Your tax dollars at work….wait, not “at work”, but, um…
Guest post by Christopher Horner, CEI
Funny how so many people at NOAA have the same hobby they work on on taxpayer-provided assets on taxpayer time directly related to their taxpayer-funded position.
But it’s OK. The American Meteorological Society is increasingly a sober, science-based organization, run by sober, apolitical science-types.
And, as I reminded NOAA in my appeal just denied today (see below), when seeking emails showing NOAA employees’ use of taxpayer assets to develop AMS’s advocacy documents, NOAA brags on its staff’s participation in and work for AMS. (NOAA waived this away as, well, ok, true, “at times”, apparently just not the times that matter).
Just as AMS touts their officers’ NOAA credential in presenting them to the world. But that’s not related to their work at AMS. Or NOAA. Except when it is.
But, despite these things and that, well, the documents were also created on agency time and held by the agency, always under the agency’s control (after all, how else did they inspect these 116 documents that are not under their control or obtained by them?), they really, well, erm…weren’t. Because NOAA was only “technically” able to pull and inspect them.
So, you see, our saying that possession “automatically” made them government records — which, ok, we didn’t actually say, but instead pointed to numerous factors including the above — is not persuasive.
You see, NOAA’s resident climate activists are like academics at public universities apparently getting a bit tired of having the “string” they agreed to of scrutiny, of how they use taxpayer time and assets, actually invoked. And have laid down the law to their nominal supervisors.
Which some of you may have been under the impression included us, the taxpayers. Well, you were wrong. Some employers have the right to see how their assets are being used. Just not you. When it comes to them.
So, no. No, these aren’t work-related records. Really. And as Attorney General Holder promised, FOIA will not, repeat not be used as ways to withhold records. It just won’t. Except when it is.
Evaluation of costs and benefits of suing to follow. But these contortions by the most transparent administration, ever (still claimed, as of yesterday! Let’s go to the evidence, here) are, on their own, priceless.
CEI_NOAA_AMS_Records_Appeal PDF
Its easier to get computer data going in the other direction. Recall that Tallbloke, a well known private citizen blogging in the UK had his computers seized by the Norfolk Constabulary in the investigation of the “hacked” (read “leaked”) emails of climategate. They found nothing and had to return everything but they had a good look at whatever he had electronically. Gee, their FOIA requests are as simple as banging on your door unannounced.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/23/uk-police-seize-computers-of-skeptic-in-england/
Use this library to learn how to shutter NOAA, EPA, IRS, DOE, grant bribes to universities yes back to State rights and powers – no $$$ in DC to bribe voters and special interest groups . .
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html
A truly corrupt government (or entity) is one that is corrupt a little bit, all the time.
Thank you Chris and team for your continued diligence on these transparency issues. The hypocrites in government are many and patriots few. In time history will record this sad period when political advocacy corrupted the education of science and scientific institutions throughout the world. Truth and understanding of the physical world we live in is the goal, keep up the good work of fighting for transparency.
We need to track the FOI requests that are denied.
Keep a tracker much like we track the outragous predictions made be Warmists.
The Denying of FOI requests may have another motive. It may increase the costs and time associated with skeptic’s work. The Warmists can live off government money, but the skeptics have to live off private money (hence: accoutability). If you recall during the Briffa/Yamal debacle, it took 4 years of FOI requests until he had to cough up his work. How much money in lawyers fees were paid out? The University of Virginia( wrt Mann’s emails) is also making this an expensive venture.
If we track these FOI denials over time, it is easy to show that the science has been corrupted. This is just politics dressed-up as science.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/freedom-information-act
Hahahahahahahahahahaha….
NOAA’s position is clear – employees who work in AMS leadership positions do so in their personal capacity. Therefore they have reason to hide communications between those employees and the AMS. (Note that the AMS Information Statement on Climate Change does not mention NOAA.)
So it’s okay for a government agency to link arms, share information and develop mutually consistent policies with a large influential private sector group, but because it is done “unofficially” none of that cooperation is subject to scrutiny or FOIA requests. Cute little bureaucratic sidestep there.
Good luck with pursuing the matter if you choose to, Mr. Horner. By the way, what’s particularly important about these communications?
Rudebaeger said:
February 16, 2013 at 9:26 am
We need to track the FOI requests that are denied.
