At recent COGI meetings a few people mentioned the work of the Government Information Access Council, a group created by the Legislature in 1994 (and repealed in 1997). I thought that many would be interested in the report of the group, so I had it scanned from the Legislative Reference Library’s (LRL) print copy, linked it to our catalog record, and sent out an e-mail about its availability. (report) Julie Wallace replied that it used to be on the Department of Administration Web site, along with minutes of the group and other materials, all of which are now gone. At the Legislative Reference Library, we’ve noted this on many occasions – state documents that were once online are no longer on the agencies’ servers. But it is particularly ironic in this case; a report about government information access is no longer accessible online.

Just a bit of background: The Legislative Reference Library has the statutory authority to obtain state documents. Minnesota Statute 3.302 For many years (1981-2003) we obtained and cataloged state documents that were then put on microfiche by the Department of Administration through the State Document Depository Program. That program dissolved. To fill the void, the Legislative Reference Library began a program of keeping digital copies of state documents in 2004, our e-docs grogram. (More state document information) LRL staff work hard to identify important state documents and ensure they are available long into the future. And as I mentioned, we know of many documents that were once on agency web sites, but are no longer, and we have scanned many documents that we have only been able to obtain in print. But we realize the shortcomings of the present system

National Security Archive Comments on Proposed CIA FOIA Fee Regulations(PDF – 135 KB) National Security Archive FOIA page Washington DC, February 7, 2007 – The CIA’s proposed new rule on Freedom of Information Act processing fees is likely to discourage FOIA requesters while imposing new administrative burdens both on the Agency and the public, according to formal comments filed with the CIA today by the National Security Archive of George Washington University. The Archive’s general counsel, Meredith Fuchs, commented that, “Significant time, money, and other resources were spent by the CIA on fee disputes last year. One of those disputes involved the CIA’s refusal to abide by a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judicial decision about the Archive’s fee status. Given that the Agency recouped only $4,732.80 in fees in FY 2006, those disputes served mainly to delay and obstruct FOIA requests.” The Archive recommended that the Agency change its proposed rule to: (1) eliminate the unnecessary and improper definitions of FOIA requester categories; (2) eliminate the requirement that all requesters make open-ended, written fee commitments because many FOIA requests can be processed without the requester incurring any fees and the CIA proposal would discourage requesters and add to the Agency’s administrative processing time; (3) eliminate the illegal provision mandating prepayment of fees before the CIA will honor form or format requests; (4) revise the proposed duplication fees provisions so that requesters pay only those “direct costs” actually incurred in the processing of the individual request, whether for paper or electronic duplication; and (5) revise the public interest fee waiver provisions to follow the letter and intent of the FOIA to promote dissemination of information in the public interest. The Archive has had to sue the CIA twice over FOIA fee issues, despite the D.C. Circuit’s definitive 1989 ruling in the Archive’s favor. The most recent case, filed in 2006, covered 42 FOIA requests that the CIA deemed not to be “newsworthy”; only after the Archive filed its legal complaint and a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did the CIA reverse course on the 42 requests, but even then fell short of committing to abide by the judicial precedents. Click here for more

Steven Aftergood was the 2006 James Madison award winner. This article (Steven Aftergood condemns the abuses of overclassification, excessive secrecy) tells the story of how Aftergood got involved with the government and their overclassification of government information – starting with a secret plan to develop a nuclear-powered rocket engine for missile defense.