White House office to delete its FOIA regulations
Source: USA Today
White House office to delete its FOIA regulations
Gregory Korte, USA TODAY 3:21 p.m. EDT March 16, 2015
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 all requests for records to that office.
The White House said the clean-up 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.
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/16/white-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)"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.
i wonder which clown felt that was necessary
CubicleGuy
(323 posts)Or am I missing something here?
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)he's becoming barack w obama
riversedge
(69,708 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)House, Obama's rules of where to draw the line on Executive immunity.
Already approved by federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
"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."
......
"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 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 om Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which has used similar requests to shed light on foreign policy decisions.
tridim
(45,358 posts)For any reason whatsoever, including Bush's past actions apparently.
It is PATHETIC.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Some reporter needs to ask what happened to this statement from campaign trail.
Response to dirtydickcheney (Reply #6)
Post removed
progressoid
(49,824 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)We're turning into exactly what the right wingers call us.
Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)
I keep telling myself, well, DU is dedicated to a political party, so they have to impose party discipline. All political parties do this to some extent.
But I'm not satisfied with this answer.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)You must have missed that.
former9thward
(31,800 posts)The court said the materials could be hidden -- not that they had to be or even should be. An important difference.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Response to kpete (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Baitball Blogger
(46,572 posts)privacy thingie in the nineties was all a political ploy?
mahatmakanejeeves
(56,886 posts)"The White House is removing a federal regulation...."
But, but: Federal regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations, the CFR. I don't want to go into too many details, but it's easier to get blood from a turnip than to change things in the CFR. "Removing a federal regulation" because it's inconvenient strikes me as not possible.
You asked for it: Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
White House Office of Administration
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(56,886 posts)They became known when Alexander Butterfield spilled the beans, right?
I'm sure the papers will be talking about this.
onenote
(42,374 posts)decides which fertilizer to use on the grass on the East Lawn. Or who to select to renovate the couch in the oval office. Or who gets called when someone's phone doesn't work.
It's the Office of Administration. You couldn't find one person on this board who knows the name of one person who has worked in this office. Ever. That's how important
not
it is.
elleng
(130,126 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(56,886 posts)onenote
(42,374 posts)It's a little known fact that tomorrow's Federal Register is available today after 8:45 in the morning.
It's something I check every morning. https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection
mahatmakanejeeves
(56,886 posts)Hat tip, onenote.
Removal of Published Rules To Align Published Policy with Current Sources of Law
Action
Final Rule.
Summary
The Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration, is removing regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations related to the status of records created and maintained by the Executive Office of the President. 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.
Though the various Comrade Eddie supporters here will ignore that assiduously. They don't care about court rulings anyway, as has been proven by their rejection of court rulings on FISA.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Consequently, the removal of the rules relating to FOIA requests directed to this particular office is a ministerial act that does not require the steps associated with amending the code of federal regulations through a rulemaking.
Here's a link to the specific rules being deleted from the CFR:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b5b9bd807879103769fa21f93b2dfa32&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title05/5cfr2502_main_02.tpl
elleng
(130,126 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)Who will supervise the supervisors?
Not the people. Not the courts. At the highest levels, they are responsible to no one but God and the bankers and businessmen whose billions of dollars put them into office.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Light years ahead of Republicans, as long as light years are measured in millimeters.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)hidden in this thread for calling Obama on his lies about transparency given this news.
This is the continuance of the Imperial Presidency. Obama is carrying on and extending these powers started by Bush. To deny that is to deny reality itself.
We have simply gone from Nero to Vespasian.
The irony of this given the possible FOIA regulation violations by HRC during her terms as his SoS are not lost on me or others.
Transparency my ass - just another perty speech by a front for the Oligarchs.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)+1000
Response to TM99 (Reply #26)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)All three branches are functioning as they have been since the inception of the Republic.
TM99
(8,352 posts)as another one of those party faithful that justify the unjustifiable and the lies and the deceptions because the person has a D behind their name and well, you know, it is legal.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Even when they can't know what he's doing. Very telling that certain "Democrats" have a problem with this
Regards,
TWM
marym625
(17,997 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Crap, they're probably coming for me in person...
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)so you've got time to pack a suitcase before they arrive.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'll point into the woods and shout "Hey, isn't that Barack and Michelle?!" and they'll be gone long enough to summon help. And to have a good night's sleep. And paint my house. And...
marym625
(17,997 posts)Quick get behind the couch!
On a serious note, it is amazing to me that anyone is excusing this and using the fact bush started it as an excuse. I don't care how much respect someone has for President Obama, it's a complete about face from what he said he would do and it's a slap in the face to the American people. It is President Obama that is removing the regulations. It is a policy he followed that started with dubya.