————————————–
Hockeystick
If you think this is corrupt just look at what British MPs get up to.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/2/15/a-fistful-of-share-options.html
The chairmanship of the Energy and Climate Change Committee is effectively in the gift of Messrs Cameron and Clegg (Prime Minister and Deputy PM respectively). That being the case, Yeo’s continued occupation of the post tells us all we need to know about the two men’s approach to clean government.
Just look at what Tim Yeo has hoovered up.
Do you think he is getting this for nothing, or could it be because his Chairmanship of this committee?
ITI Energy Limited; suppliers of gasification equipment.
AFC Energy; company developing alkaline fuel cell technology. Address: Unit 71.4 Dunsfold Park, Stovolds Hill, Cranleigh, Surrey, GU6 8TB. Undertake duties as Chair, run board meetings and keep in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £3,750. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 20 March 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 9 May 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 13 June 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 11 July 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 22 August 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 12 September 2011. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 7 October 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £5,000, 14 November 2011. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £5,000, 13 December 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Received payment of £5,000, 10 January 2012. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 9 February 2012)
Groupe Eurotunnel SA (non-executive) (of which Eurotunnel plc is a wholly owned subsidiary); company managing the Channel Tunnel. Address: Cheriton Parc, Cheriton High Street, Folkestone, Kent, CT19 4QS. My duties as a non-executive director include attendance at meetings of the Board and of the Environment and Safety Committee and advising senior management on a range of issues.
Received payment of £3,622.57, 9 May 2011. Hours: 6 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £3,569.33, 31 May 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £7,238.97, 28 July 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £6,440.62, 12 September 2011. Hours: 16 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £4,245.20, 14 October 2011. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £3,526.97, 21 November 2011. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £6,885.38, 31 January 2012. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 9 February 2012)
Eco City Vehicles plc, Hemming House, Hemming Street, London, E1 5BL; distributes and services London taxis. Duties include chairing board meetings and keeping in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £3,333.33. Hours: 10hrs. (Registered 20 March 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 23 May 2011. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 June 2011. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 August 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 September 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 24 October 2011. Hours: 6 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Chairman of TMO Renewables Limited, 40 Alan Turing Road, Surrey Research Park, Guilford, Surrey GU2 7YF. The company is developing and supplying technology for second generation biofuels. My duties involve chairing board meetings and keeping in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £4,987.75. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 20 March 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 21 February 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 29 March 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 May 2011. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 27 May 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 24 June 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 27 June 2011. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 July 2011. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.53, 25 July 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 August 2011. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 August 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 September 2011. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 23 September 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £4,166, 23 October 2011. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 October 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £4,166, 24 November 2011. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 November 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 12 December 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 December 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Politicians can always say one thing and do the other so long as they are the only voice being heard. You need publicity and a short, catchy phrase to explain the problem. Something that will play on TV and in newspaper headlines. “What is the government trying to hide”?
A demonstration in Washington of near naked people (young, female) holding FOI signs with strategically placed black-out to avoid overstepping the law, with tip offs to all the TV stations, something like that is required to get action. Have an important building in the background. Place an add in the local universities for participants. transport and lunch provided. a chance to appear on TV. pick your weather. 20 young gals would be more than enough to make the evening news across the country. the whole thing could be done for $1000 and yield $1 million in publicity.
President Obama’s directive to government agencies is being completely ignored. Government agencies are treating Obama’s memo completely opposite of its intent. FOIA is still being denied to “avoid embarrassment” and to “protect the personal interests of Government officials.” Agency officials are not acting promptly and in a spirit of cooperation (unless the request is from an environmental organization). And In the face of doubt, openness does not prevail! For a good laugh, read the relevant paragraph from the Presidential Memorandum below:
“The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.”
Louis,
I notice a weasel word [“should”] is used 3 times in that paragraph. Weasel words negate the meaning.
Ultimately, we may have to take a leaf from Glieck’s manual. Impersonate a Greenpeace official – universities and other research institutions cough up emails and data to them that they won’t cough up to such as McIntyre.
D.B. Stealey,
You’re right. The use of “should” leaves room for all kinds of possible exceptions. But what about the “should never” used in the sentence “Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials…”? The use of “never” seems to leave no exception to the rule. I’m curious how a lawyer would interpret “should never” in a legal document. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if the FOIA memo was written entirely for show and was never intended to have any legal teeth. We should have learned by now that the modus operandi of politicians is to do everything for appearance with no actual consequences intended.
