FDIC Responds to PJM’s Freedom of Information Act Request
Late last month, PJM reported that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) — ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform — had begun an investigation into allegations the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) gave preferential treatment to banks with political connections.
Allegations which, at the time, FDIC flatly denied.
In response to those denials, along with the fact that the Washington Post reporter who broke the original story was sticking to his guns, PJM sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to FDIC.
That request asked for:
[Documents] pertaining to all internal reports, memos, listings and communications concerning the identification of banks that might cause press or public relations problems.
This includes all documents in which FDIC personnel identified conflicts of interests between elected or appointed federal officials with bank ownership or management.
FDIC has since replied to PJM in record time.
In the two-page response, the FDIC does not claim they do not maintain such a list or engage in the practice of flagging banks which have important contacts. Instead, they essentially say they do not have to provide such information to PJM because the request was simply too broad:
The FOIA requires that each request reasonably describe the information sought and that it comply with an agency’s published rules, including those pertaining to fees. … A request for identifiable records shall reasonably describe the records in a way that enables the FDIC’s staff to identify and produce the records with reasonable effort without unduly burdening or significantly interfering with any of the FDIC’s operations.
In other words: “If we can find a legitimate excuse to say this would ‘unduly burden’ employees or ‘interfere with operations,’ we can tell you no.”
FDIC also says our request didn’t properly explain what documents we were looking for:
A request for a “documents pertaining to all internal reports, memos, listings and communications concerning the identification of banks that might cause press or public relations problems … [including] all documents or electronic communication in which FDIC personnel identified conflicts of interests between elected or appointed federal officials with bank ownership or management[,]” does not reasonably describe the information requested, and is not in compliance with the FOIA and the FDIC’s FOIA regulations.
They also claimed we did not give them a proper time frame for the search, but rather were asking for information going all the way back to 1933, when the FDIC was created:
Your request is not limited to records created or obtained by the FDIC during any recent or otherwise reasonable period of time, but instead seeks all otherwise responsive records without regard to when created or obtained by the FDIC. The FDIC was created in 1933. The potential scope of your request is enormous, and covers records created during a period of more than seventy-five years. Given its potential scope, we would need to perform searches of all active and retired files that reasonably might be expected to possess whatever information you wish to obtain, and perform records searches of each and every desktop computer, laptop computer, PDA, and other storage device, whether in paper, electronic or other format, and whether located at the FDIC’s headquarters or at any FDIC regional or field office, on or off-site. A records search of this magnitude would impose an unreasonable administrative burden on the FDIC. The FOIA does not provide for an agency to assume that burden.
This is, I suppose, true enough. We did not specify the last four years, for instance. However, any reasonable person, understanding what the story was about and who was involved would be quite aware we were not asking for records from the last 75 years, but about the last four. This is, again, simply a way to avoid answering the core questions: Did or does the FDIC maintain a list of banks with prominent contacts whose failures might cause press and/or congressional problems for the FDIC? Moreover, does the FDIC provide special treatment to such banks?
In the case of OneUnited, Maxine Waters and the ubiquitous Mr. Barney Frank, who adjusted the law so OneUnited could get a bailout they would not otherwise have, the answer appears to be yes.
If this is an isolated case, then FDIC has a problem. If this is not just an isolated case, and this was a policy decision, then the country has a problem, and a thorough house cleaning needs to occur at one of the most powerful agencies in the nation.
Pajamas Media should now acquire copies of other FOIA requests which have been granted by the agencies who received them – particularly under the GW Bush administration. By comparison with this one just rejected, it will become apparent how tightly the lefties were required to frame their requests.
Most likely, they were even more broad in scope than this from PJM.
This is a pretty standard way of putting off compliance; we ran into the same issues getting NOAA/NASA information. You just have to keep hitting them.
