GovernmentExecutive.com

Some federal agencies have taken proactive steps to boost the processing efficiency for document requests under the Freedom of Information Act, but future agency plans for action a decade after Congress updated the law for the Internet age dismay at least one watchdog.

The 1996 changes to the 40-year-old law sought to improve public access to government information, particularly electronic records, and reduce lag time in responses to FOIA requests. Many government entities have promised more streamlined FOIA processes by mid-2007.

But Patrice McDermott, the director of OpenTheGovernment.org, told a House Government Reform subcommittee on Wednesday that two agencies that should set the standard -- the Justice Department and White House Office of Management and Budget -- are not yet serious about reform. "There is no enforcement mechanism provided and no repercussions for ignoring these requirements," she said in written testimony.

The Government Management, Finance and Accountability Subcommittee first looked at FOIA in May 2005. Since then, President Bush has issued an executive order requiring agencies to review FOIA compliance and develop specific enhancement plans.

The administration directed agencies to designate a chief FOIA officer, establish an information-requester service center and provide blueprints for FOIA improvements to the attorney general and OMB by June 14. The White House expects a full report on FOIA progress in October.

Twenty-four agencies received a combined 2.6 million FOIA requests in 2005 -- an increase of 27 percent since 2002, according to Linda Koontz, director of information management issues at the Government Accountability Office. But departments are having trouble satisfying data requests.

The number of pending cases carried over annually rose to about 200,000 in fiscal 2005, a 43 percent increase over fiscal 2002, Koontz said in written testimony. Difficulties in coordinating responses within large, decentralized agencies and limitations in systems that track FOIA processing are to blame, she said.

Congress should approve funds geared toward promoting prompt public disclosure, McDermott said. She urged lawmakers to pass pending FOIA bills, H.R. 867, H.R. 1620 and S. 589.

The sponsors of those measures -- Reps. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and Brad Sherman, D-Calif., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas -- were slated to testify at the House hearing. "Exemptions [to FOIA] are too broad, and there is a complete lack of any meaningful penalties, either for individuals or agencies that violate the law," Sherman said in his prepared remarks.

COMMENTS

• The gist of my testimony is somewhat misrepresented in this article. My concern is that there is no enforcement mechanism built into either FOIA or the E.O. DOJ and OMB each have leadership roles in this area, but neither has mandated authority or responsibility to enforce compliance (and neither attempt it). My testimony focused on two of the “improvement areas” laid out by Justice in its guidance on the E.O. These are affirmative disclosure, posting frequently requested records, policies, manuals and FAQs on Web sites; and proactive disclosure on the Web of publicly available information. In it, I say "What is most striking to me is the future-oriented language used to describe what most of the agencies plan to do in these areas. Bear in mind that we are almost 10 years out from the passage of the 1996 Amendments and over nine years beyond the point at which most of the requirements set out therein were supposed to have been met. And yet, repeatedly, in the narratives we find that said agency will meet these statutory requirements – with the promised date often being mid-2007. Indeed, the two entities one would hope would provide exemplary models for others – the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget – fail to do so." Further on, "The lack of serious implementation of 10-year-old amendments to FOIA exemplified here is indicative of one of the serious problems with any procedural reforms to FOIA: there is no enforcement mechanism provided and no repercussions for ignoring these requirements. Even the Department of Justice, which Congress arguably intended to have oversight responsibility in the executive branch for the implementation of these amendments, has not fully implemented them (according to their own report). Nor has the Office of Management and Budget which has oversight responsibilities for information policy across the Executive Branch." Thus, while I single out DOJ and OMB, the point is meant to be illustrative, not to say that they "are not serious about reform." They may or may not be, but it was not a point made in my testimony. My testimony and the report on which it is based, “FOIA's 40th Anniversary: Agencies Respond to the President's Call for Improved Disclosure of Information,” can be found at http://www.openthegovernment.org/ Patrice McDermott Posted July 27, 2006 10:18 AM