Interior Department Putting Even More Effort Into Dodging FOIA Request

from the some-motivations-are-stronger-than-others dept

The Department of the Interior is still trying to remove the word "freedom" from "Freedom of Information Act." The first step is removing the word "information."

Earlier this year, the DOI tried to sneak past a rewrite of FOIA by hiding a request in the federal register. It would only apply to the DOI, hence the lack of legislative noise or heads up to the public. Under the guise of "ensuring compliance" with the law, the DOI wanted the power to unilaterally reject any request it found "burdensome."

Faced with an influx of requests, the DOI decided to double down on non-compliance. Rather than route more staff to the overburdened FOIA response team, the DOI decided it would be better served by tossing as many requests in the trashcan as possible.

A few months have passed, but the Interior Department's attitude towards transparency hasn't improved. In fact, it's gotten worse. The DOI's best and brightest continue to work tirelessly towards ensuring as little information is freed as is humanly possible. Roll Call, which first exposed this underhanded tactic in May, has more details on the DOI's flagrant disregard for FOIA's statutory requirements.

Documents sought under the Freedom of Information Act were withheld by the Interior Department under a practice that allowed political appointees to review the requests, internal emails and memos show.

The policy allowed high-ranking officials to screen documents sought by news organizations, advocacy groups and whistleblowers, including files set to be released under court deadlines. In some cases, the documents’ release was merely delayed. In other cases, documents were withheld after the reviews.

The department's spokesperson confirmed the new review procedure's existence while pointing out officials were under no obligation to release documents after review. Furthermore, the spokesperson asserted that any suggestion there's an "affirmative response requirement" following review is "driven by political motives." In other words, the suggestion the DOI might be dodging its FOIA obligations is just some sort of partisan slur.

Wonderful. Even FOIA has been politicized under this administration, which views government transparency with considerable side eye, considering many requests originate from members of the Fake News Media™.

But persistent requesters have managed to pry loose some documents from the close-fisted DOI. And those documents show staff and officials thwarting internal processes and removing hundreds of pages of responsive documents before turning them over to requesters.

After Joel Clement, a whistleblower, sued the department under FOIA to release records about being reassigned from his post, Interior Communications Director Laura Rigas interceded. Career FOIA officials in March 2018 identified 1,558 pages of “responsive” documents it planned to release — a number that was eventually pared down to just 49 after the review process.

“I have concerns about items in here [redacted],” Rigas said to Ryan McQuighan, a career records official.

Unfortunately, these internal communications are heavily-redacted so it's unclear what legal justifications -- if any -- DOI officials are using to keep documents away from requesters. What's on display here suggests DOI officials are more interested in protecting themselves than following the letter of the law. There are multiple exemptions the government may use to justify withholding information, but the requesters' (or requestees') political interests or motivations aren't among the exemptions.

But that seems to be what's happening. Requests by whistleblowers and environmental activists seem to be the ones most frequently targeted for official review -- at least according to the communications obtained by Earthjustice via a FOIA lawsuit.

Although this isn't how FOIA is supposed to work, this is how FOIA actually works. Government agencies are obligated to respond within a certain period of time and hand over responsive documents. In reality, the timetable is often extended indefinitely and documents are routinely withheld to prevent bad press over departmental embarrassment. The DOI is just doing what's become routine at federal agencies -- only it's doing it with a bit more attitude than most, not-so-subtly letting requesters know their chances of getting what they asked for are incredibly slim.

Filed Under: department of the interior, foia, transparency


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Pixelation, 24 Jun 2019 @ 8:02pm

    Flashlight time

    My first thought was that they are really busy and FOIA requests are causing them problems. After continuing to read, I feel like there is something they want to hide.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 24 Jun 2019 @ 11:09pm

    Not that they have the honesty to ever admit it...

    Unfortunately, these internal communications are heavily-redacted so it's unclear what legal justifications -- if any -- DOI officials are using to keep documents away from requesters

    Simplicity itself, most of them are likely due to the often used(though never officially cited) justification of 'Because fuck you, that's why.'

    It costs them nothing to stonewall and/or heavily redact documents but releasing something that might make someone important look bad could very well cost the one who released it their job(for completely unrelated reasons of course...), so it's hardly a wonder that they'd do everything they could to avoid handing out anything if they can get away with it(and for the most part, they can).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 25 Jun 2019 @ 12:41am

    I find it fun

    And would ask a judge if you can walk in with a Federal marshal, and get he paper work you WANT..

    Dont even need to tell the DOI that you are going to the judge..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sok Puppette, 25 Jun 2019 @ 7:10am

    This stuff is totally predictable

    If you actually want bureaucrats (or anybody else) to comply with a law, you build in personal consequences for failure to do so. A criminal penalty can work if it's actually enforced. In this particular case, a criminal penalty probably would not be enforced. It might actually be more effective to make anybody who willfully obstructs compliance or fails to comply permanently ineligible to work for the government... and then allow any member of the public to sue to have that applied.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 25 Jun 2019 @ 11:54am

      Re: This stuff is totally predictable

      I just wish we could sue for non-compliance..and have a monetary or physical affect.

      We got rid of allot of laws that would allow us to Sue for corruption in our gov.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2019 @ 1:48pm

      Re: This stuff is totally predictable

      This is too easily gamed/obstructed. If the person blocking is elected, they can easily shield (or not) the career bureaucrats under them. As a result, you'd get whistleblowers being tagged by this rule and banned from public service.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Nancy Bess (profile), 26 Jun 2019 @ 12:04am

    Buy Morphine Online

    Buy Morphine Online which is used to help relieve moderate to severe pain. Morphine belongs to a class of drugs known as opioid (narcotic) analgesics. It works in the brain to change how your body feels and responds to pain. Check out: https://wellnesspharma.org/product/buy-morphine-online/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.