SENATE PASSES EXTENSIVE FOIA REFORM LEGISLATION
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Release Decision:
RIPPUB
Original Classification:
K
Document Page Count:
17
Document Creation Date:
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date:
December 11, 2008
Sequence Number:
14
Case Number:
Publication Date:
December 1, 1984
Content Type:
OPEN SOURCE
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7.pdf | 1.6 MB |
Body:
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
U.S. Department of Justice ?
Office of Information and Privacy
FO
? Vol. vim,-ivo:~l
Winter 1984
UPDATE
Senate Passes Extensive
FOIA Reform Legislation
?
?
After hearings and protracted delib-
erations extending over two sessions
of Congress, the Senate on February
27 unanimously passed S. 774, the
comprehensive package of FOIA re-
form amendments supported by the
Administration.
Full Senate approval of S. 774 had
been expected last year, based upon
the bipartisan efforts of Senators
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick
Leahy (D-Vt.), but was delayed for
several months as a result of concerns
(primarily regarding national security
issues) raised by Senator David
On Agency Practice
Wide Variety of FOIA Training Available
Over the years since federal
agencies first began implementing the
Freedom of Information Act, they
have become increasingly aware of
the value of up-to-date training in this
area.
Today, a wide variety of basic and
advanced training courses on the
FOIA are available throughout the
Federal Government. In 1984, ap-
proximately 25 governmentwide
FOIA training programs will be held
in Washington, D.C. alone, and 18
more sessions are scheduled in re-
New Feature
In this issue, FOIA Update inau-
gurates a new recurring feature, "Un-
der Advisement" (page 9), which
will point out pending litigation cases
in which FOIA issues of particular
significance are expected to be decid-
ed in the near future.
gions throughout the country. In addi-
tion, many agencies will offer in-
house or on-the-job training for their
FOIA access professionals and
attorneys.
A review of the FOIA training
practices at various federal depart-
ments and agencies reveals several
consistent trends in FOIA training.
New employees in the FOIA area usu-
ally attend at least one of the major
FOIA training programs and there-
after return for refresher sessions
from time to time.
Additionally, several agencies offer
one-day or two-day in-house sessions
on the FOIA which usually focus on
technical questions and issues partic-
ular to those agencies. Educational
programs offering updated training
and advanced work are always
popular and, as federal agencies have
developed greater FOIA expertise in
recent years, such programs have be-
Durenberger (R-Minn.). Ultimately,
however, the bill cleared the Senate
with relatively little controversy after
Senator Hatch agreed to schedule a
hearing on April 3 before his Consti-
tution Subcommittee of the Judiciary
Committee addressing such concerns.
S. 774 now moves to the House of
Representatives, where Government
Information, Justice and Agriculture
Subcommittee Chairman Glenn Eng-
lish (D-Okla.) has awaited final Sen-
ate action for more than two years be-
fore considering FOIA reform. In a
Cont'd on p. 6
come heavily subscribed.
The major sources of FOIA train-
ing are:
? The Department of Justice's
Legal Education Institute (LEI)-
which offers five sessions yearly of
its two-day course, "The Freedom of
Information Act for Attorneys and
Access Professionals. " In 1984, four
of these sessions will be offered in
Washington and the fifth will be held
in Los Angeles. The faculty is com-
prised of access law experts from sev-
Cont'd on next page
Inside Update
OIP Guidance: Congres-
sional Access Under
the FOIA .............. pp. 3-4
FOIA Counselor: The
Unique Protection of
Exemption 2 .......... pp. /0-1/
Index to FOIA Update,
Vols. I-IV ............. pp. i-iv
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
...Varied FOIA Training Available
eral agencies and the Office of Infor-
mation and Privacy.
LEI's training of legal personnel in
the FOIA area goes back several
years, but the current course was re-
vised considerably in 1982. As it is
now presented, the course is com-
prised of overview and case update
lectures, a discussion of current FOIA
policy issues, workshops on various
FOIA exemptions and procedural is-
sues, and a detailed explanation of
the Vaughn requirements by an As-
sistant United States Attorney. It has
been specifically made available to
access professionals as well as attor-
neys and has been one of LEI's most
heavily demanded course offerings
over the past two years. A basic
knowledge of the FOIA is usually re-
quired for participation.
In late 1983, based upon an OIP
training survey showing a great de-
mand for more advanced FOIA train-
ing, LEI inaugurated its "Advanced
Seminar on the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act." Intended for the principal
FOIA officers at federal agencies or
their designees, this one-day seminar
includes specialized presentations and
workshops on selected FOIA issues
and will now be offered twice per
year.
Also offered twice per year is
LEI's new one-day Privacy Act semi-
nar, which originated as part of its
larger two-day information law
course before it became a separate
seminar early in 1983.
? The Office of Personnel Man-
agement's Center for Commu-
nications and Administrative Man-
agement-which, through its
Administrative Management Training
Institute, offers six FOIA/PA sessions
yearly in the Washington area. Estab-
lished during the winter of
1975-1976, OPM's "Successful Im-
plementation of the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act and the Privacy Act" is
directed toward the new employee or
the one with little FOIA/PA
experience.
It is offered three times yearly, as
is OPM's companion course, "FOIA
and Privacy Act Workshop for Ad-
ministrative and Secretarial Person-
nel." The workshop is described by
its instructor as a "nuts and bolts"
course directed toward those involved
in the receipt and processing of
FOIA/PA requests.
All six Washington sessions are
taught by William H. Harader, Direc-
tor of the Center for Governmental
Services and Professor of Political
Science at Indiana State University.
Harader was at OPM during the aca-
demic year of 1975-1976 as an ex-
change employee under the Intergov-
ernmental Personnel Act. During that
time, he worked with Office of Man-
agement and Budget employees and
with OMB's Privacy Act guidelines
to develop a Privacy Act course. Lat-
er, he worked with the Justice De-
partment to add material on the
FOIA.
? The Office of Personnel Man-
agement's Government Affairs In-
stitute-which offers an annual two-
day symposium on the FOIA.
Professor Harader, who coordinates
this symposium with OPM's Patti
Shosteck, describes the symposium as
directed toward top level personnel
concerned with new legislative, poli-
cy, and case law developments. It
generally draws about 150 persons,
despite being held in mid-August,
and is open governmentwide. This
year will see the sixth annual offering
of this FOIA program and, according
to OIP Co-Director Dan Metcalfe,
who has spoken at each program, it is
"highly regarded and recom-
mended. "
? The Office of Personnel Man-
agement's Regional Training Cen-
ters-which have scheduled- 17 two-
day sessions on the FOIA and the
Privacy Act for 1984. Response to the
FOIA/PA course in the OPM regions
varies. For example, the Denver Re-
gion Training Center recently offered
a FOIA/PA course taught by the train-
er from Dallas; the session filled
quickly and some people were turned
away. In other regions, however, de-
mand has decreased in recent years.
One region ran as many as nine ses-
sions yearly, but is now down to
three.
? The U.S. Department of Agri-
culture Graduate School-which
offers a three-day course on informa-
tion access laws four times a year and
a two-day FOIA and Privacy Act
course four times yearly. The three-
day course on access laws was estab-
lished in 1983. Course instructor
Francis Seng says, "It's not for peo-
ple just starting out in the field ...
it's not a primer course. " Instead, he
says, instruction deals with the laws
that regulate custody, management
and disclosure of government
information.
The two-day course at USDA is
specifically directed at the FOIA and
the Privacy Act. Instructors from the
Office of Information and Privacy
and other government agencies serve
as the faculty. Now undergoing sub-
stantial revision, the course currently
opens with an overview of the FOIA,
focusing on procedural and exemp-
tion issues, and then moves into a de-
tailed description of the Privacy Act,
and a final summary comparing the
two Acts. The course is aimed at stu-
dents with little or no experience in
these areas.
? The American Society of Ac-
cess Professionals (ASAP)- which,
since its establishment in late 1980,
Cont'd on p. 6
?
?
is
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
?
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information and Privacy
FOIA UPDATE
OIP Guidance
?
?
Congressional Access Under FOIA
A particularly delicate issue arising under the Freedom
of Information Act is the proper treatment of FOIA re-
quests received from Members of Congress. Such requests
may be made for a variety of different purposes-such as
in aid of a specific or general legislative function, on be-
half of a constituent, or even as a matter of a Member's
primarily personal interest. In responding to such requests,
with their inherent implications for Executive/Legislative
Branch relations, federal agencies can face troubling dis-
closure decisions and are often uncertain as to where they
should, or must, "draw the line. "
Fortunately, the FOIA contains language within its sub-
section (c) specifically addressing the subject of congres-
sional access. The exact meaning of this language, though,
is less than crystal clear, as it succinctly states only that
"[the FOIA] is not authority to withhold information from
Congress." 5 U.S.C. ?552(c). Such phrasing leaves some-
what unclear exactly which requests should be treated as
special ones "from Congress. " Unfortunately, this has
been clouded even further by the D.C. Circuit's highly
questionable opinion in Murphy v. Department of the
Army, 613 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
THE MURPHY DECISION
In Murphy, a FOIA requester argued that the Army had
"waived" its right to protect requested records under Ex-
emption 5 because it had provided the records to a Member
of Congress. See 613 F.2d at 1155. While the congress-
man involved had an undeniable official interest in the rec-
ords' subject matter (a proposed public works project with-
in his district), it was undisputed that he had obtained them
in his capacity as an individual Member, not through a for-
mal committee or subcommittee request. See id. at 1153 &
n.2.
