For example, rule 16.3(a) does not allow for denial of a request merely because you addressed it to the wrong department. You are required to try to determine WHICH is the proper department, but if you can't figure that out, you can send your FOIA to the Mail Referral Unit.
The rule itself contains a very detailed list of each component's FOIA office, and their functions. You can speed up the process by sending to the correct department, or by sending to the general mail drop.
How is this a bad thing?
Further, the rule 16.3 (c) DOES NOT allow for summary dismissal of a 'vague' application. The requester must make every effort at precision, BUT, if the government can't determine what you want, they are now required to ask for clarification--you get a chance to amend. You can only get dismissed after that.
How is that a bad thing????
16.4 (e) does NOT hide who is responsible for the FOIA information. The rule clearly states:
e) Notice of referral. Whenever a component refers any part of the
responsibility for responding to a request to another component or
agency, it will notify the requester of the referral and inform the
requester of the name of each component or agency to which the records
were referred, unless identifying the recipient will itself disclose a
sensitive, exempt fact.
In the normal course of business, you are going to get a name. If you request records of Seal Team 6, you may not.
I don't see what's wrong with that.
16.5 (a) doesn't 'reset' the deadlines. Requests are done on a first-come, first-serve basis. If you send it to the wrong department, you get put in line when your request gets to the right department. It's up to you to get your request to the right department. The appendices of the Rule are detailed as to who gets what.
I don't see what's wrong with that.
16.5(e) doesn't make expediting harder--it clarifies what is most important...
(e) Expedited processing. (1) Requests and appeals will be
processed on an expedited basis whenever it is determined that they
involve:
(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited processing could
reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or
physical safety of an individual;
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged
Federal government activity, if made by a person who is primarily
engaged in disseminating information;
(iii) The loss of substantial due process rights; or
(iv) A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which
there exist possible questions about the government's integrity which
affect public confidence.
I think putting life, liberty, public information are good reasons for expedition...what's wrong with that?
16.6(f) does not allow the government to lie. It allows the government to deny records exist when they pertain to a law enforcement action ONLY. In other words, you cannot file a FOIA as a back-door means of attempting to determine if a criminal investigation exists. I don't have a problem with Joe Arpaio not being able to file a FOIA as a means of determining if he's being investigated by the Feds.
16.7 does not make it easier for businesses to claim trade secrets--it makes it more difficult for the government to give away the farm if they know one of your trade secrets. Think about it this way--if you are a small producer, and the government investigated you for immigration policies, should a bigger competitor of yours be able to file a FOIA and get trade secrets that the government learned??? I don't see a problem with that.
16.11 does not disqualify schools from getting a fee waiver--the schools must prove that the request is for scholarly, and not commercial purposes. As the proposed rule states--
4) Educational institution is any school that operates a program
of scholarly research. A requester in this category must show that the
request is authorized by, and is made under the auspices of, a
qualifying institution and that the records are not sought for a
commercial use, but rather are sought to further scholarly research.
Records requested for the intention of fulfilling credit requirements
are not considered to be sought for a scholarly purpose.
I don't see what's wrong with that???
All hysteria aside, have you ever considered actually reading the rule changes rather than posting articles that push an agenda and depend on readers to not read the source material???
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