Chris, why don’t you attack a different way … FOI request the travel and reimbursement records for dates of known AMS events or appearances? And perhaps FOI NOAA spending records for any AMS related activities.
Well that settles it then, the work they do is private work.
So why is their salary coming out of the taxpayers pocket?
Keep up the good work, each defence of the indefensible by these people helps expose them.
It is pretty clear, that the politicians, bureaucrats and phoney NGOs need cleansed.
@Gary Young Pearse: …we may have to take a leaf from Glieck’s manual.
I think I share your feelings. On the other hand, whether you think it authoritative or not, this is pretty good advice: Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
I think we also need to have a site to track all of our comments that we’ve posted and that were censored. Be nice to have one site where people from all over the world can read them and see the sites that blocked them.
“Gary Pearse says:
February 16, 2013 at 11:39 am
Ultimately, we may have to take a leaf from Glieck’s manual. Impersonate a Greenpeace official – universities and other research institutions cough up emails and data to them that they won’t cough up to such as McIntyre.”
What we need is a “scientist” working for NASA or NOAA whom want redeem his/her soul willing risk his/her soles and become a whistle blower or at least a “deep throat”.
Chris , can you link your ordinal FOIA request?
The NOAA argument rests on a notion unreferred to by Chris Horner.
“Just because documents can be located in NOAA’s computer system does not mean that the records cannot be personal.”
Just because postal employees work for the government does not mean that their letters should be public property, whether they wrote the letters at work or elsewhere. Not should any emails of a personal or private nature be the property of government or Joe Public just because they happen to have been created on, reside in, or have passed through, a government (publicly) owned conduit. What is needed is an independent assessment of whether the correspondence is personal or work-related.
Whistleblowers. The only way to gain access to the inside of the fraud.
It’s virtually the only way a white-collar conspiracy can be cracked.
http://howtoreportfraud.com/examples-of-federal-fraud/grant-fraud
http://howtoreportfraud.com/do-i-have-a-case
Kent Clizbe said:
February 16, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Whistleblowers. The only way to gain access to the inside of the fraud.
—————————————
Whistleblowers are only called that when they expose something the left thinks is naughty.
If someone blows whistle against something the left likes, it is a criminal act.
Barbara Boxer (D, Calif) championed the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988 that insulates those in the military who reveal derelictions of their superiors against reprisal, but called for legal action against the Climategate leaker.
“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘e-mail-theft-gate'”
“Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter”
“This is a crime”
-Boxer
Dec 2009
How she had the standing to assert jurisdiction, I do not know. Guess that doesn’t matter to her, nor those of her ilk.
Louis says:
February 16, 2013 at 11:54 am
” … But what about the “should never” used in the sentence … ”
better would have been to just put the word “shall” were “should” wast used
then it f.ex looks thus :
“The Freedom of Information Act shall be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government shall not keep information confidential merely because public officials …. ”
Leaves no room for multiple interpretations that way does it ?
barry says:
February 16, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Just because postal employees work for the government does not mean that their letters should be public property, whether they wrote the letters at work or elsewhere. Not should any emails of a personal or private nature be the property of government or Joe Public just because they happen to have been created on, reside in, or have passed through, a government (publicly) owned conduit. What is needed is an independent assessment of whether the correspondence is personal or work-related.
This sounds like bs to me. If you’re an employee of either a private or public company and create any document using the resources of that company, whether in their time or your own, that document automatically becomes the property of the company. This also applies to any document created on ones own resources and in ones own time but which has any connection to the company. How could it possibly be any different?
Aargh!! I seem to have failed to close the italics properly at the end of the first paragraph. Mods, please feel free to correct my poor work. Thanks.
Well that’s all very confused.
So why is Chris assuming that anyone who produces a document that contradicts his party line must be activist and by implication making stuff up.
If this was geographical survey and they produced a report which says the earth is round, should we believe Chris’ claim they must be activists because he believes the earth is flat.
Chris really needs to sort out his logic. To many assumptions. To many wild extrapolations. Evidence zilch.
Until Chris has actually surveyed the employees of NOAA his evidence is zilch and simple story telling.
But these contortions by the most transparent administration, ever (still claimed, as of yesterday!
———-
Well if you abuse the FOI system for political gain, eventually people will get fed up and withdraw your privileges. Maybe you should stop and think about the consequences of your actions.
