Update 12/21/05
Update 12-21-05
The Sunshine in Government Initiative, established by a number of CJOG members earlier this year to develop both a coordinated FOIA-open government effort on Capitol Hill and a broad public education program on these issues, is looking for a full-time coordinator. The coordinator, who will work out of the offices of the Reporters Committee, will provide research and planning support for SGI, preside at coalition meetings and be the group’s spokesperson. If you know someone who is interested and qualified, have them contact Lucy Dalglish at the Reporters Committee.
A full job description is posted at www.rcfp.org/sgijob
* * *
Just two days after he signed an executive order calling for administrative improvements in FOIA, President Bush sent a directive to all department and agency heads designed to create a single, government-wide definition of the “Sensitive But Unclassified” marking used in a wide variety of ways by agencies to “safeguard” information. Information stamped SBU is still technically subject to FOIA, but the clear intent, and the de facto result, of the marking is that the information is kept secret. The terms “pseudo-classification’ and “fourth level of classification” are frequently used to describe the SBU consequences.
There are, by some counts, at least 55 variations on the definition. And some are quite broad. We recently protested a proposed Defense/GAO/NASA regulation with an expansive definition included information considered sensitive because of privacy, proprietary, and “agency interest” concerns.
I’ve attached a copy of Section 3 of the Bush memo, which deals with SBU. It essentially puts the task of compiling data on the current use of SBU and then fashioning this into a single standard into the hands of the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte. A single, common definition makes sense but that definition should be a narrow one, strictly limited to national security concerns, with selection criteria that set a high bar for inclusion and set out a time limit for “protection” – and thus withholding from the public – just as do the classification regulations. Otherwise, there is a very real danger the President’s directive will result in far greater secrecy, and the permanent closure of information that everyone acknowledges is less critical and less sensitive than information that is classified.
* * *
Sen. Mark Dayton’s office, which was planning to introduce legislation “clarifying” FOIA so that names and employment information on federal workers is not withheld for pseudo-privacy concerns, decided to hold off when the Patriot Act flap developed early this week. The senator now plans to file the bill January. Because there is always a possibility that the language could be modified in the interim, I decided to hold off until we see the final language and the bill has been filed. I’ll re-circulate the final draft if there are any changes. Seven organizations have joined in signing our letter so far. If you’d like to sign, let me know in the next week or so.
Pete Weitzel
