Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

newthinking

(3,982 posts)
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:46 PM Jun 2016

State Dept.: 75-year wait for Clinton aide emails

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)The Republican National Committee would have to wait 75 years for the State Department to release emails from top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to a recent court filing.

State Department lawyers argue in a filing made last Wednesday that gathering 450,000 pages of records requested for former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan and top State Department official Patrick Kennedy would take three quarters of a century.

"Given the Department's current FOIA workload and the complexity of these documents, it can process about 500 pages a month, meaning it would take approximately 16-and-2/3 years to complete the review of the Mills documents, 33-and-1/3 years to finish the review of the Sullivan documents, and 25 years to wrap up the review of the Kennedy documents -- or 75 years in total," the State Department argued in the filing.

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau declined Monday to comment on the RNC lawsuit specifically, but said that requests have tripled since 2008 and staff has been spread thin.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/clinton-emails-75-years/

69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
State Dept.: 75-year wait for Clinton aide emails (Original Post) newthinking Jun 2016 OP
Sour grapes, dear? sister_rosa_refried Jun 2016 #1
So, when a Republican uses this bullshit excuse, Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #18
One can say "Brought to you by the people extending music/video copyrights to author+70 years!" TheBlackAdder Jun 2016 #38
Yeah, both sides do it is such a wonderful excuse Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #41
HRC - normalizing corrupt behavior one brainwashed supporter at a time - n/t Locrian Jun 2016 #52
+1,000,000 Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #67
So if the IRS needs doccuments from me, can I just tell them, I'm a bit busy Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #2
Only way you can get away with it is if said documents need to be gone over to make sure cstanleytech Jun 2016 #4
I have Accountant–client privilege Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #6
Problem being there's little penalty for evading FOIA. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #3
And this overreaching abuse of the system is proving there shouldn't be. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #7
Either you support the Freedom of Information Act or you don't MisterFred Jun 2016 #10
I used to. But when they start asking for 450,000 documents at a time, pnwmom Jun 2016 #11
Nah. MisterFred Jun 2016 #13
All those documents have to be reviewed. It's not just a matter of printing them out. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #16
Nevertheless the State Department's purported capacity is not reasonable. strategery blunder Jun 2016 #19
This is just one request among many. The State department staff has other things to pnwmom Jun 2016 #23
And I'm sure State would be more than happy to explain these "other things" strategery blunder Jun 2016 #32
Where were the Democratic party requests for 450,000 pages when Bush was President? pnwmom Jun 2016 #34
A good question, but irrelevant to the current discussion. blackspade Jun 2016 #43
No, not irrelevant. They're abusing the process, just like everything else. pnwmom Jun 2016 #46
So because it is being abused is the excuse for stonewalling? blackspade Jun 2016 #48
I don't see it as stone-walling. I see it as trying to fit those requests into pnwmom Jun 2016 #50
You do realize that answering FOIA does not have anything to do with the... blackspade Jun 2016 #59
And that public records office has a budget and a staff that is stretched pnwmom Jun 2016 #60
Still deliberately missing the point.... blackspade Jun 2016 #69
No budget for? former9thward Jun 2016 #35
Congress sets the State Department budget. nt pnwmom Jun 2016 #61
No the State Department requests a budget. former9thward Jun 2016 #62
Which the congress slashes -- and then passes the slashed version. For example, pnwmom Jun 2016 #63
A slashed version? former9thward Jun 2016 #64
I said there was no budget for ENDLESS requests. That would be impossible pnwmom Jun 2016 #65
State Dept uber alles reddread Jun 2016 #15
except for when it comes to Hillary apparently azurnoir Jun 2016 #17
Let history judge me, politicians are fond of saying. forest444 Jun 2016 #5
"...staff has been spread thin..." mia Jun 2016 #8
Rhetorical question? Or real? WhiteTara Jun 2016 #9
Because the State Department staff has much more important things pnwmom Jun 2016 #12
It's federal law. Complying with it is part of the the responsibility of every federal agency. merrily Jun 2016 #28
Because they don't want to hire anyone. MisterFred Jun 2016 #14
Why? Half our government does not want to fund government. Remember sequestration? eom Festivito Jun 2016 #33
if this is the way FOIA requests are going to be complied with Angel Martin Jun 2016 #20
I think the Corp Media would much rather a lot of the stuff remain hidden. Skwmom Jun 2016 #24
Exactly right. If FOIA requests are going to take decades, hughee99 Jun 2016 #40
to answer that question all you have to do Angel Martin Jun 2016 #49
translation: there's nothing there Skittles Jun 2016 #21
LOL! merrily Jun 2016 #27
We are a Banana Republic. n/t Skwmom Jun 2016 #22
Their excuse is not plausible. Major Hogwash Jun 2016 #25
if you want to validate every Repub Angel Martin Jun 2016 #31
This is unfortunate for Kerry. Sad at this stage of his career. merrily Jun 2016 #26
I think Kerry has handled this entire mess as well as could have done. karynnj Jun 2016 #45
rubbish ! Angel Martin Jun 2016 #51
They are following the FOIA procedures that are law karynnj Jun 2016 #54
printing them on paper rather than Angel Martin Jun 2016 #57
I agree that when you are looking for what fits a criteria - electronic is better karynnj Jun 2016 #66
I know what I am talking about because I have worked Angel Martin Jun 2016 #68
75 years? Really? nt merrily Jun 2016 #53
As I wrote - I do not think they should have said 75 years karynnj Jun 2016 #55
I'm truly sorry. I love how you love Kerry. However, I see this as a blot on his legacy and I merrily Jun 2016 #56
So the Republican Congress should provide funds for he State Department so they can handle Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #29
Many years ago, as in 1980, I was working for the Federal Government. SheilaT Jun 2016 #30
The State Dept couldn't hire more people unless Congress increased its budget. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #36
That's why government agencies christx30 Jun 2016 #47
It has never seemed as though people with government jobs SheilaT Jun 2016 #58
The "most transparent administration ever" will be transparent in 75 years. Maybe. Scuba Jun 2016 #37
This is so much bullshit, it's unbelieveable that it was said. zalinda Jun 2016 #39
I do not know why they said 75 years, when they could have said that it can't be done by the end of karynnj Jun 2016 #42
Then hire more staff CJCRANE Jun 2016 #44

