DHS Changes “Nixonian” Practices Before Hearing to Investigate

Activist Post

When Mary Ellen Callahan was appointed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to be Chief Privacy Officer for Freedom of Information requests, she was an unlikely whistleblower.  But delays in the process of releasing information to the public led to her frustration that was revealed in uncensored emails on Wednesday.

In Callahan’s internal emails, she called the vetting process of FOIA releases “crazy,” “nuts,” “banannas,” and added, “I really really want someone to FOIA this whole damn process.” In other words, she wanted the process exposed for what it was.  On Thursday, she got her chance to testify about the political battle over information in the House oversight committee hearing.

Last summer these emails were released to the Associated Press and were heavily censored leading the inspector general to say, “We are concerned that certain statements may have been withheld from the AP release merely to avoid embarrassment to the department, which is not appropriate.”

The report being investigated in the hearing accused the Department of Homeland Security of “administrative incompetence, illegal politicization and official obstruction.” However, in perfect party-line political form, the hearing devolved into Democrats calling the assertions “political theater,” “nonsense,” and “propagandist.”  While the Republicans compared the process to “Nixonian enemies lists.”

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, as the process in question was already rescinded prior to the hearing.  According to the Associated Press:

Republicans in Congress objected Thursday to the Homeland Security Department’s now-rescinded practice of requiring secretive reviews by political advisers of hundreds of requests for government files under the Freedom of Information Act. The chairman of a House oversight committee said the process ‘reeks of a Nixonian enemies list’ and was unacceptable. 

Mary Ellen Callahan was much more composed during her testimony than her frustrated emails which were censored for the hearing despite being released to the press in full.  Even though it was her speaking out that originally sparked the investigation she kept her answers to just the facts and her professional opinion of the process.

The senior official in charge of submitting files for the reviews, Mary Ellen Callahan, acknowledged there had been ‘management challenges’ in the program and said the political scrutiny ‘at times took longer than anticipated.’ But Callahan deflected suggestions by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that the process injected political considerations into decisions about federal records the government was turning over to journalists, watchdog groups or even members of Congress.

Despite the political theater of the hearing, DHS is now being forced to streamline the way they release information to the public under FOIA.  From AP:

This week, Callahan reduced the period for political advisers to review government files to one business day. But the inspector general said even the new, speedier process ‘is not required by FOIA and seems inconsistent’ with the Obama administration’s instructions prohibiting unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles under the Freedom of Information Act.

Under the previous system in place, no files could be released to reporters, watchdog groups or even members of Congress without specific approval by Napolitano’s political advisers. The inspector general called it ‘unprecedented involvement in the FOIA process.’

The fact that DHS had to change their policy prior to this hearing is a clear indication of the value of people with conscience inside government.  Which, of course, is why there is a move afoot to silence whistleblowers.