[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Justice Dept. Hiding Weekly Legislative Reports



Michael Ravnitzky's account of the Justice Department's decision to
obstruct his access to documents by unilaterally defining him as a
non-reporter is an interesting parallel to the same Justice Department's
treatment of Vanessa Leggett, a Houston, Texas writer who was jailed for
contempt of court last fall when she refused to hand over all her notes and
interviews about a criminal suspect when they were demanded by the
DoJ.  The justification included the same idea -- that Leggett had no right
to protect the confidentiality of her sources, or even to retain the
original copies of her own research, because the DoJ did not acknowledge
her to be a "journalist".   (The Federal Bureau of Prisons later chimed in
with the Orwellian assertion that a reporter from the Society of
Professional Journalists, who wished to interview Leggett, wasn't a
journalist, either.)

The common theory seems to be that there is a two-tiered system of rights,
one for officially-favored "journalists", and another, more restrictive,
one for mere citizens and journalists who do not enjoy official favor.  The
DoJ asserts that it possesses the right to unilaterally confer or deny
membership in the first, privileged, category.

I realize that this is only marginally related to the purpose of this
listserv, and will refrain from commenting further in this venue unless
others are interested.  However, I thought the parallel, and the
implications for any and all manuscript or archival materials dealing with
political or law-enforcement subjects, would be of interest to anyone who
was interested in Mike R.'s message.

See the following link for more info. about Leggett:
http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa082701a.htm?terms=jailed+journalist

Bradley A. Scott,  Once and Future Texan

Date:    Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:13:42 -0500
From:    Michael Ravnitzky <mikerav@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Justice Dept. Hiding Weekly Legislative Reports


I hope that this anecdote will be of moderate interest to the readers of the
Archives list, and that it is not too far afield.  I have been a regular and
avid reader of the Archives list in digest form for several years, mostly
because of the wonderful RAIN efforts from Peter.



JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HIDING WEEKLY LEGISLATIVE REPORTS TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL


by Michael Ravnitzky


An apparent policy change by the U.S. Dept. of Justice threatens to crack
down on the independence of the press.


I am a reporter who works full time for a well-respected national news
organization, and I work from our Washington, DC offices.  My employer
publishes more than 25 national and regional magazines and newspapers,
primarily in the area of business and law.  At least two of them (The
National Law Journal and Legal Times) are primarily devoted to the
activities of the justice system and of federal government agencies.
Several other company publications cover the federal and state justice
systems.  One publication, The American Lawyer, is highly respected journal
covering the legal system and the business of law.


Last year I learned through research that the Department of Justice Office
of Legislative Affairs [OLA] provided weekly legislative activity reports to
the Office of the Attorney General.  These reports are usually
2-3 pages in length, and are essentially a description of DOJ lobbying and
DOJ legislative activities.


I asked for several of these reports under the Freedom of Information Act;
those were provided in their entirety.  Recognizing the value of these
records, I sent another letter, again citing FOIA, and requested a few years
worth of these reports (still only a couple of hundred pages in all).  When
nothing happened within the statutory timeframe, I backstopped my request by
placing an additional request for several earlier years.


By statute and regulations, a federal agency cannot destroy records that
have been requested under FOIA.  I was taking preventative measures to
ensure that records were not conveniently shredded under a quote records
retention schedule unquote.  I have seen many records disappear in this
fashion when similar records were requested, and wanted to prevent such an
occurrence.


Soon afterward, the roof fell in.  I was informed by DOJ that I was not, in
their eyes, a reporter, and that they would not process my request in that
category, effectively barring my otherwise ordinary request.


The news organization I work for routinely reports on Justice Department
activities in several magazines and newspapers.  My primary job is to work
with all of the editors and writers at our various publications and to
assist them in getting the records, and locating and analyzing data they
need to cover specific stories.  Often, as a result, my name appears on
research credits rather than on a byline.