TheBlackAdder

(28,186 posts)
38. One can say "Brought to you by the people extending music/video copyrights to author+70 years!"
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:13 AM
Jun 2016

.


Disney and most other firms made most of their money swiping things from the public domain.

Yet, corporations don't want to allow that same benefit to others... for the sake of profits.


Both Democrats and Republicans jointly extended these terms, and when they near expiry, they'll be extended further.

.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
41. Yeah, both sides do it is such a wonderful excuse
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:40 AM
Jun 2016

for unethical and immoral behavior.

For what it is worth, I have a copyright reform law that I think would be quite fair to the public.

Copyrights are for 25 years from moment of creation whether registered or not. At the end of 25 years, you have an option to extend for 5 more years, however, a surtax of 10% is applied to all revenue generated from the extended copyright. The surtax goes up 10% every time the copyright is extended for 5 more years.

The public domain problem becomes self-correcting.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
2. So if the IRS needs doccuments from me, can I just tell them, I'm a bit busy
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:53 PM
Jun 2016

Try back in 75 years. Any idea what their response would be?

cstanleytech

(26,286 posts)
4. Only way you can get away with it is if said documents need to be gone over to make sure
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:26 PM
Jun 2016

they dont contain anything classified or contain anything considered sensitive to the government.
If they dont then you better just turn them over otherwise the IRS will have your butt.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
6. I have Accountant–client privilege
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:34 PM
Jun 2016

Of course need to go over a document to make sure its not privileged. I am required to follow all the rules in IRS circular 230.

Of course, the IRS will send me a notice, and I'm required to respond in 14 days. Will they respond to me in 14 days? Hell no.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
3. Problem being there's little penalty for evading FOIA.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:06 PM
Jun 2016

Let's start attaching jail time to avoiding/stalling FOIA filings and see how quickly they're complied with,

MisterFred

(525 posts)
10. Either you support the Freedom of Information Act or you don't
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:53 PM
Jun 2016

Democrats, or anyone who cares about civil liberties, should not promote a weak FOIA, like you're doing. FOIA as a whole, and various government agencies' desire to avoid their responsibilities, is bigger than this useless fishing expedition by the Rs.

Unless you think they'll find something?

I don't.

The Rs prefer this headline to actually getting the e-mails.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
11. I used to. But when they start asking for 450,000 documents at a time,
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:55 PM
Jun 2016

on top of many other requests, it's making me rethink the whole thing.