In an opinion written by District Court Judge Harold H.
Greene (sitting by special designation), the D.C. Circuit
refused to find "waiver" under such circumstances, but it
did so by relying exclusively on the operation of FOIA
subsection (c). See id. at 1155-56. In so doing, Judge
Greene's opinion interpreted subsection (c) expansively,
suggesting that it requires unexempted FOIA access for
any request made by a Member of Congress in his or her
official capacity. See id. at 1156-58.
To be sure, the "non-waiver" outcome reached in Mur-
phy seems entirely correct, particularly according to the
law of waiver as it has developed under the FOIA. See
Winter 1984 FOIA UPDATE
FOIA Update, Spring 1983, at 6. But the Murphy opin-
ion's analysis and application of subsection (c) are quite
troubling. In the past, the Department of Justice has not
fully confronted Murphy, but instead strained to minimize
its significance to subsection (c) determinations by ration-
alizing that subsection (c) "was not indispensable" to
Murphy's outcome. FOIA Update, Summer 1980, at 4.
However, there is just no getting around the fact that the
Murphy opinion, on its face, is based entirely upon its ab-
errational reading of subsection (c), and this has given
pause to many agency officials considering access requests
from individual Members of Congress.
THE PROPER SUBSECTION (C) "LINE"
Therefore, so that there should no longer be any doubt
or hesitation among federal agencies on this point, it is
now stated unequivocally, as a matter of Department of
Justice FOIA policy, that the "line" within subsection (c)
should be drawn between requests made by a House of
Congress as a whole (including through its committee
structure), on one hand, and requests from individual
Members of Congress on the other. Even where a FOIA re-
quest is made by a Member clearly acting in a completely
official capacity, such a request does not properly trigger
the special access rule of subsection (c) unless it is made
by a committee or subcommittee chairman, or otherwise
under the authority of a committee or subcommittee. Inso-
far as the Murphy opinion indicates otherwise, it should
not be followed.
This approach to the issue, Murphy notwithstanding, is
strongly compelled by several considerations. First and
foremost, the FOIA's legislative history makes it clear that
precisely such a construction of subsection (c) was intend-
ed. See H.R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 11-12
(1966) ("Members of Congress have all of the rights of ac-
cess guaranteed to `any person' [under the FOIA], and the
Congress has additional rights of access to all Government
information which it deems necessary to carry out its func-
tions."); S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 10
(1965); Federal Public Records Law: Hearings on H. R.
5012, et. al. Before Subcomm. of the Government Opera-
tions Comm., 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1965) (Statement
of Rep. Moss). See also 5 U.S.C. ?552a(b)(9) (identical
"line" drawn under the Privacy Act of 1974).
Such a construction also fully comports with the access
rules traditionally applied in non-FOIA contexts, which
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
... Congressional FOIA Access
limit congressional access along exactly the same lines.
See, e.g., Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 589 F.2d 582, 592-94
(D.C. Cir. 1978) ("The principle is important that disclo-
sure of information can only be compelled by authority of
Congress, its committees and subcommittees, not solely by
individual members. "), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 943
(1979); see also Liveright v. United States, 347 F.2d 473,
474-75 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (congressional subpoena not
valid unless issued by subcommittee chairman with full,
express authority of subcommittee). Indeed, this rule was
expressly applied in a recent decision denying Senator Jes-
se Helms' non-FOIA bid for special access to FBI records
on Martin Luther King, Jr. See Lee v. Kelley, 99 F.R.D.
340, 342-43 & n.2 (D.D.C. 1983), petition for mandamus
denied, No. 83-2090 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 19, 1983) (appeal
docketed, Nos. 83-2141, 83-2142 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 28,
1983)).
FOIA PRACTICE
It is also significant that several FOIA requests from in-
dividual Members of Congress have been litigated through
the years, including requests unquestionably made in a
Member's official capacity, without it ever having been
held that such requests qualify for special access under
subsection (c). See, e.g., Aspin v. Department of Defense,
491 F.2d 24, 26 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Mink v. EPA, Civil
No. 71-1614, slip op. at 1 (D.D.C. Aug. 27, 1971) (re-
jecting such a special access argument), rev'd on other
grounds, 464 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1972), rev'd on
other grounds, 410 U.S. 73 (1973). Cf. Ashland Oil, Inc.
v. FTC, 409 F. Supp. 297, 300 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 548 F.2d
977 (D.C. Cir. 1976). It is therefore not at all surprising
that the contrary interpretation of subsection (c) employed
in Murphy was pointedly and persuasively criticized in a
subsequent D.C. Circuit case. See FTC v. Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corp., 626 F.2d 966, 978-79 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
(Wald, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Moreover, such a demarcation within subsection (c) is
most sensible from a practical standpoint as well. Were the
"line" to be drawn otherwise, then any individual Mem-
ber of Congress, acting out of some official interest in the
subject matter of an agency record, could personally com-
pel its disclosure without regard for its exempt status under
the FOIA. Such a practice would not only pose a myriad of
difficulties for federal agencies, it would be directly con-
trary to the traditional manner in which the Executive and
Legislative Branches interact. See, e.g., Exxon Corp. v.
FTC, supra, 589 F.2d at 592-94; see also FTC v. Owens-
Corning Fiberglas Corp., supra, 626 F.2d at 978-79
(Wald, J.).
DISCRETIONARY DISCLOSURE
This is not to say, however, that agencies are without
discretion to make broad FOIA disclosures to individual
Members of Congress under appropriate circumstances.
Accord Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 293
(1979) (FOIA exemptions are discretionary, not mandato-
ry). Recognizing the importance of federal information
flow to effective congressional relations, Executive Branch
agencies should of course give very careful consideration
to any access request received from a Member of Con-
gress, with discretionary disclosure often a possibility.
And where an agency makes such a discretionary disclo-
sure in furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest,
together with careful restrictions on further dissemination,
it should be able to resist an argument that such action con-
stitutes a "waiver" of FOIA exemptions. See FOIA Up-
date, Spring 1983, at 6.
On the other hand, however, agencies must remember
that certain types of information exempted under the FOIA
are prohibited from disclosure by other rules or statutes,
see, e.g., Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Pro-
cedure (grand jury information), and that agency discretion
to disclose such information is necessarily circumscribed,
see, e.g., United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 103
S.Ct. 3133, 3140-49 (1983) (strict limitations placed on
disclosure of grand jury information). Moreover, even
where the special congressional access rule of subsection
(c) is clearly applicable, an agency could still refuse to dis-
close requested information based upon an authorized as-
sertion of executive privilege by the head of the agency.
See President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies Re: Procedures Governing Re-
sponses to Congressional Requests for Information (Nov.
4, 1982) (requiring specific Presidential authorization for
any invocation of executive privilege in response to a con-
gressional access request).
CONCLUSION
In sum, when an agency receives a FOIA request from a
Member of Congress, it should first determine whether it is
a duly authorized request on behalf of Congress through a
legislative committee or subcommittee. If so, then the re-
quest falls within subsection (c) of the FOIA and only a
specially authorized claim of executive privilege could be
interposed to justify nondisclosure. Any FOIA request sub-
mitted by the chairman of a committee or subcommittee on
a subject within its jurisdiction should routinely fall into
this category. On the other hand, if the request is not an
official committee or subcommittee request, then the agen-
cy should process it as a request from "any person" under
the FOIA, but with particular regard for the considerations
of congressional relations, discretionary disclosure and
waiver referred to above.
This guidance clarifies and updates the Department's 1980
policy statement on this subject, in which the same statu-
tory interpretation was suggested.
4 FOIA UPDATE
?
O
O
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
?
?
How should an agency charge applicable search fees
when it has more than one request for the same
records?
The fee provision of the FOIA provides that an agency
may charge fees to recover "the direct costs of [document]
search and duplication." 5 U.S.C. ?552(a)(4)(A). Accord-
ingly, once an agency commences a search pursuant to a
FOIA request for certain records, subsequent FOIA re-
questers of the same records should not be charged search
fees; inasmuch as that is a cost that is normally incurred by
a first requester only, it cannot be considered a "direct
cost" for subsequent requesters.
Equitable considerations require application of a differ-
ent rule, however, when an agency has more than one re-
quest for the same records in a pending request backlog. In
such instances, even though one request will probably have
been made before the others, agencies should process the
requests together and should apportion the search fees
evenly among all existing requesters. The key point in this
latter situation is that at the time at which the search efforts
are commenced, those efforts must fairly be regarded as
being expended on behalf of all persons with requests
pending for the records in question.
public") (emphasis innrriginal). Similarly, in a "prepubli-
cation review" case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals re-
cently held that the CIA "cannot reasonably bear the bur-
den of conducting an exhaustive search to prove that a giv-
en piece of information is not published anywhere. "
McGehee v. CIA, 718 F.2d 1137, 1141 n.9 (D.C. Cir.