In addition, I attempt to work proactively to obtain records that are likely
to lead to important stories.  Because the Justice Department, and other
agencies, take months or years to process requests for records, it is
usually impractical to use FOIA for a specific story already underway.  A
better way to use FOIA is for anticipatory journalism, to obtain records
that have a high probability of explaining the operations of government, or
provide context for stories that continue to be reported on a regular basis.
A prime example:  to understand in context the legislative agenda and
lobbying by the Department of Justice.


Nevertheless, DOJ decided that I am no longer a representative of the news
media.  As a result, they declined to process our request without a payment
of thousands of dollars in search fees.  They are well aware that, under the
FOIA statute, reporters are not to be charged any search or review fees.
The purpose of this law is to prevent agencies from discouraging records
requests from journalists by invoking large searching fees.  But copying
costs are fine.  Everyone, including our news organization, acknowledges
that reporters can and do pay for duplication [photocopying] costs.


I found out soon afterward what had happened.  A small office in DOJ called
the Office of Information and Privacy runs training seminars for government
FOIA managers in a variety of agencies.  At one training session in
November, 2001, [probably November 27th and 28th] the question came up of
how to handle troublesome requests, including my request for legislative
weekly reports to the Attorney General.  A FOIA Manager told me that my name
and my request was mentioned specifically.


This credible source said that DOJ representatives said that they were going
to deny my status as a representative of the news media as a way to block my
request, despite their knowledge of the fact that I work full-time for a
national news organization and actively cover agency matters.


One FOIA Manager stood up and spoke to the group criticizing this decision.
This manager indicated to me that he thought their decision-making was
highly improper.


Despite letters to the DOJ from the Editor-in-Chief of our news
organization, as well as inquiries from our corporate General Counsel, the
Justice Department is standing firm and suppressing the release of these
reports by insisting that a reporter is not a reporter, and that whether he
is or is not a reporter can be determined by the Department on the basis of
whether or not they like his stories.


The Justice Department is now considering spreading this technique of hiding
government documents to other agencies.  If it is not halted now, this
approach could keep reporters from learning about the activities of the
government.  This matter is too important to keep within the confines of our
newsroom, and it poses terrifying implications for journalists who write
about federal activities.


Are these documents I requested so highly embarrassing or sensitive, that
the Justice Department would reverse long-standing policies and take such
extraordinary steps to prevent their release?


If I withdraw my request for these documents, which date back at least as
far as the mid-1980s, I believe they will undoubtedly be shredded under
Justice Department existing document destruction schedules.


What can you do about this?


FIRST of all, any interested individual should request these reports to
prevent their immediate shredding.  Once records are requested, the agency
is obliged in theory to retain the records until the request has been
processed.


You can request the OLA Legislative Weekly Report, specifying the time
period of interest, by sending a letter mentioning the Freedom of
Information Act, and asking for:


THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS WEEKLY REPORTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE YEARS XXXX - XXXX.  (as of last month, they had these reports going back
at least 15 years, and perhaps earlier)


to:


Melanie Ann Pustay, Deputy Director
Office of Information and Privacy
Suite 570, Flag Building
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
PHONE:  202: 514-FOIA
FAX:  202-514-1009


The Office of Information and Privacy not only establishes FOIA Policy
government wide, but also handles all request for records from the DOJ
Office of Legislative Affairs.


What lobbying activities are described in these reports that the Justice
Department is willing to go to such great lengths to hide?


SECOND, you can contact the Office of Information & Privacy and ask them why
they are squelching the release of these records.


If you would like any further information, you can contact me at
202-828-0328.  I will provide copies of the relevant correspondence to
anyone from a newsroom or public interest or advocacy
organization who requests a copy.


I am also available to discuss how the Attorney General Ashcroft
pronouncement on FOIA has led to reduced access to records as agencies deny
access and such denials survive administrative appeals despite the lack of
foreseeable harm from release of the records.


For reference only, my title and position is:


Michael Ravnitzky
Director of Database & Computer-Assisted Reporting
American Lawyer Media
1730 M Street N.W. Suite 802
Washington, DC  20036
202-828-0328
fax:  202-457-0718
mjr@amlaw.com

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
     In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                   *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>