The State Department has a lot more important things to do than respond to endless Rethug fishing requests.

MisterFred

(525 posts)
13. Nah.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:02 PM
Jun 2016

"E-mails sent by former Secretary of State X that are public records under FOIA" is not an unreasonable request. Number of documents should be irrelevant to whether the agency fulfills its duties. What would they have to hire, one or two people to get that kind of request done in a year or two? At most. The State Department SHOULD have a big FOIA department. The fact they don't shows how much they're using "burden" to avoid FOIA requests - especially the ones that aren't bullshit like this one.

You're letting the Republicans alter your values. Don't give them that kind of power. Unless you didn't care about open government in the first place.

(For consistency's sake, it's not 450,000 documents. It's apparently that many pages... however they're counting pages.)

strategery blunder

(4,225 posts)
19. Nevertheless the State Department's purported capacity is not reasonable.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:31 PM
Jun 2016

500 pages (not documents) per month?

I could read a 500 page government document (or collection thereof) within a few days, including a bit of background research on the subject matter. If I already have some familiarity with the subject matter, I could do it within a day and a half. And I'm a layperson who has done this kind of thing as an exercise in civics to learn more about the workings of our government.

Law firms have to have a lot more review throughput than that. It is reasonable to expect a cabinet-level government agency to have more capacity to review these things than a private law firm, let alone a paltry 500 page per month rate. Hell, an agency the size of State should probably have a division specifically devoted to FOIA requests (at least if transparency was something the department ostensibly took seriously). I respect that there are legal complexities involved that I haven't had to deal with (as the documents I had read were already public), but if the State Department wants to claim its capacity for reviewing documents is so ridiculously low, both plaintiffs and the court have every right to ask why it is so low.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
23. This is just one request among many. The State department staff has other things to
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:30 AM
Jun 2016

do than fulfill endless FOIA fishing expeditions that there is no budget for.

strategery blunder

(4,225 posts)
32. And I'm sure State would be more than happy to explain these "other things"
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 03:06 AM
Jun 2016

that cause it not to have time to "fulfill endless FOIA fishing expeditions that there is no budget for..." oh wait.

I'm sure DU was cheering when government agencies under the shrub said they lacked the capacity to fill FOIA requests...oh wait.

And to use a more recent example, I'm sure the Chicago Police Department had other things to do than digging out and disclosing the incriminating evidence against its officers in the Laquan case, until a judge ordered the department to do so. I'm sure the CPD thought that Laquan's family and their allies were merely on a "fishing expedition."

Government agencies don't get to unilaterally decide these things. Fishing expedition or not, either FOIA compels disclosure of responsive documents or it does not. If bureaucrats could cry "fishing expedition!" every time someone filed a FOIA request, FOIA would be utterly toothless, as if it did not already have plenty of exceptions already.

The term "fishing expedition" is in the eye of the beholder, and it usually means "my adversaries want to compel me to release information." It is little more than political tribalism.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
43. A good question, but irrelevant to the current discussion.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:54 AM
Jun 2016

Government transparency should be the norm not the exception.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
46. No, not irrelevant. They're abusing the process, just like everything else.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:36 AM
Jun 2016

They're turning FOIA into a tool for keeping the government from doing its job by deluging it with paperwork requests. This is no accident.

And it's not just in the State Department, and not even just in government.

http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws#.V1bcJldOJFJ

Transparency and accountability in government are essential to democracy. The right of citizens to information about how public decisions are made is precious, and open records laws, such as the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), are crucial to protecting that right.

However, the rights guaranteed by open records laws can be abused.
As our 2015 report Freedom to Bully shows, open records requests are increasingly being used to harass and intimidate scientists and other academic researchers, or to disrupt and delay their work. Academic institutions and other involved parties need to be prepared to respond to these requests in a way that protects the privacy and academic freedom of researchers while complying with the law and respecting the public's right to information.

The impact of harassment on research
The use of open records laws to harass researchers emerged with the growing use of electronic communications. Conversations that used to take place over the phone or in person are now conducted by email, a format that leaves a permanent record. When these email discussions are made public through records requests, the privacy that academics have long enjoyed in discussions with colleagues is compromised. This can have a chilling effect on the frank exchange of ideas and constructive criticism, a crucial part of the scientific process.

Abuse of open records requests can also hinder researchers simply by hijacking their schedule. Complying with requests may take dozens or even hundreds of hours of researchers' time, putting their real work on hold or on the back burner for a long while. This may often be the main purpose of such requests.

SNIP

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
48. So because it is being abused is the excuse for stonewalling?
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:44 AM
Jun 2016

Having worked in public records, I understand abuse, but the State adept is full of shit on '75' years.
There are easy ways to weed out abuse of the system.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
50. I don't see it as stone-walling. I see it as trying to fit those requests into
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:48 AM
Jun 2016

the schedule and budget along with the rest of the important job the Department is supposed to do.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
59. You do realize that answering FOIA does not have anything to do with the...
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 02:40 PM
Jun 2016

"...rest of the important job the Department is supposed to do."

They have a public records office that handles FOIA requests.
So your framing of the issue just dodges the problem; that transparency is not a current priority in the Federal government.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
60. And that public records office has a budget and a staff that is stretched
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 03:23 PM
Jun 2016

to the limit. If the Rethugs in Congress want to push these fishing expedition FOIA requests, then they should pass a bill increasing the budget.

former9thward

(31,987 posts)
35. No budget for?
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 04:24 AM
Jun 2016

You mean that the State Department is willfully ignoring a federal law? By not providing a budget when they know there will be requests? interesting defense...

Obama administration sets new record for withholding FOIA requests

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.

The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn’t find documents and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.

It also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law — but only when it was challenged.

Its backlog of unanswered requests at year’s end grew remarkably by 55 percent to more than 200,000. It also cut by 375, or about 9 percent, the number of full-time employees across government paid to look for records. That was the fewest number of employees working on the issue in five years.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests/

former9thward

(31,987 posts)
62. No the State Department requests a budget.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 03:33 PM
Jun 2016

Show where they have requested a FOIA budget and it was denied by Congress. Remember YOU claimed no such budget exists when the article I cited shows they have people working on requests. I guess they are doing it on their own time ....

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
63. Which the congress slashes -- and then passes the slashed version. For example,
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 03:34 PM
Jun 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-dept-reeling-from-budget-cuts/2011/09/29/gIQAm87ODL_story.html

The State Department is still reeling from deep cuts made by Senate and House appropriations panels to the Obama administration’s budget requests for next year, with some officials warning of national security risks.

Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state in its Bureau of Political Military Affairs, told a meeting last week of the Center for New American Security that the hefty cuts will compromise national security. He noted that the 2012 funding bill for State Department and foreign operations was cut 8 percent by the full Senate Appropriations Committee and a whopping 18 percent by the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had sounded similar concern in March, telling the House Foreign Affairs Committee that threatened deep cuts would be “devastating” to her agency.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
65. I said there was no budget for ENDLESS requests. That would be impossible
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 03:44 PM
Jun 2016

because any budget is FINITE.

And the number of these FOIA's has greatly increased in recent years, while the State Dept administrative budget has not.

http://www.americanpress.com/Congress-Benghazi-Punish

A spokeswoman for the Appropriations panel said the budget plan withholds funds until State develops and implements a plan to reduce a backlog of FOIA and congressional requests.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach called the proposal "counterproductive" and said it would further constrain resources needed to meet sharp increases in requests for documents in recent years.

The State Department achieved nearly a 14 percent reduction in its appeals backlog last year, Gerlach said, but the agency's FOIA caseload has more than tripled since 2008 — jumping from 6,000 requests to nearly 20,000 last year.

The number of congressional oversight requests has also dramatically increased,
Gerlach said.

forest444

(5,902 posts)
5. Let history judge me, politicians are fond of saying.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:31 PM
Jun 2016

Because if, a hundred years from now, somebody sentences some politician to life in prison, what do they care.

WhiteTara

(29,704 posts)
9. Rhetorical question? Or real?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:46 PM
Jun 2016

If real...the republicans have cut budgets everywhere. This is no exception.

Rhetorical?...you knew that

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
12. Because the State Department staff has much more important things
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:56 PM
Jun 2016

to do than respond to endless FOIA requests from grandstanding Rethugs.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
28. It's federal law. Complying with it is part of the the responsibility of every federal agency.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:52 AM
Jun 2016

Claiming to need 75 years to comply is bullshit, aka not complying with federal law.

If Democrats were asked a Republican administration, a lot of replies to this would be different and that is indefensible.

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
20. if this is the way FOIA requests are going to be complied with
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:57 PM
Jun 2016

then they should just scrap the whole thing and stop pretending.

I think this blatant, in your face refusal to comply may get a backlash from the media, as they know that if this stands, it sets a precedent for all future requests.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
40. Exactly right. If FOIA requests are going to take decades,
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:13 AM
Jun 2016

They should stop pretending they're being open and honest.

Is there anyone who actually believes it would really take this long to process, or does everyone know they're full of shit, but some just don't care?

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
49. to answer that question all you have to do
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:47 AM
Jun 2016

is imagine what the reaction would be if a Repub administration announced that it would take 75 years to comply with FIOAs.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
25. Their excuse is not plausible.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:41 AM
Jun 2016

Just claiming that it would take years and years to get that kind of information is ludicrous on the face of it.


karynnj

(59,503 posts)
45. I think Kerry has handled this entire mess as well as could have done.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:10 AM
Jun 2016

He temporarily expanded the FOIA department by "cannibalizing" FOIA trained lawyers from other parts of the State Depart to deal with HRC's 55,000 emails. He also asked the IG to investigate both what happened and how they should archive email going forward.

What is clear is that the FOIA department in the State Department never before had to deal with processing all the email of a past Secretary of State. Not to mention, that even before he started, the State Department was slow processing even narrower media FOIA requests. It may be that part of this is the nature of State Department work requires more careful processing than say HUD. It also might have meant that even when he arrived, the department was too small.

Then came the HRC email problem - and HRC cavalierly asking the State Department to make it all public online. (Not to mention, even if she had not done that, many in the media likely would have requested all of it.) This was an enormous, very sensitive request. Kerry did three things - he asked the IG to investigate, he approved expanding the department, and he put someone in charge of it who had been a career staff person, not a political appointment. The FOIA department was 12 people and they expanded to (I think) near 50 - pulling FOIA trained lawyers from other parts of the State Department. From many accounts, those people worked long hours and weekends to do all that was needed.

I think it might have been more strategic not to give a 75 year estimate, but rather to point out that if it took a year to process 55,000 pages - processing 450,000 people - even if they could continue to use everyone pulled from other jobs - could take longer than the the potential 8 years a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Not to mention, realistically how many of the people in that group would stay in that job if they saw that - rather than being an exception - they would have to continue working under that pressure for years.

It is unfortunate that Kerry has had to deal with cleaning up this mess, but few will blame him for creating it or making it worse. The blame will be split -- with Democrats blaming the right for outrageous fishing expeditions asking for mountains of sensitive State Department information -- and Republicans mostly blaming Clinton.



Angel Martin

(942 posts)
51. rubbish !
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:52 AM
Jun 2016

they are slow walking this deliberately, doing everything by first printing it on paper so nothing can be done electronically.

It's no different from when Clinton first turned over all the "relevant" emails from her server by printing them out, so they could not be searched electronically.

karynnj

(59,503 posts)
54. They are following the FOIA procedures that are law
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:08 PM
Jun 2016

As they are asked for ALL emails, what exactly do you want to sort. They need to examine each email, redact anything that the State Department needs to redact and to look at whether any info came from other departments. if so, send it to that department to determine if more needs redaction. (I have never worked on anything like this nor am I a lawyer. This is just from the descriptions of process for the Clinton emails.)

YOU may disagree, but the people charged with doing the job need to follow the rules. You might be willing to ignore the down side of having a less careful process - the release of names or information that should not be made public. What seems clear is that this is a very very tedious and difficult job.

Where having the emails searchable helps is if the requests are LIMITED. The RNC request seems to be for all email from these aides - and it involves 450,000 pages of email in total.

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
57. printing them on paper rather than
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:35 PM
Jun 2016

working with them electronically is just a delaying tactic, which you would easily be able to recognize if a Repub Admin was doing this

this sort of selective "blindness" doesn't impress anyone

karynnj

(59,503 posts)
66. I agree that when you are looking for what fits a criteria - electronic is better
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 04:02 PM
Jun 2016

Maybe you should apply for a job working on FOIA requests. From the descriptions of the process - in various governmental entities, it is not that simple.