1983). See also Dunaway v. Webster, 519 F. Supp. 1059,
1078 & n.17 (N.D. Cal. 1981) (Exemption 7(C) upheld to
protect identities of individuals of investigative interest to
FBI, despite plaintiff's claim that some might be deceased,
because "it would be a task beyond the scope of reason-
able endeavor to expect the government to track them all
down"); but see also Diamond v. FBI, 532 F. Supp. 216,
227 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (ordering agency to re-check its
files, including some 200,000 pages outside the scope of
the request, to determine whether each individual whose
identity was protected pursuant to Exemption 7(C) in docu-
ments thirty years old was still alive and, if so, whether he
had "indicated in any manner preferences about disclosing
his name and involvement"), aff'd on other grounds, 707
F.2d 75, 77 n.2 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 52 U.S.L.W.
3548 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1984) (No. 83-258).
It should be remembered, however, that prior official
public disclosures can hardly be ignored in FOIA process-
ing. See, e.g., Tigar & Buffone v. United States Depart-
ment of Justice, Civil No. 80-2382, slip op. at 10-11
(D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1983) (FOIA affiant must be familiar
with matters that were subjects of public congressional
hearings and criminal prosecutions). See also FOIA Up-
date, Spring 1983, at 6 (discussing standards governing
"waiver" under the FOIA).
Do agencies have a duty under the FOIA to answer
written questions?
No, not unless such a question can fairly be read as
constituting a "reasonably describe[d] " request for access
w ef- to particular records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
i
it
e
s rev
How far does an agency have to extend
forts to make sure that requested information withhold- ?552(a)(3). The Supreme Court has squarely held that the
able under the FOIA has not previously been made FOIA does not require agencies to "create explanatory ma-
public? terial." NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132,
As a general rule, an agency need not conduct a colla- 162 (1974). See also, e.g., Borom v. Crawford, 651 F.2d
teral "investigation" to determine whether information 500, 501 (7th Cir. 1981) (FOIA does not require the com-
protectible under one or more of the FOIA's exemptions pilation of statistical data); Krohn v. Department of Jus-
has previously been disclosed, at least not in the absence tice, 628 F.2d 195, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (same); Giza v.
of a specific demonstration by the requester that such a dis-. HEW, 628 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir. 1980) (agency expert
closure has been made. See Williams v. United States De- could not be compelled to explain statements in previously
partment of Justice, 556 F. Supp. 63, 66 (D.D.C. 1982) disclosed records); but see also Diamond v. FBI, 487 F.
(refusing to impose upon an agency an obligation to inves- Supp. 774, 777 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (FBI required to provide
tigate the possibility that privacy interests of individuals a description of technical jargon and abbreviations which
mentioned in ABSCAM files "may have been breached in would be unintelligible to the average layman), aff'd on
the course of many-faceted proceedings occurring in dif- other grounds, 707 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
ferent courts over a period of prior years," because the 52 U.S.L.W. 3548 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1984) (No. 83-258).
plaintiff had "presented no specific, concrete cases of However, while agencies do not have to create or compile
withheld materials that have been made public in [such] new records in response to FOIA requests (whether formu-
proceedings"); see also, e.g., Dow, Lohnes & Albertson lated in question form or not), they should make good faith
v. Presidential Commission on Broadcasting to Cuba, efforts to assist requesters in honing any requests for readi-
Civil No. 82-0929, slip op. at 14-15 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, ly accessible records which are "inartfully presented in the
1984) ("plaintiff fail[ed] to demonstrate that the withheld form of questions." Ferri v. Bell, 645 F.2d 1213, 1220
information has already been specifically revealed to the (3d Cir. 1981).
EEMOWNO~
Winter 1984 FOIA UPDATE
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
... FOIA deform Bill Moves to House
Cont'd from p. 1
statement issued on the day following
Senate passage, Chairman English
promised to schedule hearings on
S. 774 very soon, but suggested that
further House action on the bill
should not necessarily be expected
this year.
In other action on a separate FOIA
proposal, the Senate on December 14
passed S. 1324, a bill aimed at pro-
viding the CIA with a categorical
FOIA exclusion for certain of its op-
erational files. This. bill was jointly
referred to the House Permanent Se-
lect Committee on Intelligence and to
Chairman English's subcommittee of
the Government Operations Commit-
tee. Its progress through the House
cannot yet be predicted.
Also before Chairman English's
subcommittee in the House is a bill
that would preclude the Justice De-
partment's argument to the Supreme
Court (see "Supreme Court Update"
on p. 9 of this issue of FOIA Update)
that the Privacy Act of 1974 can serve
as an Exemption 3 statute under the
FOIA. Introduced on January 31 by
Chairman English and several other
congressmen, H.R. 4696 would
amend subsection (q) of the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. ?552a(q), to achieve
its objective.
For a description of the provisions
of S. 774 as approved by the full Sen-
ate, see the Summer 1983 issue of
FOIA Update at pp. 1-2. The only
modifications to S. 774 made upon
final Senate passage were the removal
of the proposed technological data ex-
emption, in light of the special Ex-
emption 3 protection for such data
obtained by the Defense Department
in its authorization bill last year (see
10 U.S.C. ?140c), and the deletion
of the term "royalty" from section 2
of the bill.
. Varied FOIA Training Available
Cont'd from p. 2
has offered annual training sessions
on the FOIA and the Privacy Act. Lt.
Col. William C. Goforth, ASAP
training committee co-chairman,
terms the ASAP half-day sessions
"basic training for the novice or the
person who has FOIA as an additional
duty. "
Col. Goforth says the FOIA ses-
sions generally open with an
overview, additional sessions deal
with the exemptions, and the final
program in the series presents a panel
of managers who discuss problems
and solutions.
Goforth estimates that there were
approximately 250 paying attendees
for the five FOIA courses in 1983 and
that attendance has risen in each of
the three years ASAP has offered the
courses. Sessions are taught by per-
sonnel from government agencies and
from the private sector.
Other such programs or seminars
run locally have included an annual
fall seminar on the FOIA and the Pri-
vacy Act sponsored by the Center for
National Securities Studies, the
American Civil Liberties Union, and
the FOI Clearinghouse, as well as
FOIA programs presented from time
to time by the American Bar Associa-
tion and the Federal Bar Association.
In-House Training ergy and the Department of Housing
In addition, in-house courses, sem- and Urban Development.
inars, and training sessions are avail- At the FBI, comprehensive training
able in several federal agencies or in for both Headquarters and Field Of-
particular components where certain fice staff is a longstanding tradition,
common issues can be identified. and even now when there are not as
For example, the Department of the many new FOIA/PA employees, the
Interior in the past year reinstituted Bureau does frequent updating and
earlier in-house training for FOIA of- also holds an annual seminar at the
ficers and others dealing with the FBI Academy at Quantico. Likewise,
law. John D. Trezise, an assistant so- the Department of Defense and its
licitor at Interior, says the new course components offer a wide range of in-
was offered in 1983 to some 65 to 70 house training in FOIA to supplement
persons, the majority of whom had no the programs available through LEI
prior training. A 300-page training and the other outside trainers.
manual was prepared for the course, Special OIP Training
with material focused on Exemptions Finally, the Office of Information
4 and 5 and, to a lesser extent, Ex- and Privacy provides specialized
emptions 6 and 7. In addition, the FOIA training upon request at indi-
course covered "nuts and bolts" pro- vidual federal agencies. During 1983,
cedural issues. Since the first 1983 special training sessions were con-
sessions, condensed versions were ducted by OIP attorneys at such
held for program officers in various agencies as the Department of Labor,
Interior Department components. the State Department, ACTION and
The Department of Health and Hu- the Merit Systems Protection Board.
man Services also has an extensive In a more specialized session, OIP's
program with personnel from its two co-directors spoke at a day-long
FOIA Office and its Office of the FOIA training seminar presented for
General Counsel offering training for all inspectors general and their staffs
all FOIA officers and to individual under the auspices of the President's
components throughout the year. In Council on Integrity and Efficiency
1983, FOIA training was also held in last March.
five HHS regional offices. Similar (See page 12 of this issue for a list-
field training is offered by FOIA per- ing of currently scheduled FOIA
sonnel at both the Department of En- training opportunities.)
6"
?
?
6 FOIA UPDATE Winter 1984
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information and Privacy
FOIA UPDATE
INDEX TO FOIA UPDATE
Volumes I-IV 1979-1983
This cumulative index covers all issues of FOIA Update
from its inception in late 1979 through the end of 1983.
The citation at each entry is to the volume, the number and
the page of the issue. A second citation is provided where
an item has been updated or superseded.
?