Having been a government representative tasked to respond to FOIA requests, I can see both sides of this. Typically lawyers do get involved with ensuring you as the action person comply with each request. While you may say “..any reasonable person, understanding what the story was about and who was involved would be quite aware we were not asking for records from the last 75 years, but about the last four.” Agency lawyers will ensure action people comply with the actual text of the request, because any appeal will be based on the text of the request. Also, do you really want action folks having to puzzle out every request? Some of the ones I saw, although relevant to my area were incredibly vague and I had no background on the requestor/purpose.
Although I’m assuming you’re asking for exemption from fees for records search and documentation under the journalist clause, the agency (at least mine) still must account for the man-hours for inclusion in the annual report on the cost of FOIA compliance.
I did my best to respond to FOIAs, including contacting other agencies which might have had pertinent records- no matter how far back- so my agency could either provide info or honestly state that after a diligent review of all pertinent records which may have bearing on the request, no relevant documents were found.
Appeal the response providing more specific info on what you’re looking for.
I, too, was an agent for FOIA & FOIL (New York’s Freedom of Information Law). I can’t count the number of times I had to reject a FOIL request because it was too vague. The law states that you must request existing reports/documents, yet these same requesters assumed that, if what they wanted wasn’t in an existing document, I would just whip one up for them. Um, no. I could give them the name of the document if they told me what they were looking for, but 9 times out of 10 the requester was on a fishing expedition with no clear idea of what they wanted.
Be specific about what you want, the form, and the time period involved. The more specific the better.
Soooo YOU are one of those people who waste our tax dollars by getting intellectually challenged government bureaucrats all flustered, distracted and confused and unable to perform their primary duties. Tsk, tsk, shame on YOU. Those government bureaucrats have enough problems already, like trying to decide which sock goes on which foot when they get dressed in the morning.
Just put together a more focussed request and re-submit it. It’s way too soon to give up on this.
Why is anyone surprised that a bureaucracy is trying to avoid extra work? Tighten up your FOIA request and resubmit.
learning from the school of hard knocks. Of course, they will put obstacles on the way of a comprehensive response. Kudos to PJM to give a try. I look forward to sending more kudos when PJM does not give up the effort, and further super-kudos when results are eventually obtained. Know you enemy occasionally requires engaging it.
Now, the requestor for a FOIA is supposed to pay for the search, unless they’re covered by an exemption- like a news organization researching a story.
Perhaps as a taxpayer you’ll appreciate one of the requests we turned down as perhaps a bit too burdensome. It requested all records pertaining to UFO activity over the Atlantic.
And since there was no time frame, and no distinction as to what would constitute a UFO (any unidentified anomaly? sighting? uncorrelated radar blip? etc. etc., it certainly covered a lot of territory to honestly answer).
Someone made the decision that the taxpayers wouldn’t be well served by spending the man-hours pulling and reviewing all ship deck logs, operations logs, shore-station logs, NRO records, USAF records, NASA records etc. etc. etc. for any indication of UFOs.
Got to go with the folks telling you to tighten it up and resubmit. It’s too early to make a fuss about it at this point. [deadpan] Guess you had to make copy.
Don’t forget Shorebank in Chicago.
As for the breadth of your FOIA request, well, it IS pretty broad. Sure, tehy don’t want to comply, but an obvious fishing expedition makes it easy for them to turn you down. You can’t just say it’s obvious you were only asking for the last 4 years, or whatever, you didn’t actually specify that and any legally required process like FOIA cannot stand that much ambiguity.
Maybe you should consider requesting all documents referring to or mentioning connections between specified banks and elected or appointed federal, state or local officials or their known relatives, friends or associates, within the period January 1, 2006 through the date of your submittal, for a start. Just specify OneUnited, Shorebank, maybe one or 2 others.
There are lawyers out there who are very familiar with FOIA, from both sides… maybe you should talk to one.