Not to mention, it is YOU repeating the Republican charge that this is delaying. In fact, if the RNC was serious, they would have limited the scope of the request to something less than EVERYTHING to and from these people.

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
68. I know what I am talking about because I have worked
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 05:06 PM
Jun 2016

on many FOIA requests.

I even did a time to comply estimate for a giant request which would have required printing ~8 million records from microfilm and then data capturing them and doing some tabulations.

Blanket requests for all emails by an individual (eg Cheryl Mills or Huma Abelin) are done when the requester does not trust that a limited request will be honestly complied with - which in this case is completely understandable.

We were also instructed to deliver FOIA responses by printing huge reams of documents unless an electronic response was specifically requested

karynnj

(59,503 posts)
55. As I wrote - I do not think they should have said 75 years
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:18 PM
Jun 2016

I also doubt that Secretary Kerry himself had anything to do with that estimate -- especially as it has been clear that he has distanced himself from the career professionals running that office. Yes, I know he heads the department, but I doubt that the FOIA department could handle the extreme number and breath of these requests with the people they had - even after they pulled people from other parts of the State Department to work on this.

Suffice it to say that even from the moment requested, while the FOIA group was struggling to get out the Clinton emails, it would have been impossible to get the emails out before the November election. Note that they also had many many other FOIA requests to honor on email from OTHER Clinton aides.

I do think they need to explain better how out of the ordinary what they have already done is.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
56. I'm truly sorry. I love how you love Kerry. However, I see this as a blot on his legacy and I
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:28 PM
Jun 2016

believe many will.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
29. So the Republican Congress should provide funds for he State Department so they can handle
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:55 AM
Jun 2016

FOIA requests.

It would be a win/win.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
30. Many years ago, as in 1980, I was working for the Federal Government.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:00 AM
Jun 2016

In the Army Archives, to be specific. I was a sort of student intern. My history teacher at Northern Virginia Community College had told us about these positions. I applied and was hired.

It was an interesting experience on many levels. First off, it became clear to me very quickly that an important aspect of this position was to adjust the student-interns to such things as going to work on a regular basis. Showing up on time. Stuff like that. I was already over 30, and was far beyond this stuff.

I did several projects in the six months or so I was there. One was the Machine Readable Project. At the time the federal government was in the process of becoming computerized, and this project was intended to establish protocols for saving computer (machine readable) records in a way that more or less matched the standards for paper records. To do this, a survey had been sent out to every army installation around the world asking them what they were doing at that point to preserve these records. I was tasked with collating and turning into another machine readable format (i.e. IBM punchcards) what they'd sent back to us. The woman who instructed me in what to do with these surveys spent over an hour giving me ten minutes' worth of information. She made it clear she thought this would take two weeks or so. I was done in less than two hours. It wasn't hard. But I was in an office where people were painfully under-employed. The particular woman who'd spent so long telling me about this task spent about six hours every day just staring at the wall. She honestly had at best two hours of work every day. At the time I thought she was incompetent, or an idiot, but I've come to understand that it wasn't her fault she had almost nothing to occupy her time.

A bit later, I was assigned the Agent Orange Project. I was to go through a very long list of documents, and fill out order cards calling up those which seemed to have any connection to the Agent Orange stuff in Vietnam. Already Vietnam Vets were claiming that they had illnesses and deformed children because of exposure to the defoliant. I only had the titles of the reports to go by, and I was told that I should err on the side of generosity: anything that looked remotely connected, I should order. The first day I must have filled out fifty orders, and the next day probably a hundred more. The day after that my boss got an angry phone call from the records center saying they couldn't possibly fill those order so quickly. I was restricted to 25 orders per week.

The third project I worked on was a filing project. Keep in mind I was working for the Army Archives, the people who set the rules about what should and should not be retained at U.S. Army installations around the world. They kept huge three ring binders of their rules. The rules were updated periodically. You'd think this was the one place in the entire United States Government and the United States Army that would have these rules completely up to date, wouldn't you? I was assigned to file the updates that no one had gotten to recently. I want to add here that I had been an airline ticket agent for ten years, immediately prior to this job. One of the delightful things I got to do was to update the Rules Tariff, these VERY LARGE binders that had all of the rules and regulations relating to airlines. Things like the routes we flew, the stuff about the clubs at the airports, what we had to do if a flight was cancelled or delayed. Stuff like that. We got updates more or less on a weekly basis. It was a steady part time job to make sure the Rules Tariff was up to date.