When to Assert the Deliberative Privilege Under FOIA
Exemption Five: Vol. I, No. 1, p. 3
Business Confidentiality After Chrysler: Vol. I, No. 2,
p. 3 (see also Vol. III, No. 3, p. 3)
Status of Internal Audit Reports Under the FOIA: Vol. I,
No. 3, p. 3
Release-of Exempt Information to Members of Congress:
The Impact of the Murphy Decision: Vol. I, No. 4, p. 3
(see also Vol. V, No. 1, p. 3)
Guidance on Fee Waivers: Vol. 11, No. 1 p. 3 (superseded;
see Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 3)
Similar Files: A Concept in Peril: Vol. II, No. 2, p. 3
Attorney General's Memo on FOIA: Vol. II, No. 3, p. 3
Submitters' Rights: Vol. III, No. 3, p. 3
Privacy Protection Considerations: Vol. III, No. 4, p. 3
Fee Waiver Policy Guidance: Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 3 (see
also Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5; Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14)
The Privacy Act and FOIA Exemption 3: Vol. IV, No. 2,
p. 3
When to Expedite FOIA Requests: Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 3
Copyrighted Materials and the FOIA: Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 3
FOIA COUNSELOR
Consultations Still Informal: Vol. I, No. 1, p. 2
What is a FOIA Request? Vol. I, No. 2, p. 2
Privacy Act/FOIA: Conflict or Harmony? Vol. I, No. 3,
p. 5 (superseded; see Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 3)
The "High" and "Low" of Exemption Two: Vol. I,
No. 4, p. 6 (see also Vol. V, No. 1, p. 10)
What is an Agency Record? Vol. II, No. 1, p. 5
Disclosure of Prices: Vol. II, No. 2, p. 5 (superseded; see
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 10)
Federal Job Data May Be Disclosed: Vol. II, No. 3, p. 4
(see also Vol. III, No. 4, p. 3)
Paths to Information: Vol. III, No. 1, p. 10
Discovery, the Privacy Act and FOIA: Vol. III, No. 2,
p. 3
Protecting "Outside" Advice: Vol. III, No. 3, p. 10
Factoring in the "Public Interest:- Vol. III, No. 4, p. 6
Fee Waiver Procedural Considerations: Vol. IV, No. 1,
The Effect of Prior Disclosure: Waiver of Exemptions:
Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 6
Attorney Work-Product Protection: Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 6
Unit Prices Under Exemption 4: Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 10
FOIA COUNSELOR Q & A
Are personal notes subject to the FOIA? Vol. III, No. 3,
p. 5
What are the rights of foreign nationals under the FOIA?
Vol. III, No. 3, p. 5
What document referral practices should be followed?
Vol. III, No. 3, p. 5 (see also Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5)
Can the privacy of a public figure be protected under the
FOIA? Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Can the public interest balanced under Exemptions 6 and
7(C) compel nondisclosure? Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Does FOIA privacy protection extend to corporations?
Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Can the privacy of deceased persons be protected under the
FOIA? Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Must mailing lists be disclosed under the FOIA? Vol. III,
No. 4, p. 5
What showing is necessary to satisfy the threshold require-
ment of Exemption 7? Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 6
Are drafts absolutely protected under Exemption 5?
Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 6
Can a FOIA requester go to court before the completion of
the administrative process? Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 6
To what standards are agencies generally held on "adequa-
cy of search" issues? Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 6
How are minimum payment thresholds established for
FOIA fees? Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5
Can an agency refuse to admit the existence of records?
Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5
Is one agency's recommendation to another agency a final
opinion? Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5
Can an agency deny a FOIA request which requires a bur-
densome search or encompasses an enormous volume of
records? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
May an agency invoke Exemption 7(D) to protect the iden-
tity of, and information provided by, a deceased inform-
ant? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
How should an agency respond to a FOIA request for rec-
ords which are subject to a court order prohibiting dis-
closure? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
What action can be taken against an employee who im-
properly denies a FOIA request? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
Should the practice of referring requested documents be al-
tered by the McGehee decision? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
What "cutoff " practices should be followed? Vol. IV,
No. 4, p. 14
Can Exemption 4 be applied to personal financial informa-
tion? Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
Does commercial information lose its Exemption 4 status
with the passage of time? Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
How should the fourth criterion of the Justice Depart-
ment's fee waiver guidance be applied to the media?
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
Can commercial information be protected under Exemption
5? Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
Is there a "third prong" of the National Parks test?
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 15
GUEST ARTICLES
Information Policy Around the World: Vol. II, No. 4, p. 7
An Overview of Executive Order 12356: Vol. III, No. 3,
p. 6
The Case Against National Parks: Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 8
APPROACHING THE BENCH
Guidelines for Agencies in Litigation: Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7
Affidavits: Vol. I, No. 2, p. 7; Vol. I, No. 3, p. 7
Open America Stays: Vol. I, No. 4, p. 7
In Camera Inspection: Vol. II, No. 1, p. 7
Initial Litigation Strategies: Vol. II, No. 2, p. 7
Determining Attorney's Fees: Vol. II, No. 3, p. 3
Eligibility and Entitlement (Attorney's Fees): Vol. II,
No. 4, p. 3
LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
FOIA Oversight Committees Named: Vol. II, No. 2, p. 2
Hearings Scheduled on FOIA: Vol. II, No. 3, p. 1
Highlights of Testimony: Agency-FOIA Areas of Concern:
Vol. II, No. 4, p. 1
Congress Approves FOIA-Tax Action: Vol. II, No. 4, p. 6
FOIA Reform Proposed (Discussion and Full Text):
Vol. III, No. 1, p. 3
FOIA Reform Bill Moves Forward: Vol. III, No. 2, p. 1
Senate Committee Approves Broad FOIA Reform Bill:
Vol. III, No. 3, p. 1
FOIA Reform Bill Advances Toward Passage in Senate:
Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 1
Senate Committee Approves FOIA Bill: Vol. IV, No. 3,
p. 1
SURVEYS
Problems With Time: Vol. II, No. 4, p. 4
Recordkeeping Procedures Examined: Vol. III, No. 1, p. 1
Submitter Notice Practices: Vol. III, No. 3, p. 4 (see also
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 1)
Privacy Protection Practices Examined: Vol. III, No. 4,
Survey Shows Tram-mg Needs: Vol. III, No. 4, p. 8
Fees: Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 1
Predisclosure Business Notification Procedures: Vol. IV,
No. 4, p. 1
UPDATES
Supreme Court Update: Vol. III, No. 1, p. 10; Vol. III,
No. 2, p. 5; Vol. III, No. 3, p. 9; Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 1;
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 11
Basic FOIA References: Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5; Vol. I, No. 3,
p. 6; Vol. III, No. 3, p. 12
FOIA Legal and Administrative Contacts at Federal
Agencies: Vol. III, No. 4, pp. i-iv
Update on FOIA Case List Citations: Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 2
REFERENCE BY EXEMPTIONS
Exemption 1
Military Audit Project v. Casey (partial disclosure does
not render implausible a claim of national security pro-
tection): Vol. II, No. 3, p. 6
Stein v. Department of Justice (courts not required to con-
duct "true" de novo review in Exemption 1 cases):
Vol. III, No. 2, p. 4
Guest Article: An Overview of Executive Order 12356:
Vol. III, No. 3, p. 6
Taylor v. Department of the Army (Exemption 1 can be
applied to compilations of documents not classified in
component parts): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 4
Salisbury v. United States (classification of information
similar to that previously disclosed; the "mosaic" ap-
proach; excluding counsel from in camera proceedings):
Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 5
Afshar v. Department of State (classification of informa-
tion similar to that publicly disclosed): Vol. IV, No. 2,
p. 4
Can an agency refuse to admit the existence of records?
Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5
Exemption 2
The "High" and "Low" of Exemption Two: Vol. I,
No. 4, p. 6 (see also Vol. V, No. 1, p. 10)
Crooker v. BATF (two-part test for law enforcement man-
uals): Vol. III, No. 2, p. 4
Exemption 3
Piccolo v. U.S. Department of Justice (grand jury materi-
als): Vol. II, No. 3, p. 6
Phillippi v. CIA (refusal to confirm or deny; 50 U.S.C.
?403(d)(3)): Vol. II, No. 4, p. 5
Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives
& Records Service (grand jury materials): Vol. II,
No. 4, p. 5
Baldrige v. Shapiro (census data): Vol. II, No. 2, p. 5
Greentree v. U.S. Customs Service (Privacy Act held not
an Exemption 3 statute): Vol. III, No. 3, p. 8
Washington Post Co. v. Department of State (diplomatic
"Emergency Fund" expenditures; "displacement"
theory): Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 5; Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 11
The Privacy Act and FOIA Exemption 3: Vol. IV, No. 2,
p. 3
?
?
?
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
?
?
?
Copyrighted Materials and the FOIA. ol. IV, No. 4, p. 3
Porter v. Department of Justice (Privacy Act held not an
Exemption 3 statute): Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 6
Provenzano v. Department of Justice (Privacy Act held
not an Exemption 3 statute): Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 6
Sims v. CIA (definition of "intelligence source" in Na-
tional Security Act of 1947): Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 6
Exemption 4
Business Confidentiality After Chrysler: Vol. I, No. 2,
p. 3 (see also Vol. III, No. 3, p. 3)
Note Concerning Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. ?1905,
the Trade Secrets Act: Vol. I, No. 2, p. 6
Disclosure of Prices: Vol. II, No. 2, p. 5 (superseded; see
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 10)
Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle ("reverse engi-
neering "): Vol. III, No. 1, p. 9
Submitters' Rights: Vol. III, No. 3, p. 3
Submitter Notice Practices: Vol. III, No. 3, p. 4 (see also
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 1)
Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA ("trade
secrets" definition narrowed): Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 4
Protecting Business Information: Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 1
Predisclosure Business Notification Procedures: Vol. IV,
No. 4, p. 1
Copyrighted Materials and the FOIA: Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 3
The Case Against National Parks: Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 8
Unit Prices Under Exemption 4: Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 10
Can Exemption 4 be applied to personal financial informa-
tion? Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
Does commercial information lose its Exemption 4 status
with the passage of time? Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
Is there a "third prong" of the National Parks test?
