GovernmentExecutive.com

Nuala O'Connor Kelly, the Homeland Security Department's first chief privacy officer, announced Wednesday that she is resigning and leaving the department by the end of the week.

"It's been a long time coming," she said in an interview. "I've been in the administration since 2001, and I've seen and done a lot. I've built the office, and it's up and running."

O'Connor Kelly made the announcement at a sparsely attended Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee meeting at a resort hotel in Bellingham, Wash. One conference attendee reported that O'Connor Kelly said she had received an offer from the private sector that she could not refuse. She later told Technology Daily that the job is with General Electric.

Maureen Cooney will become the acting chief privacy officer as of Oct. 1. Cooney is currently the office's chief of staff and director of international privacy policy.

O'Connor Kelly became the chief privacy officer in mid-April 2003. During her tenure, she created a functional office that was supposed to ensure that all new department technologies and processes used for security purposes complied with the nation's many federal privacy laws. She was a high-profile figure who often spoke publicly about the role of her office.

Her tenure also was marked by several controversial incidents, some of which sparked criticism from privacy advocates and certain members of Congress. Though she and members of her office often have said they tried to consider privacy laws before designing new technologies and processes, parts of the department often came under fire for violating their own policies.

This year, for example, the pre-screening system for airline passengers run by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) violated its own policy of not using information about passengers collected by commercial data brokers. Four Alaskans are suing TSA because they want to know how the agency used the information collected about them.

Her announcement sparked mixed responses from privacy advocates.

Bill Scannell, a long-time privacy advocate and activist who is a spokesman for the Alaskans, said he had "great hopes" that her office would prevent anti-privacy initiatives planned by the department, "but I haven't seen that. I'm sure there were battles that were fought inside that we never heard about ... [but] her role has been pretty much reduced to flak absorption for [department] screw-ups, and TSA in particular."

Jim Harper, the Cato Institute's director of information policy studies, who serves on Homeland Security's privacy advisory committee, characterized O'Connor Kelly's tenure as "better than expected." He noted that she was not popular within the department after she issued a report criticizing it for secretly accepting passenger information from the airline JetBlue.

"At various times, she had serious fights with agency people," from which she emerged "seething with rage," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union praised O'Connor Kelly in a statement but quickly added that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff should not use her departure as an opportunity to weaken the position. The group also urged Congress to pass a bill sponsored by Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., that would boost the powers of her replacement.

COMMENTS

• ICEd- You need not go on. Why? Because you're not saying anything new. Everyone knows the problems. I'm not criticizing DHS employees for things that they didn't have control over, I'm criticizing those of us who after almost three years can do nothing more than complain about what "should" have happened in 2002-3. But by all means keep soapboxing here if it makes you feel better. GovExec.com reader Posted October 19, 2005 11:33 AM
• "...hundreds of gloom and doom employees..." is a major problem at DHS. Instead of blaming the employees for feeling that way, you should look at the reason for these feelings, namely, the absolutely horrible way DHS was created, and the wholesale disregard for the feelings of these same employees. Not to mention the creation of ICE, the incompetent "managers," the budget problems, the duplication of effort at CBP and ICE, the lousy administrative systems, the lack of mission focus, the merger of agencies with different missions, cultures and responsibilities - need I go on? That is where the real problem lies, not with the unfortunate employees who were forced into this mess, with no say in their own destinies. What a pity - if someone had actually asked these employees for their opinions, DHS could have been a much better, well-run agency with a clearly defined mission and priorities. Instead of relying on politicians and think tank "experts," try talking to the people who actually do this work, and can tell you the best way to run things, based upon their training and experience. What a novel idea! GovExec.com reader Posted October 14, 2005 12:23 AM
• "Anyone else see a pattern here with all these Homeland Security Department 'leaders' cashing in their chips and going to the private sector?" Yes, I do see a pattern -- the same pattern present among all appointed leadership in all executive agencies and departments. Come on, people -- putting a couple years in a political job and then moving on to the private sector is par for the course! And could it be that one of the reasons that DHS is a "sinking ship" is because of the dead weight of hundreds of doom-and-gloom employees who will find any excuse to lament their sad situation? GovExec.com reader Posted October 7, 2005 9:46 AM