So back to my government job. I might want to point out that I was a GS-2, the absolutely lowest of the low. I think there may have been, back before President Lincoln, jobs that were categorized as GS-1, but no longer. In the office I worked in, the next lowest employee was a GS-7. Many of them were GS-9. My own boss was a GS-11, and his boss was a GS-13. The gulf between us was huge. Sort of like an enlisted man just out of basic training, compared to a Colonel or General. Trust me, I don't exaggerate here.

Back to the job. I was often bored, and as you can already see I was vastly more efficient than they were used to. I'd actually gotten in the habit of shuffling between two offices until I figured no one really knew where I was, and I'd go home an hour or so early, because I had nothing to do. It's possible that Dr. Hatcher, my boss, was somewhat on to me, but since I was doing about three or four times the work they expected, he let it slide. In fact, I was told by more than one person that if I'd been a real employee rather than the student intern I was, I'd have been promoted out of there so fast I'd probably not have known what was happening. So I was asked to update the manuals. This was 1980. The last time the manuals had been updated had been 1967. I had TWELVE YEARS of unfiled updates to deal with. TWELVE YEARS!!. The up side was that I was kept occupied for about two, maybe three weeks. At the end, when I had everything caught up, I went into the office of the head honcho, the GS-13, and very tremulously told him that while I didn't mind doing the work, I was horrified that the revisions hadn't been filed for so long. He pressed me as to what I thought should be done, and I finally told him the task should be assigned to someone. And that he, or someone else, needed to monitor this and make sure the revisions were filed. I have no idea if this was done. I suppose, were I to go back there, I'd find unfiled revisions dating back to 1980.

The entire point of this rather lengthy post is that the government is capable of much obstruction, much delay. There simply is not the sense of urgency that exists in the outside world, the notion that getting something done in a timely manner is important. Similarly, the legal profession operates in its own time sense which has almost no connection to the world most of us live in. I've been a paralegal. I know.

The State Department could hire more people. Maybe those who already work there could actually work more than two hours a day. If you turned this over to a mid level law firm they'd be done in a year. To someone like me? Six months.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
47. That's why government agencies
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:09 AM
Jun 2016

come up with things like the $500 toilet seat. The $300 hammer. So they have the money they need to do their jobs, without the American people and congress not really knowing where all of that taxpayer money goes.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
58. It has never seemed as though people with government jobs
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:55 PM
Jun 2016

are desperately overworked. I realize I worked there a very long time ago, but even in other white collar office jobs I've held since, I'm quite astonished at how much time is spent socializing, or in many ways nonproductive. Chatting, cruising the internet, going over to see what's happening elsewhere, and so on.

Yes, a budget increase would be needed to hire new people, but meanwhile those already working are probably not quite working to their full capacity.

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
39. This is so much bullshit, it's unbelieveable that it was said.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:05 AM
Jun 2016

One person could go through more than 500 pages a month. The vast majority of those emails is probably junk stuff. You don't produce 450,000 emails in a few years talking 'secrets'. You go through the emails once and put aside all the stuff that doesn't need to be investigated, like social stuff and spam. Does the government not know how to sort and put stuff in piles? A good secretary could have all those emails sorted in no time.

The State Department is stalling.

Z

karynnj

(59,503 posts)
42. I do not know why they said 75 years, when they could have said that it can't be done by the end of
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:43 AM
Jun 2016

Obama's Presidency.

I have read many posts that argue that the time suggested is far too long. However, we know that it took nearly a year to process Hillary Clinton's 55,000 pages. We also know that the State Department temporarily "cannibalized" FOIA trained people from every part of the State Department to expand what was about 12 people with a goal to getting 50 people to deal with the Clinton email alone. This also happens as the State Department has worked to change procedures to insure that email is properly archived going forward.

I think the problem is that this RNC demand is one of many - and it demands ALL email from three people. I may be wrong, but any FOIA requests from the past were on limited subject matter -- not a demand for ALL the email from high level officials. Just on DU today, there is at least one similar request for the emails of another person who worked for HRC. This with a backdrop of many many media requests.

I think that it would be a great idea for the State Department to demand an increase in budget to permanently expand their FOIA section and ask the House and Senate to approve it.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»State Dept.: 75-year wait...