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 15
Exemption 5
When to Assert the Deliberative Privilege Under FOIA
Exemption Five: Vol. I, No. 1, p. 3
Impact of Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill:
Vol. I, No. 1; p. 5
Status of Internal Audit Reports Under the FOIA: Vol. I,
No. 3, p. 3
Taxation with Representation Fund v. IRS (predecisional
documents relied on as final opinions): Vol. II, No. 3,
p. 6
County of Madison v. U.S. Department of Justice (settle-
ment documents): Vol. II, No. 3, p. 6
Pies v. IRS (draft documents): Vol. III, No. 2, p. 4
Grolier, Inc. v. FTC (attorney work-product): Vol. III,
No. 3, p. 8; Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 1
Martorano v. Department of Justice (attorney work-
product): Vol. III, No. 3, p. 8
Playboy Enterprises v. Department of Justice (selection of
facts): Vol. III, No. 3, p. 8
Government Land Bank v. GSA (realty appraisals):
Vol. III, No. 3, p. 9
Protecting "Outside" Advice: Vol. III, No. 3, p. 10
Skelton v. U.S. Postal Service (final opinion; incorpora-
tion by reference): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 4
Weber Aircraft Corp. v. United States (privilege for air-
craft accident safel~Rfivestigations): Vol. IV, No. 1,
p. 5; Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 2; Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 11
Conoco Inc. v. Department of Justice (uncirculated
handwritten notes): Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 5
Are drafts absolutely protected under Exemption 5?
Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 6
Is one agency's recommendation to another agency a final
opinion? Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5
Attorney Work-Product Protection: Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 6
Can commercial information be protected under Exemption
5? Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
Exemption 6
Similar Files: A Concept in Peril: Vol. II, No. 2, p. 3
Federal Job Data May Be Disclosed: Vol. II, No. 3, p. 4
(see also Vol. III, No. 4, p. 3)
Washington Post Co. v. U.S. Department of State (similar
files): Vol. II, No. 4, p. 5; Vol. III, No. 3, p. 9
Brown v. FBI (privacy of victim who testified at trial):
Vol. III, No. 1, p. 9
Privacy Protection Practices Examined: Vol. III, No. 4,
p. 1
Privacy Protection Considerations: Vol. III, No. 4, p. 3
Holy Spirit Ass'n v. FBI (identities of persons reporting
illegal activities): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 4
Arieff v. Department of the Navy ("mosaic" principle in
Exemption 6 context): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 4; Vol. IV,
No. 4, p. 6
Can the privacy of a public figure be protected under the
FOIA? Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Can the public interest balanced under Exemptions 6 and
7(C) compel nondisclosure? Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Can FOIA privacy protection extend to corporations?
Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Can the privacy of deceased persons be protected under the
FOIA? Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Must mailing lists be disclosed under the FOIA? Vol. III,
No. 4, p. 5
Factoring in the "Public Interest:- Vol. III, No. 4, p. 6
Washington Post v. HHS (personal financial data; balanc-
ing factors): Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 5
Minnis v. United States Department of Agriculture (mail-
ing list): Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 4
American Federation of Government Employees v. United
States (labor union access to home addresses of employ-
ees it represents): Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 7
Stern v. FBI (disclosure of identities of censured FBI
agents): Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 7
Exemption 7
Status of Internal Audit Reports Under the FOIA: Vol. I,
No. 3, p. 3
Abramson v. FBI (derivative Exemption 7 protection):
Vol. II, No. 4, p. 5; Vol. III, No. 3, p. 9
Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives
& Records Service (7(C)/public officials who were in-
vestigated but not indicted): Vol. II, No. 4, p. 5
Radovich v. U.S. Attorney, District of Maryland
(7(D)/information furnished by confidential source):
Vol. III, No. 1, p. 9
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Bast v. U.S. Department of Justt'V7(C)/importance of
judicial impartiality in privacy balance): Vol. III, No. 1,
p. 4
Pratt v. Webster (Exemption 7 threshold for criminal law
enforcement agencies): Vol. III, No. 2, p. 4
Miller v. Bell (7(C)/"watchdog" activities; 7(D)/ promise
of confidentiality inherent in FBI inteview): Vol. III,
No. 2, p. 5
Holy Spirit Ass'n v. FBI (7(C)/identities of persons re-
porting illegal activities): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 4
Alirez v. NLRB (7(C)/extent of withholding required to
mask individual's identity): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 4
Can the privacy of a public figure be protected under the
FOIA? (7(C) ): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Can the public interest balanced under Exemptions 6 and
7(C) compel nondisclosure? Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Can FOIA privacy protection extend to corporations?
(7(C)): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Can the privacy of deceased persons be protected under the
FOIA? (7(C) ): Vol. III, No. 4, p. 5
Factoring in the "Public Interest" (7(C)): Vol. III, No. 4,
p. 6
Conoco Inc. v. Department of Justice (extent of detail re-
quired in 7(D) affidavit): Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 5
What showing is necessary to satisfy the threshold require-
ment of Exemption 7? Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 6
U.S. Steel Corp., American Bridge Division v. Depart-
ment of Labor (7(D)/conditional assurance of confiden-
tiality): Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 4
Binion v. Department of Justice (Exemption 7 threshold
for criminal law enforcement agencies): Vol. IV, No. 2,
p. 4
Diamond v. FBI (7(C) & 7(D)/age of records): Vol. IV,
No. 3, p. 4
May an agency invoke Exemption 7(D) to protect the iden-
tity of, and information provided by, a deceased inform-
ant? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Perry (7(A)/generic determina-
tions): Vol: IV, No. 4, p. 7
Stern v. FBI (7(C)/disclosure of identities of censured FBI
agents): Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 7
Procedural Issues
Affidavits: Vol. I, No. 2, p. 7; Vol. I, No. 3, p. 7
Privacy Act/FOIA Conflict or Harmony? Vol. I , No. 3,
p. 5 (superseded; see Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 3)
Open America Stays: Vol. I, No. 4, p. 7
Release of Exempt Information to Members of Congress:
The Impact of the Murphy Decision: Vol. I, No. 4, p. 3
(see also Vol. V, No. 1, p. 3)
Guidance on Fee Waivers: Vol. II, No. 1, p. 3 (super-
seded; see Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 3)
What is an Agency Record? Vol. II, No. 1, p. 5
In Camera Inspection: Vol. II, No. 1, p. 7
Initial Litigation Strategies: Vol. II, No. 2, p. 7
Attorney General's Memo on FOIA: Vol. II, No. 3, p. 3
Determining Attorney's Fees: Vol. II, No. 3, p. 3
Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy (re-
sponse to inadequate Vaughn index): Vol. II, No. 3,
p. 6
Eligibility and EnlWment (Attorney's Fees): Vol. II,
No. 4, p. 3
Paths to Information: Vol. III, No. 1, p. 10
Discovery, the Privacy Act and FOIA: Vol. III, No. 2,
p. 3
Doyle v. Department of Justice (fugitive requester):
Vol. III, No. 2, p. 5
Are personal notes subject to the FOIA? Vol. III, No. 3,
p. 5
What are the rights of foreign nationals under the FOIA?
Vol. III, No. 3, p. 5
What document referral practices should be followed?
Vol. III, No. 3, p. 5
Yeager v. DEA ("compacting" of exempt computerized
information): Vol. III, No. 3, p_8
Wolfe v. HHS (transition team materials not "agency rec-
ords"): Vol. III, No. 3, p. 9; Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 6
Fees: Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 1
Fee Waiver Policy Guidance: Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 3 (see
also Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5; Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14)
Fee Waiver Procedural Considerations: Vol. IV, No. 1,
p. 4
Can a FOIA requester go to court before the completion of
the administrative process? Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 6
To what standards are agencies generally held on "adequa-
cy of search" issues? Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 6
McGehee v. CIA (document referral): Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 4
Ingle v. Department of Justice (in camera inspection):
Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 4
How are minimum payment thresholds established for
FOIA fees? Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5
Can an agency refuse to admit the existence of records?
Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5
The Effect of Prior Disclosure: Waiver of Exemptions:
Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 6
When to Expedite FOIA Requests: Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 3
Weisberg v. U.S. Department of Justice (adequacy of
search): Vol. IV. No. 3, p. 4
Should the practice of referring requested documents be al-
tered by the McGehee decision? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
Can an agency deny a FOIA request which requires a bur-
densome search or encompasses an enormous volume of
records? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
How should an agency respond to a FOIA request for rec-
ords which are subject to a court order prohibiting dis-
closure? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
What action can be taken against an employee who im-
properly denies a FOIA request? Vol. IV, No. 3, p. 5
Paisley v. CIA ("agency record" status of documents cre-
ated in connection with a congressional investigation):
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 7
United States v. U.S. District Court, Central District of
California (FOIA and criminal discovery): Vol. IV,
No. 4, p. 7
What "cut off " date practices should be followed?
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
How should the fourth criterion of the Justice Depart-
ment's fee waiver guidance be applied to the media?
Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 14
iv FOIA UPDATE Winter 1984
is
?
?
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
FOIA Focus: C. Nicholas Kalcounos
?
?
?
