From a March 19, 2009 Memorandum to all agency heads from Attorney General Eric Holder:
First, an agency should not withhold information [under the Freedom Of Information Act -- FOIA] simply because it may do so legally. I strongly encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information. An agency should not withhold records merely because it can demonstrate, as a technical matter, that the records fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption. ...Social Security may finally act upon my Freedom Of Information Act request for all the recent Emergency Messages that the agency has been trying to keep secret and, better yet, stop keeping Emergency Messages secret for trivial reasons, such as embarrassment. Emergency Messages are the main way that the Social Security Administration transmits information about policy changes to its employees. Most Emergency Messages issued in recent years have been labeled "Sensitive" and withheld from the public. This is inconsistent to the policy described by the Attorney General.
[A]s the President stated in his memorandum, "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears." ...
[A]gencies should readily and systematically post information online in advance of any public request. Providing more information online reduces the need for individualized requests and may help reduce existing backlogs [of FOIA requests].
7 comments:
Let's see what COSS does. The content of these EM's doesn't require secrecy. I suppose it was thought to be a way to conceal stuff from the Union, but these EM's go to practically everyone in operational jobs. Was CO trying to make itself look more important by having "secret" things to communicate? I suspect we'll never know. Let's see what happens. Plenty of COSS's have kept their heads down and escape the gaze of the big guys in OMB and the WH.
Why does everyone seem to look for the most insidious explanation for something that might just make good business sense? Is it possible that SSA sometimes has a business need to send out these Emergency and Sensitive messages to front line employees simply to get breaking news and policy changes out fast, knowing that the policy and public language has yet to be fully vetted?
That way the front line employees can reply to public inquiries in a somewhat intelligent manner by knowing basic information about the topic. For example: “This is what I know about [insert topic from EM here.] We’re waiting for more detailed instructions from Headquarters.”
It’s my guess that most of these messages are labeled “emergency” or “sensitive” not because they contain secrets or something that SSA wishes to hide. It’s more likely they’re labeled that way because they were prepared in a hurry, and contain internal SSA jargon that if fed to the general public in that form, might cause even more confusion.
Why should I think this an insidious practice? Well, during the 32 years I worked in SSA, we never received a single such EM. Not one. Of course, some EM's were advisory and incomplete, maybe just about a single programming change. But, then, if asked to comment, you say that. I believe the difference in the current and the old practice is the instruction to withhold them from disclosure. Which is just dumb.
Quite frequently, we never received any other AM messages or other issuances on important subjects and would work from an EM for months or even years. Those more detailed instructions never came. You know, a little jargon never hurt anyone. If questions arise, you just explain. Apparently that simple approach is outta style. I think I'll go catch a pootie diary. I need the LOL's.
"Why should I think this an insidious practice? Well, during the 32 years I worked in SSA, we never received a single such EM."
I assume the Intranet Website Policy Net was not around when you worked. Now everyday you can go to the site and see the EMs, AMs and such that are posted each day.
I do agree that a lot of EMs that are listed as sensitive need not be. Just like the one that come out on the $250 Stimulus Payment. It's listed as sensitive and 90% of the things in it have since be listed in the SSA Website FAQs.
I'll stick with my original post -- that most of this is about getting fast-breaking and unvetted information into the hands of employees fast so they can serve the public.
Besides, most Agencies are still following the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998--Plain Language in Government Writing. See: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?IPaddress=&dbname=1998_register&docid=98-15700-filed
SSA also has internal rules about how written information is presented to the public. When Congress changes a law effecting Social Security or SSI beneficiaries, and it hits the nightly news, the phones start ringing at SSA the next day with all kinds of questions. This is before Congress has even committed the new legislation to a final written format itself. Upper management at SSA has to get something in the hands of its employees while clear and accurate public information is being drafted.
Just check yesterday's Policy Net postings and an AM about the Railroad Board's new toll-free number is listed as sensitive not to be shared with the public. What the hell are these people smoking?
The Intranet Website Policy didn't exist when I retired. Having said that, I worked in staff positions both in CO and 2 different RO's for 9 years. I would point out that the memorandum you refer to "Plain language in government writing" was preceded by a number of earlier memos to that effect, the earliest I remember dating back to the Carter administration. Also, 1998 is 11 years ago. Most policy or procedural memos have an expiration date (GPO style manual or its successor publication) of 1 year. As laudable as the plain language memo is, it is obsolete. In any event, I know of no procedure or policy that prohibits the use of common sense in responding to inquiries from claimants, attnys, or members of the public. It would certainly be interesting to know if there is an administrative directive requiring the "secret" designation on EM's. Otherwise, the rules of correspondence may need revision to conform to current administration policy regarding disclosure.
Post a Comment