I wonder what the same defenders said when the dubya started this.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)No surprise here.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Uploaded on Nov 3, 2008
K&R
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:53 PM - Edit history (3)
Who Coulda Known? Mistakes Were Made... He will do a "Chess Move" ......just wait and see...
Somebody made him do it......???
"We have misinterpreted this from a Biased News Article.....this isn't what he said.....The Video was before he knew what he was faced with and he and we were too idealistic...but, when one is President" things change. We don't know what he was up against...and who forced him to make decision.....He has Done the Best He Could with the "hand he was dealt" after Bush II...... We have to understand that NO President is all Powerful...the MSM/MIC/Wall Street and the Rest are what any Elected President has to deal with.....The Republicans have thwarted all of his efforts to make good on his Campaign Promises since DAY ONE! He had to work within the system or he wouldn't have been able to pass the ACA."
"All American Presidents are Under Attack from Faux News and the Machines that work Against Democrats" and Unless we Elect MORE AND BETTER DEMS....we will NEVER get our Country Back.
Please MAKE SURE YOU GET OUT AND VOTE for 2016 so we can take DEMOCRACY BACK for THE PEOPLE........
I'll keep working ....but, it does get harder every time these days.......
IF ONLY we could get back to POLICY in our VOTES and NOT ...PERSONALITY and FAUX NEWS/RW Clown Cars and DEFENSIVENESS and now real "NATIONAL DEFENSE" as more important than what goes on here AT HOME, for the PEOPLE.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...excuses and cop-outs. The point is, the system itself is no longer viable so it matters not who is elected President. It is largely a ceremonial post now and as long as it stays within its allowed parameters, TPTB will leave it alone.
But it was designed for the 1700-1800s and has become totally compromised. And we are trying to live in modern society, under horse and buggy governance. TPTB wish to continue the horse and buggy governance system because it works for their advantage.
But evolution applies to all things, including forms of government.
- It's way past time to move on..........
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)About the Office of Administration
Providing effective, efficient and economical administrative and business services to the Executive Office of the President.
About the Office of Administration
The Office of Administration has seven offices that provide comprehensive administrative support and business services to all components within the Executive Office of the President.
Office of the Director provides leadership, sets priorities, and develops policies.
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer provides human resource management, design and communication services, personnel security, and employee learning and development support.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer provides financial, accounting, travel, and procurement services.
Office of the Chief Information Officer is responsible for information technology, IT security, and records management.
Office of the Chief Operations Services oversees the operational activities that maintain and run the physical and logistical aspects of the EOP complex.
Office of the General Counsel provides legal support.
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity is responsible for promoting equal employment opportunity and diversity.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oa
candelista
(1,986 posts)This isn't just some back-bench agency. This is real power. Real power needs accountability. The light of day. This is terrifying news.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Sorry, I don't understand your post. Is it sarcasm?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)No it's not sarcasm. I've used the FOIA to try to get information under the bush empire and with President Obamas major changes (BHO changed the FOIA procedure 6 years ago along with many other major changes, massive improvements )
You can get any information from those offices you want. http://www.foia.gov/
candelista
(1,986 posts)Not from Obama's Office of Administration. That's what the article is about.
onenote
(42,374 posts)in this office. Ever.
You can't. No one on this board can.
Because it isn't as important as you claim.
For example, you quote the line describing the Office of the Director. Makes it sounds very significant. But if you click on the live link on the words "Office of Director" you see that the role is actually rather mundane:
he Office of the Director is responsible for the overall management of the Office of Administration. The Director provides leadership, manages the allocation of resources, and ensures that OA services reflect customer priorities.
Essentially, the Office of Adminstration is the office that handles human resources, personnel, physical plant, IT etc. for the WH. White House landscaping? OA. Restoration of building. OA. Purchase of furniture. OA. Deliver of interoffice mail. OA.
The OA hasn't been subject to FOIA requests since 2009. Somehow, someway, the world didn't come to an end.
candelista
(1,986 posts)If it's so "unimportant"?
onenote
(42,374 posts)So if you have an issue its with Congress and the courts. The WH is carrying out the purely ministerial act of striking from the code of federal regulations a provision has not been enforced and has been unenforceable as a matter of law for five years.
Can you come up with a single good reason for leaving a "dead" regulation on the books?
But, hey, if its a chance to bash the President, let's all go with "hair on fire" as a better response.
candelista
(1,986 posts)What case, what court?
onenote
(42,374 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in 2008. That was one of the reasons I voted for him.
And not we see what he really meant by transparency.
Cynicism is in order here I think.
The "Obama is perfect" crowd needs to explain this. I am waiting.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Got a problem? Take it up with Congress and the courts. All the Obama administration has done has take the ministerial step of striking from the regulations an unenforceable provision that has been found to be contrary to statutory law.
TM99
(8,352 posts)That's the argument in all these fucking threads these days.