While FOIA analysts are the
"front line troops" in responding to
the more than 250,000 access re-
quests that annually deluge the Fed-
eral Government, a second type of
FOIA officer-the administrative ap-
peals official-is also vital to an
agency in carrying out its mandate
under the Freedom of Information
Act. The appeals officer has the deli-
cate task of reviewing already proc-
essed documents in order to make an
independent judgment about the cor-
rectness of co-workers' nondisclosure
decisions. Often the appeals officer's
job will involve conflict with agency
program officers who think that too
much is being released, as well as
with requesters who contend that just
the opposite is true. In short, the ap-
peals officer, unloved and unsung,
provides the agency with its last op-
portunity to ensure the correctness of
its FOIA determinations before a
FOIA requester takes his case to
court.
"It's a problem in keeping the bal-
ance, " says C. Nicholas Kalcounos
of his job as an appeals official.
Kalcounos is Director of the Freedom
of Information and Privacy Act Ap-
pellate Office at the Small Business
Administration.
To Kalcounos and his staff of three
Freedom of Information Act special-
ists come approximately 200 appeals
yearly. Initial requests are handled at
the more than 100 SBA branch, dis-
trict, or regional offices where the
first disclosure determinations are
made. Responses to initial requests
carry an "appeals" paragraph (as re-
quired by statute) that directs the dis-
satisfied requester to Kalcounos' staff
at SBA's central office.
Kalcounos personally scans the ap-
peals as they arrive in twice-daily
mail deliveries and makes assign-
ments to his staff of FOIA specialists.
The most difficult cases generally go
to Beverly Linden, who is the office's
senior analyst.
As an appeals matter is assigned,
the pertinent files are requested from
the field office in which the initial re-
quest was processed. Once the files
arrive, the FOIA appeals specialist re-
views all material withheld at the ini-
tial level. It is possible that a docu-
ment search could be ordered
widened at that point, but Kalcounos
observes that because of the nature of
SBA programs it is rarely necessary
to broaden a search on appeal.
It is at this point that the appeals
specialist generally confers with the
field office and then prepares a
"memorandum to the file" setting
forth a recommended disposition.
"We go to them for an explanation of
their decision. If we are convinced
that their position is supported by the
Act, we continue to withhold. If not,
then we release. We're the final word
on disclosure for SBA. "
Kalcounos personally reviews all
the work of his staff, taking as much
as several hours on each appeal, al-
though this varies with the complexi-
ty of the case. He also takes pride in
the timeliness with which his office
handles appeals. Rarely does his of-
fice seek extensions, he says.
"I will look to see that we have re-
sponded to the entire request. It's
very easy to get off the track and to
answer only one part of a question.
Then I will look to see that the proper
exemption is cited. Primarily we deal
with Exemption 4, but we have Ex-
emption 5 and even Exemption 7 ma-
terial, too. Then I will review the
memo to the file authored by the
FOIA appeals specialist and talk with
her to see what her thinking is in
overturning an initial determination,"
says Kalcounos. When it is necessa-
ry, outside submitters of material to
SBA are consulted by the appeals
staff and are given a chance to object
before a release is made.
"Once a case is concluded we like
to go back to the program people and
explain what we've done," he em-
phasizes. Kalcounos says that pro-
gram and field officers may "mumble
and groan some, " but by and large
they are very cooperative and under-
stand the necessity of the appeals
process and the work of his appeals
staff.
"In just about every appeal there's
something that can be released,"
Kalcounos says, "and our staff will
see it. This is very much in line with
the agency's policy of releasing mate-
rial whenever it is reasonably
possible.
"What happens is that the program
people are sympathetic to the small
business community. No one wants to
release material that will harm the
competitive position of a small busi-
ness. On the other hand, we do have
these two laws-the FOIA and the
Privacy Act-and we do have to
comply with them or else hurt the
agency, so there's the conflict."
Kalcounos himself is an old hand at
balancing several competing consid-
erations and making statutory
determinations.
A native Washingtonian, he began
his government career as a corporate
tax law specialist at the IRS. That
was in the early 1970s and Kalcounos
was one of a group of IRS employees
asked to develop sanitized versions of
documents for release under the
FOIA. "They sat us down and asked
us, `How would you sanitize these
Cont'd on p. 11
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Core v. United States Postal Service, No. 83-1153 (4th
Cir. Jan. 6, 1984).
In another recent ruling delineating the privacy protec-
tion to be afforded federal employment records, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Exemp-
tion 6 does not shield the identities, education and relevant
experience of successful applicants for federal jobs. Plain-
tiff Core, an unsuccessful applicant for a Postal Service
position, had requested from the Postal Service records re-
flecting the education and relevant work experience of all
other applicants. The Fourth Circuit approved the with-
holding of the identities and all other information concern-
ing the unsuccessful applicants, finding that disclosure of
their nonselection "may embarrass or harm" them. How-
ever, it ruled that the public's interest in the competency of
the people hired, and in the Postal Service's adherence to
proper hiring procedures, offset any "slight infringement"
of the successful applicants' privacy; the requested infor-
mation concerning this latter group was therefore found
disclosable. Citing FOIA Update, the Court of Appeals
noted that its decision was fully consistent with the Depart-
ment of Justice policy regarding the release of records re-
flecting federal employees' prior government employment,
private employment related to current duties, awards, hon-
ors and memberships in professional associations. See
FOIA Update, Sept. 1982, at 3.
Antonelli v. FBI, 721 F.2d 615 (7th Cir. 1983)-revers-
ing 536 F. Supp. 568 (N.D. Ill. 1982).
In an extremely broad opinion strongly approving the
manner in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation re-
sponds to FOIA requests for records pertaining to third
parties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
held that the FBI appropriately invoked Exemptions 6 and
7(C) in refusing to confirm whether it maintains law en-
forcement records on such named individuals. The district
court had not accepted the FBI's standard "refuse to con-
firm or deny" response and had ordered it to either pro-
duce existing documents or submit a detailed Vaughn affi-
davit justifying their withholding. The Seventh Circuit
flatly reversed the district court, however, holding that any
detailed FOIA withholding justification given in response
to third-party requests for law enforcement records-even
one broadly citing Exemption 7(D)-might itself "expose
the subject of the inquiry to harassment and actual danger"
and, at the least, would constitute a serious invasion of pri-
vacy by "revealing that a third party has been the subject
of FBI investigations. " Finally, the Court of Appeals
found no "genuine public interest"-only a personal
one-in the requester's "interest in ensuring that his [bank
fraud] convictions were not obtained as a result of a viola-
tion of the Constitution. " The plaintiff has petitioned the
Supreme Court for certiorari in this case.
9 to 5 Organization for Women Office Workers v. Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 721 F.2d 1
(1st Cir. 1983)-reversing 551 F. Supp. 1006 (D. Mass.
1982).
In a closely watched Exemption 4 case, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit criticized and vacated a
district court decision which had too narrowly construed
the first prong of the National Parks test. The district
court had refused to permit Exemption 4 protection for sal-
ary data provided to a Federal Reserve Bank by a private
organization, because it regarded National Parks as re-
quiring that the information be " `necessary' in the sense
of being absolutely essential to the operations of the agen-
cy" before it could be withheld. Such a restrictive inter-
pretation, the First Circuit ruled, "would do violence to
the statutory purpose of Exemption 4 were the Government
to be disadvantaged by disclosing information which
serves a valuable purpose and is useful for the effective ex-
ecution of its statutory responsibilities. "
Although the First Circuit declined to adopt the Govern-
ment's rejection of the National Parks decision (see FOIA
Update, Fall 1983, at 8-9), it pointedly emphasized that
the National Parks test is not limited to just the two par-
ticular interests that it expressly delineates, specifically
holding that "the Government should not be precluded
from invoking the protection of Exemption 4 merely be-
cause the asserted interest is not precisely one of those two
identified in National Parks. " Rather, it declared, the ap-
propriate inquiry for applicability of Exemption 4 should
be whether release of the information would harm an
"identifiable private or governmental interest" and it
found specific support for this holding in a footnote of Na-
tional Parks, 498 F.2d at 770 n. 17, where the D.C. Circuit
had expressly left open the possibility that other govern-
mental interests not embodied in the test could appropri-
ately be protected. (See also FOIA Update, Fall 1983, at
15, for a further discussion of this point).
Shapiro v. DEA, 721 F.2d 215 (7th Cir. 1983)-af-
firming Wentz v. DEA/Shapiro v. DEA, 3 GDS ?83,122
(W.D. Wis. 1982) (consolidated).
Relying heavily on the legislative history of the Privacy
Act, as well as the statutory language of both the Privacy
Act and the FOIA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sev-
enth Circuit has once again found that the Privacy Act is a
FOIA Exemption 3 statute. (See also Terkel v. Kelly, 599
F.2d 214, 216 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied sub nom.
Terkel v. Webster, 444 U.S. 1013 (1980)). Accordingly,
the Seventh Circuit ruled in this case that records per-
taining to a first-party requester which were found to be
exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act's subsection
(j)(2) (protecting information compiled for criminal law
8 FOIA UPDATE Winter 1984
?
?
?
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
?
?
?
