FOIA Facts: New FOIA Legislation Introduced
By Scott A. Hodes, Published on March 13, 2005
Senators John Corwyn (R-TX) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have co-sponsored a bill amending the FOIA. A counterpart bill has also been introduced in the House by Lamar Smith (R-TX).
[Editor's
note: on March 15, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security held a
hearing on this bill,
S. 589. On March 17, 2005 the bill
was approved by the committee and sent to the full Senate for a vote.
Continued updates on this legislation are available on
beSpacific.com]
The bill attempts to cut down agency backlog times by disallowing agencies
to utilize certain FOIA exemptions when they fail to respond to requests
within the statutorily mandated response time. The bill also expands the
definition of media so that internet journalists and bloggers can fit
within the definition, and therefore be eligible for fee waivers.
Another aspect of the bill is the creation of a FOIA omsbudsman which
would act as an arbiter to mediate disputes between FOIA requesters and
agencies. The bill also requires the government to set up a central
database that would allow requesters to track their requests as they
meander through the FOIA process. Finally, the bill allows for the
recovery of attorney fees where the bringing of a lawsuit is the catalyst
for getting the requested information. Current law now requires that
plaintiff’s only recover attorney fees where there is a decision in the
case granting them access to the requested records.
While I like all of the provisions of the proposed bill, I do not expect
any of these proposals to become law. The basic reason is money. Even if
every member of both houses of Congress are ardent supporters of FOIA, the
cost of this bill in the age of outrageous budget deficits, makes passage
difficult. The easiest way to alleviate FOIA backlogs is to fully fund and
staff FOIA offices. This has never been done, with some agencies even
downsizing their FOIA staffs.
All of these provisions cost money. Some of the money would be somewhat
definite, such as the setting up of a database or funding an office to act
as FOIA ombsbudsman. However, costs of other provisions are very
speculative. For instance, disallowing the use of certain FOIA exemptions
would cause a huge increase in FOIA litigations, as agencies would always
claim that their failure to respond to the request was within the
exceptions to the rule allowed by the amendment. Costs of litigation are
incurred by agencies general counsel offices and the Department of
Justice, who litigations these cases for agencies. Additionally, the fee
waiver and attorney fees changes would also cause in immeasurable increase
in costs.
While some of the amendments could be budget neutral by changing around
some of the existing FOIA bureaucracy, it is unlikely agencies would
willingly agree to any changes from the status quo. Further, the one thing
government personnel fear is change, which would obviously come from this
bill. While I’d like to see the FOIA amended to get more information to
requesters quickly, it is unlikely it will happen soon.