Well, it is legal. Hillary did what she did with the mail server, but you know it is legal. Obama promised transparency but isn't really in to keeping that promise. Oh, and did I mention it is legal what he is doing and has done. Torture is A-OK cause some folks did what was totally legal during a stressful time. We can drone those fuckers because hey, enemy combatants. And yes siree, it is legal.
What made Watergate and Iran/Contra bad was not just their illegalities (some aspects were completely legal), it was the unethical & inappropriate behavior. As a body politic, we used to know this. Now it is just about neo-liberal economic policies and neo-con foreign policies with no thoughts or concerns on whether the political behaviors that support both of those positions on both the right or the left are right. They are not.
I don't bloody care if this is fucking legal. I care because this President did not stop the Bush era imperial presidency, he is fucking enhancing it. He is codifying it further so that there will be no point of return from where we are headed. He offered a different way but it was just a sick marketing campaign designed to get the Democrats to 'love' him as a leader as much as the Republicans 'loved' Bush and Reagan.
And yes, my observations & criticisms apply to Congress and the courts as well. But I am not letting this president off the hook just because of those two either. We have a Republic where they are supposed to check and balance each other. Now they work together to support the true owners of Washington, DC and this country. And that ain't you or me!
onenote
(42,374 posts)rule off of the books.
Not a substantive act. Get it? The legal equivalent of throwing out a package of chicken that went bad six years ago, but was left in the freezer anyway.
The ruling does not require the president to act in this way. It simply provides him the out to do so. He has a choice.
The chicken isn't bad. He can still thaw it out and cook it.
But thanks for justifying his lies and deceptions because you know, it is legal.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Court decides rules are contrary to statutory law. Rules are unenforceable. Leaving them on books is waste of space and generates confusion. So government does the right thing and takes the ministerial step of deleting the uneforcable provision.
One can't enforce rules implementing FOIA where FOIA doesn't apply. It's really a simple legal concept which you should have learned in law school. If you went to law school.
But you can believe anything you want if you don't care about accuracy, facts etc etc.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I do understand enough of the law to know that while legal, I would not agree that this is the 'right thing'.
It follows a pattern of lies and deceptions with regards to FOIA and transparency with this administration which has carried on and extended the Bush administration abuses.
Facts alone are not the sole arbiter of what is right, ethical, or appropriate. I know they didn't teach you that in law school, and that is part of the fucking problem.
onenote
(42,374 posts)By the way, it's not a question of the removal of the rules as being "legal" or "illegal." Its simply carrying out the dictates of a court. Leaving the rules in place would not change their legal status, not made it possible for anyone to invoke them, not done a damn thing. So while there was no legal obligation on the administration to remove the unenforceable rule from the books nor was there anything illegal about leaving it on the books, why not conform the code of regulations to the actual state of the law? The CFR should have been updated years ago after the court ruled. But the fact that rules stay on the books long after they have been found to be unconstitutional, or contrary to a statute or otherwise unenforceable is not that unusual. Government moves at a snail's pace. Frankly, making sure that the printed laws and regulations of this country are up to date and don't include provisions that only serve to mislead people into thinking that a particular provision is valid is indeed the "right" thing.
TM99
(8,352 posts)For a lawyer, try actually reading the ruling. It has been stated multiple times in this thread that the material in question could be hidden. The ruling did not say that they had to be or should be hidden.
So no this is not the 'right' thing. You are so lost in the trees you are ignoring the forest.
onenote
(42,374 posts)since i'm the one who posted a link to the text the day before its "official" release.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1041046
Now, care to share what nefarious plot your secret decoder ring reveals about the decision to remove a dead regulation from the printed code?
TM99
(8,352 posts)This is not about some hyperbolic conspiracy plot. This is about a real and consistent effort on the part of the executive branch under both Presidents Bush & Obama to avoid transparency. History shows us that when the rulers keep secrets from the rulers, disastrous consequences are sure to follow.
Take your childishness and snark elsewhere. You obviously don't take these issues seriously, so why discuss it further with me when I do.
onenote
(42,374 posts)I take transparency quite seriously. I have filed FOIA requests myself and know exactly how hard it is to get the government to give up even the most innocuous information.
But I also take seriously accuracy in reporting. And suggestions that there is something nefarious about the administration's action in taking the purely ministerial act of having a rule that can't be enforced out of the printed code of federal regulations -- and there are plenty of posts around here suggesting that there is something nefarious about that action -- is anything but an accurate depiction of that action.
