act. Both grounds are fallacious and would not have stood the first appeal. As discussed above, appellant Shri Jai Kumar Jain states that he had in fact filed the first appeal on 16.3.06, a copy of which was also submitted vide his second appeal. However, the date entered in the copy of our files is 16.2.06, which is obviously not possible since the original application was made on that date. It is this copy of our record, which was sent in the appeal notice to the PIO, who, therefore, has been unable to respond as to what became of the appeal.
       
      Now that PIO Shri Yash Pal Garg has agreed to provide the information
      sought by appellant Shri Jai Kumar Jain and appellant has in fact already filed first appeal to which there has been no response for reasons not known, no purpose will be served by directing Shri Jai Kumar Jain to again file first appeal. PIO Shri Yash Pal Garg is instead directed to enquire into what became of the first appeal, and if received, what action was taken thereon, within 15 working days of the 3 issue of this order, and if received, fixing responsibility for the appeal not having been entertained.
       
      From the above case, it is clear that there has been confusion both in
      receipt and dispatch of correspondence concerning RTI on the part of the Commercial Land Branch of DDA. It is admitted that in the early stages there was some confusion in the handling of applications received under the new Act. The situation has improved over the past months but Commercial Land Branch is cautioned to ensure that in future no such confusion, as demonstrated in this case, reoccurs. Because of this, it is not possible for us to identify the person specifically responsible for the delay in providing information on the application by Shri Jai Kumar Jain with the Department having been convinced that they have supplied the information asked for vide their lett er dated 13.3.06 while appellant convinced that his application or his appeal has been ignored.
       
      The matter is disposed of accordingly.
       
      Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
       

      (Wajahat Habibullah)
      Chief Information Commissioner
      22.9.2006
      Download the Decision from Download Segment



    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Orissa Pradesh Congress Committee to train Congress Office bearers on RTI
       
      President of the Orissa Pradesh Congress Committee (OPCC) Jaydeb Jena said that Congress office-bearers at the block level would be trained to utilise the Right to Information Act for exposing corruption in IAY.
       
      The Centre had sanctioned seven lakh special IAY houses in phases after the 1999 super cyclone and 2002 floods. But irregularities were found in the selection of beneficiaries in several blocks. The State Government had suspended several officials and sarpanches after detection of the irregularities.
       
       
       
       
      The first such training camp would be organised at Bhadrak on October 7 where representatives from Balasore, Bhadrak, Jajpur, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Cuttack, Khurda, Puri, Nayagarh, Angul and Bargarh districts would attend.
       
      The second training camp would be held at Jharsuguda on October 8 where representatives from Sambalpur, Jharsuguda, Deogarh, Sundargarh, Rourkela, Keonjhar, Balangir, Sonepur, Kalahandi, Nuapada, Ganjam, Gajapati, Boudh, Kondhmal, Rayagada, Malkangiri, Koraput, Nabarangpur, Dhenkanal and Mayurbhanj districts would attend.
       
      The training camps would be attended by MPs, MLAs, former MPs and MLAs, members of the All India Congress Committee and the Pradesh Congress Committee, presidents of all the frontal organisations and cells, office-bearers of the district Congress Committees and the presidents of the block Congress committees.
       
      AICC general secretary V Narayan Swamy would inaugurate the training camps at both the places. AICC secretary Arun Kumar would deliver the keynote address.
       
      The camps would be addressed by Opposition Leader JB Patnaik, deputy leader Narasingh Mishra, former chief ministers Hemananda Biswal and Giridhar Gamang and other seniors.
       
       
       
      [sourse: NewsIndia Press]
       
       
       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy