White House Celebrates National Freedom Of Information Day By Making Office Of The Administration Completely UnFOIA-able
from the ain't-no-sunshine-when-he's-done dept
March 16th is National Freedom of Information Day (and the beginning of Sunshine Week). The Most Transparent Administration™ celebrated it in the style to which is has become accustomed.
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.So, there's that: another agency within the government that won't respond to FOIA requests. I mean, many don't, at least not until they're successfully sued. Others play the waiting game, the "we can't find it" game and the "fine, but it'll cost you" game. But this office will simply play the "we don't have to" game.
Most of the White House is off-limits to FOIA requests, with various court decisions in its favor shoring up the request denials. But the Office of Administration was different… or was up until recently.
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.Obama may have pressed the kill switch, but this slide towards opacity started back during the previous presidency -- also no fan of government transparency. A lawsuit over 22 million emails led Bush's administration to exercise its option to opt out of FOIA responsiveness and a 2009 court ruling upheld the Office's decision. In the end, the Office of Administration is still charged with archiving presidential emails, but it doesn't have to release them until five years after the current president has left office.
The administration's ironic decision to eliminate sunshine during Sunshine Week is explained in a notice at the Federal Register.
This action is being taken in order to align Office of Administration policy with well-settled legal interpretations of the Office of Administration's status under Federal law and Executive Orders, including the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and Executive Order 13526. The Office of Administration, as an entity whose sole function is to advise and assist the President of the United States, is not an agency under the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act of 1974, nor does its implementation of Executive Order 13526 affect members of the public. Accordingly, the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations to be removed are without legal effect.All well and good, but it would be refreshing to see an agency opt in to greater transparency, rather than reverting to the default opacity setting. And then there's the issue of self-governance. Give a government body the power to set its own FOIA rules and you should expect nothing less than more secrecy. As Rick Blum of Sunshine in Government points out, this is a problem.
"I think what we've all learned 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."At the very least, it's a conflict of interest. When one side wants less transparency and has the unchallenged power to make that decision, the public -- and its right to know -- goes completely unrepresented.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: foia, freedom of information day, most transparent administration, office of administration, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The most tranparent administration in history!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most tranparent administration in history!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most tranparent administration in history!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A well-defined system of checks and balances at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
he does what he wants when he wants to and dam if will listen to anyone. He ignores the senate when it gets in his way the few times they have bothered to try.
he is just like Bush which has disillusioned me to any belief in there being two separate parties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- I know you've had enough, and you deserve better
- It's all going to change
- I will respect you
- The lying is done
- No more reading your emails when you aren't looking
- No more following you when you go out with your friends
- I know it's OUR money, and I'm going to start treating it like it's OUR money
Then, once the happy glow of reconciliation fades, the old habits come back and we realize that they never really left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How about the last elections? Obama promised sweeping changes, while his opponents, such as McCain and Romney (and even H. Clinton) did not.
Most politicians promise things that they have no direct control of, such as improving the economy or getting laws passed, but Obama made many specific promises about things that the president has direct control over. But after being elected, Obama did the exact opposite of the things he promised to get elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And his concern for the values and division of powers laid out in the Constitution were probably expressed nowhere as clearly as in his farewell speech.
As far as presidents go, he was pretty damn serious about his oath on the Constitution.
It pretty much went downhill with some bumps from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although Eisenhower had his faults, indecision and backpeddling were not among them. He had a clear sense of purpose and was not easily intimidated from doing what he set out to do.
Obama, on the other hand ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect it's more a sign of the times.
Watch the next four guys. They'll do the same thing. Probably worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I suspect it's more a sign of the times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At least a battered spouse can run away from the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The last few American Administrations don't seem to care enough to hide the laws they break anymore. they commit them in the open because well I suspect they have discovered the American people really don't care what their leaders do as long as they have their bread and circuses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As much as I resent Obama lying about providing change that he couldn't or wouldn't once in office...
Oh and Camp X-Ray, which is a standing monument how the United States of America doesn't give two fucks about human rights, or centuries of social progress or international bylaws regarding warfare. It's still active because we refuse to give the people there due process even to determine whether or not they deserve how we treat them. Bush started that.
Then there's the nitty shit like burning Valerie Plame, not because she did anything, mind you, not for the sake of saving lives, which is the only valid reason for burning a spy, but because W held a grudge with Valerie's husband, specifically that he was publishing a truth about the Bush's precious assault on Iraq. Libby took the fall for sake of deniability, but then Bush pardoned him.
And Harry Whittington apologizing to Cheney for Cheney accidentally shooting him... not Bush's fault, but certainly symptomatic of the nature of the infrastructure that puts people like Bush and Cheney into office.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the economy bottoming out in 2008 probably wasn't his fault, at least too much. He let it happen. He agreed with bailouts that only allowed the companies to continue their coke parties. But he probably didn't directly cause them.
It's very possible that Bush will go down in history as the worst president in America's history. Then again, now that they're all corporate shills, that could rapidly change, only because the next ones could be really, really bad. Bush did do us the service of showing that democracy, at least as it is practiced in the Great American Republic has failed. Monarchy couldn't possibly chose worse Joffreys and Caligulas. (To be fair, W was more of a Tomlin Lannister than a Joffrey.)
I'm pretty sure that even staunch Republicans would really like to see W's terms go forgotten. Perhaps they secretly wish that Gore was stuck with handling 9/11 and the era of terror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government has taken to ignoring the law to do what it wants. This is why FOIA often go unaddressed, goes far over the time line set for such responses, and then winds up needing a court case to release the info it was supposed to provide under the law.
This government is anything but a democracy despite all the lip service shown it. It's actions tell you that far louder than it's words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"slide towards opacity"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "slide towards opacity"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My stupid idea of the day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They will be stupid enough to vote for Hillary over guilt how woman were treated before their suffrage movement. If you criticize Hilary's screw-ups you are a sexist.
Just watch all the media has to do, is say the right sound bites and bam millions of idiots everywhere will vote for her because its the hip thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Result: Nobody expects the US Inquisition! *Pose*
Seriously, tell me one thing the latest crop of d-bag Congresscritters has done lately that might make me think we've got our Constitution back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, it's almost unbelievable how far to the left you must be to see that from your perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Far left
Frankly, saying someone is "left" or "right" is about as useful with assessing individuals as saying that government efficiency can by improved by cutting waste.
~ I believe that the United States should be a secular state, and that our laws should not lend privilege to a religion or set of religions, or to the notion of religions, ergo churches should fall into the category of 501(c) and jump through all the same IRS hoops that other non-profits do. This makes me leftist.
~ I believe that guns should not be regulated nationwide. Maybe using them in municipalities (they're loud and dangerous) and threatening to use them as a point of coercion should be, but gun owners should not have to be registered or licensed any more than a ladder or circular saw should. All these things are dangerous. Original intent of the device isn't relevant. That puts me on the right.
(I haven't thought too much about which is more heinous a murder between stabbing someone a bunch with a meat cleaver, hacking off limbs with power tools or shooting someone in the face. All those scenarios sound rather extreme and should be regarded by the Justice system as a serious crime.)
When I talk to friends or companies, they're eager to position me on a linear spectrum and default to moderate left. But I have some rather radical notions (e.g. challenging common notions of property law, or the legitimacy of earnings in a society where gains are not typically determined by a person's skill or utility or value to the society they are in. And some studies have shown that most moderates are that way, being extremists on specific issues in such a way that their left-right sum is nearer to zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's simply the obvious truth. Look at his policy decisions: they are almost entirely right-leaning centrist in nature. What makes you think otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I criticize Obama all the time, both online and in person, and have never once been called a racist. I think it might depend on the nature of the criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Obama's screw-ups are going to lead to racist thinking.
I expect that it's all moot at this point. Any representative in this era will be a corporate shill, and reform of any sort has been locked out since those who can change the status quo want only to secure it. The only reform we can expect will emerge from without the system. But it also means that any minority that gets elected in this era will also be a corporate shill, and then that will be used to discredit minority candidates in future regimes.
Because common humans can't logic, especially if it contradicts their established comfortable attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kissing Iran's Nasty Ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You are dooming every man, woman, young adult, child, baby, dog, cat, bird and mouse"
You seem to have a belief that the Persians are crazy enough to try to nuke Israel.
That would be such a mistake on their part for many reasons, the first of which is that Iran (and Islam by association) will be known as the people who first used nuclear weapons in hostility. No other nation, even Indians and Pakistans who hate, hate, hate each other have done that. And unlike the US, Persians are quite conscious of the long history.
And secondly, their use of one nuke will give us cause (with no resistance from the international community) to raze all of Iran into glass slag. We'd have total permission to salt the Earth, as is our duty according to international nuclear policy.
So no, we could offer to sell Iran a nuclear tipped General Electric ICBM and they would wisely scoff at the offer. Being in the nuclear club is as confining as forced economic globalization.
And we give Israel not just enough arms to defend themselves from their neighbors and enslave the people of the Palestinian ghetto, but enough to launch offensives if they want to, which they use to cluster-bomb large swaths of Libya so as to bypass landmine regulations (Libyans have to actively teach their children that little shiny metal spheres found in the dirt are not toys. They're unexploded munitions.)
So yeah, the military assistance that the US gives Israel's ruthless regime could be tempered a bit if we weren't actively trying to encourage murdering all the little sand niggers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A conquered people.
I dunno, looks to me like the American Public is getting quite used to being completely unrepresented and has learned to take the abuse it receives from its so called government, stoically in stride.
The worse the situation gets, the less they're doing about it - in fact, the less they're even complaining about it.
Who can blame a criminal organization for wanting to keep its victims in the dark after all?
Certainly not the American Public Victims.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A conquered people.
Sadly this means we don't have time to raise our kids. My generation were latch-key. Mom was just never home. But the current tweens are being raised by impacted caretakers and our penitentiary-based school system (more interested in the containment of delinquents than preparing kids for adult life.
With each new batch of high-school graduates (and large batch of drop-outs) more and more young people are finding the job-scarce, career-apathetic, employee-suspicious work environment less hospitable and will either turn to the welfare system or crime in order to survive. Considering how poorly we regard welfare beneficiaries in the US, the black market economy starts looking really good.
That crime is partisan activity against the occupying corporate oligarchical regime. It is the revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A conquered people.
If you are stating here that the necessity of an American citizen to become a criminal to make ends meet, is the public rebellion against the corporate regime running the USA today, methinks you may be missing something in the equation that reverses the whole notion of crime being a public strike against the machine.
Most crime in the US is regulated. The wealthy control the gangs and the lone wolves always end up joining or dying.
To become a successful criminal in the USA today, you will be working for the same people who own the factories you used to work in - the same people who make the laws and the same people who insured that you needed to become a crook just to pay your utility bills and feed your kids.
Its how the wealthy make minions.
Its a lot like how the wealthy wage war.
You cannot have a "good" war if you have a good economy, where your citizens are happy and prosperous and able to pay their bills and feed their kids.
However, if you drop your economy to the floor, your suddenly poor citizens will flock to your Army Recruitment centers by the thousands - just so they can pay their utility bills and feed their kids.
Its a very, very old and incredibly successful formulae.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, these were the days
[ link to this | view in chronology ]