Sorry its so hard for you to see that it's possible to hold both opinions (pro-transparency and pro-truthful reporting) at the same time.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)onenote
(42,374 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Doesn't change the fact that Obama ran for the presidency on a promise of more transparency and is now taking advantage of rulings that limit the transparency. That is still his choice. The rulings certainly do not PREVENT the president from allowing more transparency than the law requires.
former9thward
(31,800 posts)I wonder if that was your position during the Bush administration?
onenote
(42,374 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)
On whether rules struck down as invalid should be removed from deleted from the code of federal regulations or (in the case of statutes)from the US Code? I was all for it. So when the Bush administration's FCC adopted a rule that raised the number of local tv stations that a single entity could own in a market and Media Access Project got it thrown out by the courts, I was all for the FCC deleting the invalidated rule from the books and restoring the old rule.
And by the same token, I was pissed when the Bush administration left rules on the books after the courts struck them down. For example, a Bush-era rule called the "Broadcast flag" would have made it harder for consumers to record tv shows. It was invalidated by the courts in 2005 because it was inconsistent with the FCC's statutory authority. But it wasn't until 2011 when the Obama administration took the step of having the rule deleted from the code of federal regulations.
So, there, you have my position. Now, on the examples I gave you, what is your view. Should these old, invalid rules have been left on the books to mislead people?
treestar
(82,383 posts)you really think he meant there would be no law regarding these things, and that everything would be out there?
Simply read the FOIA. It contains limitations too.
I have a hard time believing this simplicity of view is sincere. Court opinions, statutes, regulations and administrative rules exist and something like this is no big deal. To use these ordinary events as supposedly earth-shaking is naive or disingenuous.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We should have been told that he would allow the NSA to continue to monitor our electronic communications at will or by mistake.
That started long before Obama, and he should have told us more about what was going on.
father founding
(619 posts)Who knows that the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged Boston Bomber, is going on in Boston, Strange that the MSM is totally ignoring it.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)At 9:32am ESTtimed to mesh with the start of Tuesdays trial proceedingsABC News posted Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs Secret Online Life, a story entirely sourced to prosecution and/or FBI leaks. As such, it previewed the argument the prosecution sought to advance that day, namely that Tsarnaevs social media presence revealed him to be a dedicated jihadist bent on waging war on Americans.
The original story uncritically referenced prosecution talking points, portraying them as unchallenged fact. As a result, readers of the original story were told:
The second, secret Twitter account was under the name Ghuraba, which loosely translates as the Muslim word for strangers, and showed a picture of Mecca.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/03/10/media-fail-abcs-secret-online-life-story-leads-secret-edits/
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Because when the lack of transparency by the Bush administration which infuriated us on DU and for which we all commiserated has gone EVEN FURTHER over information to which we are entitled under the Obama administration!
What is WRONG with you people?
TM99
(8,352 posts)It is legal and a D is after the name so hey the courts did the right thing. Even though those defending this are not actually reading the ruling itself which clearly stated that the material in question did not have to be or should be hidden.
This is a fucking choice by the Obama Administration to make. They are not being forced to do so. They are not cleaning up out-dated procedures and protocols. They are continuing the lack of transparency that has now been going on for close to 15 years.
It is sickening.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Hey, I made that funny thing with your initials
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This thread is proof positive that you can gin some folks up with a superficial story and all attempts to reach them with facts after that will be for naught. The bard would smile:
First Citizen What is your name?
Second Citizen Whither are you going?
Third Citizen Where do you dwell?
Fourth Citizen Are you a married man or a bachelor?
Second Citizen Answer every man directly.
First Citizen Ay, and briefly.
Fourth Citizen Ay, and wisely.
Third Citizen Ay, and truly, you were best.
CINNA THE POET What is my name? Whither am I going? Where do I
dwell? Am I a married man or a bachelor? Then, to
answer every man directly and briefly, wisely and
truly: wisely I say, I am a bachelor.
Second Citizen That's as much as to say, they are fools that marry:
you'll bear me a bang for that, I fear. Proceed; directly.
CINNA THE POET Directly, I am going to Caesar's funeral.
First Citizen As a friend or an enemy?
CINNA THE POET As a friend.
Second Citizen That matter is answered directly.
Fourth Citizen For your dwelling,--briefly.
CINNA THE POET Briefly, I dwell by the Capitol.
Third Citizen Your name, sir, truly.
CINNA THE POET Truly, my name is Cinna.
First Citizen Tear him to pieces; he's a conspirator.
CINNA THE POET I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet.
Fourth Citizen Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses.
CINNA THE POET I am not Cinna the conspirator.
Fourth Citizen It is no matter, his name's Cinna; pluck but his
name out of his heart, and turn him going.
Third Citizen Tear him, tear him! Come, brands ho! fire-brands:
to Brutus', to Cassius'; burn all: some to Decius'
house, and some to Casca's; some to Ligarius': away, go!
Exeunt
marmar
(76,982 posts)We don't do our side any favors by trying to come up with excuses for this. If Dimson was in the White House and did this we would be outraged -- justifiably.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like Catch-22, without the democracy.