I of course am planning to pursue this further. We will likely tighten up and resubmit. However, FDIC knows exactly which information we’re looking for. I’ve had phone conversations with them about it prior to the submission of the FOIA request. This is stonewalling pure and simple. However, we had to start with a broad request in order to get a idea what to do to get the information we need.
Trust me, this is far from over.
Patrick
Hmmmm.
tl;dr = shorter FDIC: “neener neener neener”.
We will get the info one way or another, either voluntarily
or by order of the court. This obstruction will end up costing jobs and money
Time wounds all heels.
You know some of the names of institutions that have received preferential treatment.
Try requesting all documents that include three or more of those names that have been updated or created in the last four years. Those documents will likely contain other names and tell you some of what’s special about those institutions.
Also, for each of the names, request all documents that include said name during a period likely to include times when they were receiving special treatment. You’re likely to receive the same kind of document for different names. That should help you craft a request for that kind of document, independent of the bank name.
Two analogies using blankets apply here. Your first request was trying to lift the whole blanket to see the maggots wriggling underneath. It didn’t work because the blanket was too heavy.
The second analogy is to frame a FOIA request so that it tugs on one loose thread of the blanket and gets some information that unravels the thread a bit more. Then, based on the information from the first request, give the loosened thread another tug with a second request. Pretty soon the whole blanket will start to unravel. Then you will see if there are any maggots wriggling underneath.
Don’t even worry about it. In November the Republicans will take the House, and when they’re seated in January the subpoenas go flying about Washington like whooshing cannonballs of doom. Be on the lookout for a lot of paper-shredder activity at DOJ, FDIC, and others between November and January though.
What a coincidence?
President Barry Barack Hussein Obama spoke to the graduating class at Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. The man who made the internet a cornerstone of his campaign, tweeted (or twitted?) constantly to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of young fans, and used Facebook and other social media to great advantage, told the graduates that they were facing a new world in which they would be bombarded by too much unfiltered information. Further, the man who won election on the promise of ‘change’, told them that, unfortunately, the breathtaking change caused by this overload of information couldn’t be stopped. His speech seemed to imply that being exposed to all kinds of arguments is a BAD thing. That it might even threaten democracy. It’s a far cry from the time Americans treasured a ‘multiplicity of voices.’ That expansive variety of thought and expression guaranteed that somehow, some way, the truth would be heard. Apparently, that’s not what the Obama administration has in mind. In fact, in the financial reform bill, they’re seeking to put control of the internet in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission. Think about the almost total control of every aspect of our lives the government has gained through the misapplication of interstate commerce laws!
Look people, the “Anointed One” makes his chess move’s and us babbling humans need to realize that the unbelieving conspiracy “heathen” understate the issues when they say that Obama is a radical. Alas, they know not the secrets we are all going to witness. The “Anointed One” is amazing, he takes the people at the highly efficient Post Office and sends them right over to the Student Loan Program. The “Anointed One” knows all. Twitter messages were machine-gunned to cell phones at mach speed. Facebook and MySpace groups spread across the Internet like digital fire. YouTube videos featuring celebrities ricocheted across the globe and into college students’ in-boxes with devastating regularity. All the while, the Obama mega-money-raising engine whirred on at high speed, until the result became inevitable: an unthinking mass of young voters marched forward to elect the “Anointed One.”
I am not surprised to hear these stinking lies about our “Anointed One,” it should be apparent to anyone that this was coming down the pike. I do have a couple questions about future process steps concerning these developments? When the “Annointed One” decides to start bar-coding everyone, will we get to decide if the mark is on our hand or forehead? Allot of people will prefer the hand, (especially women of course), unless your a porn actress or something along those lines. Also, my girlfriend was wondering if the Administration will be getting fashion advice from Hollyweird or the New York City crowd? We are both agree that the Administration “Maoies” as the “Anointed One ” so lovingly calls them,will be getting uniforms similar to the SS uniforms in Germany in WW2. With big letters abreviating “Barack’s Socialists.” So shall we start calling them the BS?