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
enforcement purposes) need not beWisclosed under the
FOIA. Permitting the requester FOIA access to such rec-
ords, it said, "would result in an emasculation of Privacy
Act Exemption (j)(2) that would be inconsistent with clear-
ly articulated congressional intent. " It further noted that
the legislative history of the Privacy Act reveals "Con-
gress' special concern that individuals not be permitted ac-
cess to certain records containing information about their
own criminal investigations. " The Court of Appeals em-
phasized the appellants' inability to identify any legislative
history establishing their contrary position and it rejected
their argument that subsection (b)(2) of the Privacy Act
governs disclosures to first- and third-party requesters un-
der the Act. Instead, it found that both the introductory
The following pending cases involve FOIA issues of
particular significance that are expected to be decided in
the near future:
? National Organization for Women v. Social Security
Administration, No. 76-2119 (D.C. Cir.) Decision Below:
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Usery, 426 F. Supp.
150 (D.D.C. 1976). Issues: Is the Trade Secrets Act, 18
U.S.C. ?1905, an Exemption 3 statute? Is it congruent
with Exemption 4? Status: Argued before the D.C. Circuit
on May 1, 1980; still pending after all these years.
? Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. v. Department of
Justice, No. 83-1138 (D.C. Cir.)/ Environmental Defense
Fund v. OMB, No. 83-1685 (D.C. Cir.) (consolidated on
appeal). Decisions Below: 3 GDS ?83,064 (D.D.C. 1982)
and 3 GDS ?82,468 (D.D.C. 1982), respectively. Issue:
Are appointment books and daily logs of senior officials
"agency records"? Status: Argued before the D.C. Circuit
on November 22, 1983.
? Stern v. FBI, No. 83-1861 (D.C. Cir.). Decision Be-
low: 3 GDS ?83,202 (D.D.C. 1983) (see FOIA Update,
Fall 1983, at 7). Issue: Can identities of censured FBI
Special Agents be protected under Exemption 6 and/or Ex-
emption 7(C)? Status: Argued before the D.C. Circuit on
February 29, 1984.
? Bartel v. FAA, No. 82-2473 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 17,
1984). Issue: Do only actual FOIA disclosures trigger the
"required" disclosure exception to the Privacy Act's dis-
closure prohibition under 5 U.S.C. ?552a(b)(2)? (A panel
of the D.C. Circuit, in a radical departure from existing
law and policy, decided this crucial FOIA-related issue ad-
versely to the Government.) Status: Pending on the Gov-
ernment's petition for rehearing en banc, filed March 6.
language of that sect! and its legislative history indicate
that subsection (b)(2) was intended to apply only to third-
party access to records.
This decision leaves evenly divided the four circuit
courts of appeals which have considered whether the Priva-
cy Act is an Exemption 3 statute. See Porter v. United
States Department of Justice, 717 F.2d 787 (3d Cir. 1983);
Provenzano v. United States Department of Justice, 717
F.2d 799 (3d Cir. 1983) (companion case with Porter);
Greentree v. United States Customs Service, 674 F.2d 74
(D.C. Cir. 1982); Painter v. FBI, 615 F.2d 689 (5th Cir.
1980); see also FOIA Update, Spring 1983, at 3. The Su-
preme Court has been asked to rule on this issue in both
Provenzano and Shapiro.
Supreme Court
Update
On March 5, the Supreme Court granted the Govern-
ment's petition for.certiorari in Sims v. CIA, 709 F.2d 95
(D.C. Cir. 1983), in which the D.C. Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, over a strong dissent, articulated an extremely nar-
row definition of the term "intelligence source" under the
CIA's major Exemption 3 statute, 50 U.S.C. ?403(d)(3).
See FOIA Update, Fall 1983, at 6. In seeking certiorari
in Sims, the Solicitor General argued that the D.C. Cir-
cuit's harsh decision threatens to "seriously impair the
Agency's ability to perform its mission." The Supreme
Court will now hear oral argument on the issue next fall,
with a final decision expected early in 1985.
On December 23, the Solicitor General also petitioned
for certiorari in Provenzano v. United States Department
of Justice, 717 F.2d 799 (3d Cir. 1983), in which the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Privacy Act of 1974
cannot serve as an Exemption 3 statute under the FOIA.
See FOIA Update, Fall 1983, at 6. The Solicitor Gener-
al's certiorari petition pointed to the square conflict be-
tween that decision and the Seventh Circuit Court of Ap-
peals' decision in Shapiro v. DEA, 721 F.2d 215 (7th Cir.
1983), which flatly held in the Government's favor on that
issue. (See p. 8 of this issue of FOIA Update.) A certio-
rari petition by the plaintiff in Shapiro has also been filed.
The Court's "conference consideration" of the Govern-
ment's certiorari petition in Provenzano has been sched-
uled for March 23. If certiorari is granted in Provenzano,
as is expected, the case should be heard and decided by the
Court not long after Sims.
Also pending before the Supreme Court this Term is its
review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in
Weber Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 688 F.2d 638 (9th
Cir. 1982), cert. granted, 103 S.Ct. 3534 (1983), which
involves the special accident investigation report privilege
under Exemption 5. See FOIA Update, Fall 1983, at 11.
The case was argued before the Court on January 1 l and a
decision can be expected at any time before the Court ad-
journs in early July.
Winter 1984 FOIA UPDATE
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
FOIA Counselor
The - Unique Protection of Exemption 2
Perhaps more than with any other FOIA exemption,
there has been a great deal of controversy and confusion
surrounding Exemption 2 and its protection of "matters
that are . . . related solely to the internal personnel rules
and practices of an agency." 5 U.S.C. ?552(b)(2). While
some relatively minor judicial disagreement still lingers re-
garding the applicability of Exemption 2 to law enforce-
ment materials, the overall outlines of its unusual protec-
tions-particularly as to non-law enforcement,
administrative information-have recently become much
clearer.
As regards the protection of law enforcement records un-
der Exemption 2, the D.C. Circuit's en banc decision
more than two years ago in Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco & Firearms, 670 F.2d 1051, 1073-74 (D.C. Cir.
1981), made it clear at least within that critical judicial cir-
cuit that Exemption 2 can apply to any law enforcement
record (such as training manuals) for which the standards
of "predominant internality" and "significant risk of cir-
cumvention of law" can be met. As yet, it remains to be
seen exactly how the Crooker standards will be applied, as
well as the extent to which they will be adopted at all by
other circuit courts previously reluctant to permit any law
enforcement protection under Exemption 2. See the 1983
Freedom of Information Case List ("Short Guide to the
Freedom of Information Act") at 205-08. See also, e.g.,
Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives v. Department of Com-
merce, 576 F. Supp. 405, 411-13 (D.D.C. 1983).
- The "Burden" Aspect of Exemption 2
At present, the most interesting aspect of Exemption 2 is
its unique application to far more mundane, yet pervasive,
administrative records. In its decision eight years ago in
Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352
(1976), the Supreme Court construed Exemption 2's some-
what ambiguous language as protecting internal agency
matters so routine or trivial that they could not be "subject
to ... a genuine and significant public interest." 425 U.S.
at 369. It should not be overlooked that, in this respect,
Exemption 2 is the only exemption in the FOIA having a
conceptual underpinning totally unrelated to any harm
caused by disclosure per se; rather, it is aimed at avoiding
the sheer administrative burden that can be imposed by
FOIA processing. As the Supreme Court explained in
Rose, "the general thrust of the exemption is simply to re-
lieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining
for public inspection matter in which the public could not
reasonably be expected to have an interest. " Id. at 370.
Until quite recently, though, there existed a great deal of
uncertainty as to the types of administrative records that
could be considered for such unique protection under Ex-
emption 2. This was primarily due to a 1980 D.C. Circuit
ruling that Congress intended such Exemption 2 protection
for agency personnel records only, not for "trivial matters
unrelated to personnel. " Allen v. CIA, 636 F.2d 1287,
1290 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (emphasis in original). In
reaching such a narrow view of Exemption 2, the D.C.
Circuit in Allen relied upon its en banc decision in Jordan
v. United States Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 764
(D.C. Cir. 1978), which involved Exemption 2's law en-
forcement aspect, and it chose to perceive no conflict with
its decision in Lesar v. United States Department of Jus-
tice, 636 F.2d 472, 485 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Crooker Leads to Founding Church
One year after Allen, the full D.C. Circuit in Crooker
revisited the issue involved in Jordan and adopted a
distinctly broader view of Exemption 2, at least as regards
its law enforcement aspect. Yet even after the D.C. Cir-
cuit's broad en banc decision in Crooker in 1981, it still
remained unclear whether the Allen/Jordan holdings on
the "burden" aspect of Exemption 2 still limited the ex-
tent of its possible application to personnel records only.
This uncertainty over the prevailing D.C. Circuit case law
on this aspect of Exemption 2 greatly inhibited its possible
application during recent years.
In November 1983, however, the D.C. Circuit finally
confronted this issue in Founding Church of Scientology v.
Smith, 721 F.2d 828 (D.C. Cir. 1983), and squarely re-
solved it in the Government's favor. In Founding Church,
the Justice Department pointedly admitted that it had with-
held routine administrative notations "indistinguishable
from the filing and routing instructions that were held
unprotected under FOIA Exemption 2 in Allen, " but it
urged that Allen be abandoned in light of its discerned
conflict with Crooker and Lesar. 721 F.2d at 829. Recog-
nizing this conflict, and concluding that Crooker "repudi-
ated the narrow construction of [E]xemption 2 that [had
been] adopted in Jordan, " the Court of Appeals in Found-
ing Church did exactly what was urged, expressly holding
that Allen "no longer represents the law of this circuit. "
Id. at 830.
Protecting Administrative Records
Consequently, agencies are now free to consider with-
holding a wide range of administrative information under
Exemption 2-regardless of whether it is personnel-related
or not-based upon the unique rationale that the very proc-
ess of releasing such data would be an unwarranted admin-
istrative burden. This aspect of Exemption 2 has in the past
been held properly applied to such trivial administrative
data as file numbers, routing stamps and other similar
administrative markings on requested records. See, e.g.,
Scherer v. Kelley, 584 F.2d 170, 175-76 (7th Cir. 1978),
cert. denied, 440 U.S. 964 (1979); Nix v. United States,
Cont'd on next page
10 FOIA UPDATE Winter 1984
?
is
?
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
a . . FOIA Counselor
?
?
?
572 F.2d 998, 1005 (4th Cir. 1978); Maroscia v. Levi,
569 F.2d 1000, 1001-02 (7th Cir. 1977).
Most significantly, it has also been held to justify the
withholding of more extensive and substantive portions of
administrative records, even entire documents. See, e.g.,
Ferri v. United States Department of Justice, 573 F. Supp.
852, 862 (W.D. Pa. 1983) (Exemption 2 held to protect
two entire documents dealing with an internal administra-
tive matter); Associated Press v. Department of Justice,
Civil No. 82-803, slip op. at 44 (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 1982)
(entire "closing form" found properly withheld); National
Treasury Employees Union v. United States Department of
the Treasury, 487 F. Supp. 1321, 1324 (D.D.C. 1980) (in-
ternal discussions of collective bargaining matters properly
withheld). Given the nondisclosure rationale of avoiding
the administrative burdens involved in the processing of
such records, agencies should now pay particular attention
to any potential Exemption 2 withholdings of this latter
variety.
"Genuine Public Interest" Limitation
Finally, agencies need to be especially mindful of the
fact that this special Exemption 2 protection is simply not
available for any information in which there is "a genuine
and significant public interest. " Department of the Air
Force v. Rose, supra, 425 U.S. at 369. A useful illustra-
tion of how this "public interest" delineation is drawn can
be found in FBI Agents Association v. FBI, 3 GDS
?83,058, at 83,565-66 (D.D.C. 1983), in which large
portions of an FBI administrative manual were ruled prop-
erly withholdable on a "burden" theory under Exemption
2, but other portions (because of a discerned "public inter-
est" in them) were not. In making such delineations now
for a wider category of administrative records in the wake
of Founding Church, agencies should be sure to heed the
D.C. Circuit's cautious admonition there that "a reason-
ably low threshold should be maintained for determining
when withheld administrative material relates to significant
public interests. "
.. FOIA Focus
Cont'd from p. 7
documents?' From that came some of
their early procedures for making
FOIA releases. "
Kalcounos next went to the Office
of General Counsel at the Federal
Election Commission and about seven
years ago joined SBA. At first, he
was a one-man FOIA office, but
within six months his staff began to
FOIA UPDATE
Published quarterly by the Office of In-
formation and Privacy, U.S. Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530.
Co-Directors:
Richard L. Huff
Daniel J. Metcalfe
Deputy Director:
Miriam M. Nisbet
Editorial Staff:
Managing Editor
Pamela Maida
Production Assistant
Bonnie L. Quinto
Graphics Assistant
Mary Ann Childs
*****
Available through the Superintendent of Doc-
uments, GPO, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Stock No. 027-000-80002-5. Subscription
price: $8.00, domestic; $10.00, foreign.
grow. Today, Kalcounos and his ap-
pellate office comprise a separate
component within SBA's Office of
Hearings and Appeals.
As SBA's first full-time FOIA offi-
cer, Kalcounos has developed many
of the procedures followed agency-
wide on the FOIA and the Privacy
Act. He emphasizes the need for
training agency access professionals
and he personally sees to it that he
and his staff attend all of the relevant
training available. He also speaks fre-
quently to SBA district and regional
counsels to keep them updated on
FOIA developments and acts as a
consultant to SBA's field and pro-
gram people on FOIA matters. "We
encourage them to call," he says.
In addition, Kalcounos and his
staff enjoy an excellent rapport with
the litigation section of the SBA gen-
eral counsel's office. "They are al-
ways there when we call," he notes.
He also points out that the agency has
had only one major setback in a law-
suit stemming from a decision of his.
"We lost the Miami Herald case,"
Kalcounos says, "on a technicality.
Still, one loss in seven years isn't
bad."
New Update
Managing Editor
This issue of FOIA Update marks
a transition in its Managing Editor
position, with the departure of Nancy
T. Bruns and the arrival of new Man-
aging Editor Pamela Maida.
Nancy Bruns was FOIA Update's
original Managing Editor and
painstakingly helped guide its devel-
opment for more than three years.
With her departure at the end of 1983
to head the newly established Con-
gressional Liaison Unit at the Wash-
ington District Office of the Justice
Department's Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service, she has left a lega-
cy of professionalism that will not
easily be continued.
New Managing Editor Pam Maida
joined the Office of Information and
Privacy in February 1983 after work-
ing as a paralegal specialist with the
Justice Department's Legal Education
Institute for almost two years. She re-
ceived a B.A. degree at The George
Washington University and did grad-
uate work in language studies before
joining the Department. Ms. Maida
served as Editor of the Freedom of
Information Case List in 1983 and
will continue to serve in that addi-
tional capacity.
Winter 1984 FOIA UPDATE
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
United States Department of Justin Post*nd Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20530 JUS-43I
Official Business
Address Correction Requested
SPL/F-1 Chief, Litigation Div.
Room 7-B-44
C.I.A.. HQS
Washington, DC 20205
?
FOIA Training Opportunities
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Legal Education Institute: The
Freedom of Information Act for At-
torneys and Access Professionals,
April 12-13, July 16-17, 1875
Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washing-
ton, D.C.; June 13-14, Los Angeles,
CA. Contact: Grace Mastalli or
Sandra Manners, (FTS) 673-6372. No
charge.
Legal Education Institute: Ad-
vanced Seminar on the Freedom of
Information Act, May 3, 1875
Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washing-
ton, D.C. Contact: Grace Mastalli or
Sandra Manners, (FTS) 673-6372. No
charge.
Legal Education Institute: Seminar
on the Privacy Act of 1974, May 4,
Washington, D.C.; Aug. 3, San
Francisco, CA. Contact: Grace
Mastalli or Sandra Manners, (FTS)
673-6372. No charge.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
Boston Region Training Center:
Successful Implementation of the
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Acts, July 10-11, McCormack Post
Office and Courthouse, Boston, MA.
Contact: Daniel J. Buckley, (FTS)
223-5786. Cost: 4175.
New York Region Training Center:
Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts
Workshop, March 27-28, 26 Feder-
al Plaza, New York, NY. Contact:
Daniel Parker, (FTS) 264-8431.
Cost: $160.
Atlanta Region Training Center:
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Acts Workshop, June 11-12, 75
Spring St., S.W., Atlanta, GA. Con-
tact: Stephen Trehern, (FTS)
242-3488. Cost: $150.
Chicago Region Training Center:
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Acts, May 15-16, Chicago, IL; June
26-27, Cincinnati, OH. Contact:
Charles V. Stout, (FTS) 353-2927.
Cost: $125.
Dallas Region Training Center:
Freedom of Information/Privacy
Acts, July 10-11, Dallas, TX. Con-
tact: Yvonne Lindholm, (FTS)
729-8241. Cost: $170.
Denver Region Training Center:
Freedom of Information and Personal
Privacy, May 30-31, Denver, CO.
Contact: Nina Schmidt, (FTS)
234-2304. Cost: $130.
Seattle Region Training Center:
Freedom of Information Act and Pri-
vacy Act, April 2-3, Portland, OR;
May 3-4, Seattle, WA. Contact:
Charles C. Cloos, (FTS) 399-7904.
Cost: $140.
Center for Communications and
Administrative Management, Admin-
istrative Management Training Insti-
tute: FOIA and PA Workshop for
Administrative and Secretarial Per-
sonnel, May 24-25, Thomas Circle
Training Center, 1121 Vermont Ave.,
N.W., Washington, D.C. Contact:
Cassandra Saunders, (FTS)
254-3211. Cost: $225. Successful
Implementation of the Freedom of In-
formation Act and the Privacy Act,
June 14-15, Thomas Circle Training
Center, 1121 Vermont Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. Contact: Cassan-
dra Saunders, (FTS) 254-3211.
Cost: $225.
Government Affairs Institute: Pri-
vacy Act Symposium, June 19,
Washington, D.C. Contact: Patti
Shosteck, (FTS) 632-5662. Cost:
$140. Sixth Annual Symposium on
the Freedom of Information Act and
the Privacy Act, August 14-15,
Washington, D.C. Contact: Patti
Shosteck, (FTS) 632-5662. Cost:
$275.
USDA GRADUATE SCHOOL
Information Access Laws, May
16-18, 600 Maryland Ave., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. Contact: Theresa
DeSilva, (FTS) 447-3247. Cost:
$200. Implementation of the FOI and
Privacy Acts, June 14-15, 600
Maryland Ave., S.W., Washington,
D.C. Contact: Theresa DeSilva,
(FTS) 447-3247. Cost: $175.
?
?
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Denied
Iq
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/12/11 : CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190014-7