The
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Section 552, is a government wide set of laws defining how, when and what types of information will be released to parties that submit formal FOIA requests to government agencies. Such requests are often made by outside organization or citizens, but
can just as legitimately be submitted by government employees to their own agencies (e.g., ATF Agents can make FOIA requests to the ATF and/or the Department of Justice).
In December, 2007, the President of the United States signed into law the "
OPEN Government Act of 2007". Among other things, the Act was intended to standardize FOIA response times and prevent agencies such as ATF from indefinitely dragging their feet to evade disclosure of embarrassing or inconvenient information. This was a bread and butter tactic used time and time again by ATF and its counsel to frustrate legitimate requests for information and avoid accountability at all levels.
However, with very few exceptions, the new Act unequivocally requires all federal agencies (including ATF) to provide all responsive documents within 20 days from the date the FOIA request was received. In the event that an agency (such as ATF) fails to comply with the 20-day time limit, there are a number of significant ramifications:
- The Agency (such as ATF) cannot charge the normal search and duplications fees (they have to eat the cost);
- The requesting party (such as an ATF agent or employee) can immediately file a lawsuit in Federal District Court, and;
- The agency (such as ATF) can be ordered to pay the requesting party's Attorney fees, which must then be paid out of the agency's (such as ATF's) actual appropriated operating budget, rather than the previously available "Claims and Judgement Fund" (a sort of government slush fund used to pay off things such a legal fees and judgements, even when the ageny management acted iresponsibly or unlawfully).
This means that for the first time, an agency (such as ATF) can end up paying a serious price for attempting to obstruct or delay responses to valid FOIA requests. This further means that employees of a federal agency (such as ATF) now have an effective and easily wielded weapon to combat arbitrary, retaliatory or otherwise unlawful management action.
In February 2008, ATF's Director issued a
Bureau-wide memorandum to all management at all levels concerning compliance with the new FOIA response requirements and emphasizing the "severe consequences" for the agency in cases in which it fails to comply.
While www.CleanUpATF.org does not in any way suggest or condone frivolous use of the new FOIA rules, we strongly encourage government employees (such as ATF agents) to consider submitting detailed FOIA requests whenever they have been legitimately abused or victimized by improper management conduct.
We further recommend that if ATF fails or refuses to stringently comply with both the rule and spirit of the "
OPEN Government Act of 2007", aggrieved employees should bring immediate actions in federal District Court to ensure compliance, obtain the requested documents, and recover all attorney fees and costs incurred due the Bureau's refusal to follow the law.
Even in cases in which an agency (such as ATF) complies with the 20-day deadline,
they may, in effect, still refuse to actually disclose information they are lawfully obligated to provide
. A great example of this is
a recent FOIA "response" in which ATF redacted virtually 100% of an email that would clearly have evidenced management misconduct. This was an FOIA request submitted by an Agent who had been illegally hammered by management for making valid Whistleblower complaints. However, when the Agent asked for documents that he
knew the Bureau possessed and that clearly proved they had violated his rights and the law, ATF blacked out basically every word, as if there was some sort of "state secret" involved.
Of course, this FOIA request was about a PCS move and the manner in which ATF management had flagrantly used it to
punish an employee. Moreover, the information was requested by the affected employee himself, so it was clearly relevant. The redaction was therefore obviously laughably improper and plainly accomplished for the sole reason of protecting management from well-deserved disciplinary or legal action, none of which is appropriate under FOIA statutes or ATF official policy. In cases such as this, you should hire a decent lawyer and sue their pants off. They will almost certainly be ordered to cough up the detailed information they should have provided in the first place,
and pay your attorney fees.
TAKE THEM TO COURT, AND...WIN!
FOIA LINKS & RESOURCES:
The current contact point for all ATF-related FOIA requests is as follows:
Averill P. Graham
Chief, Disclosure Division
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Department of Justice
Suite 1E360
99 New York Avenue, N.E.
Washington, DC 20226
(202) 648-8740
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. GET SOME POWER.