Here is a riddle for you all. How many FOI requests did Chris issue when the Bush administration was in power?
“……do not follow a multitude into Sin….”
Alfred
Do not feed the troll (i.e. LazyTeenager).
@lazy teenager
As many as he damn well please’s and thinks right to expose possible fraud and cover-up and mis use of taxpayers dollars.
If FOI covered private emails, the boot would be on the other foot and you’d be championing the act!!
Hypocrite!!
ferd berple says:
February 16, 2013 at 11:09 am
……Have an important building in the background. Place an add in the local universities for participants. transport and lunch provided……
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Make the building the Supreme Court.
barry says:
February 16, 2013 at 4:14 pm
‘The NOAA argument rests on a notion unreferred to by Chris Horner.
“Just because documents can be located in NOAA’s computer system does not mean that the records cannot be personal.”
Just because postal employees work for the government does not mean that their letters should be public property, whether they wrote the letters at work or elsewhere. Not should any emails of a personal or private nature be the property of government or Joe Public just because they happen to have been created on, reside in, or have passed through, a government (publicly) owned conduit. What is needed is an independent assessment of whether the correspondence is personal or work-related.’
Say what? It has been established law for some time that emails created “on the clock” or using company equipment at any time belong to the company. Such emails are the responsibility of the company. If the email is on a company server then it belongs to the company.
barry says:
February 16, 2013 at 4:14 pm
“Just because postal employees work for the government does not mean that their letters should be public property, whether they wrote the letters at work or elsewhere.”
Do you really believe that USPS or any employer does not read the emails created on company equipment? Unbelievably naive. Every organization, public or private, audits the emails that are created on site or sent to the site. No, they will not tell you they are doing this but be very nice to the people in IT.
If you are really interested in this topic and other hot topics of EPA misbehavior, check out:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/17/epas-secret-and-costly-sue-and-settle-collusion-with-environmental-organizations/
Mr. Horner and Lisa herself appear toward the end of the article.
Were the relevant email documents all moved into folders denoted as “personal” or “private” or did they remain in the general “inbox” category (or similarly work-related folders)?
Does NOAA have an official policy regarding the creation and preservation of personal emails on government-maintained computers that distinguishes this category from official records and archiving requirements?
Did these employees call upon the resources of NOAA beyond the personal use of computers, servers and phones? Did the six named individuals share these “personal” emails among themselves, particularly during office hours on office equipment? Did they in any way utilize the administrative assistance or technical expertise of other employees at NOAA in pursuit of any “personal” AMS project?
Are these employees receiving special treatment for their extra-curricular activities when compared to lower ranking NOAA employees? For example, do they have to take vacation or unpaid leave to participate in AMS activities? Are they required by their supervisors to make up for office time lost to these “personal” activities, such as drafting 116 emails and attachments, together with the related time spent thinking about the emails, discussing them with colleagues or non-employees, etc.?
Referring to recent comments abobve.
The point is not whether the ‘company’ can read the emails but whether the public can.
Analogising with private companies is false. FOI does not apply.
In terms of public companies, the issue is not whether the administrators of the company may read the correspondence (although that is a point worth considering for its own sake), but whether the public may. As much as we may like to imagine public ownership gives carte blanche to Joe Public, that is neither true nor sensible. One only has to think of the DoD to immediately understand the public does not and should not have unfettered access to ‘publicly owned’ documents. Responsible lines must be drawn, and they are not limited to state’s secrets.
The line here, as argued by NOAA, is the delineation between work-related and private correspondence. Their is precedence for this, which NOAA points to:
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/455/455.F3d.283.05-5360.html
I do not know if the emails in question are private or related to NOAA-required work. The matter should be independently assessed if it is imagined there might be something juicy enough in the 116 emails retained under privacy concerns to warrant pressing for disclosure.
From the NOAA publication “Computer User’s Guide for Protecting Information Resources” published September 2002 (and, therefore, potentially superceded). Note that the section on Privacy does not mention personal correspondence since the Policy section had already declared such use impermissible:
NOAA’s Information Technology Systems Rules of Behavior for All Users
…
2. POLICY:
a. IT equipment is for official Government business only
…
4. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY:
a. Realize that these “Rules of Behavior” apply even if you don’t take time to read them
Violations will result in loss of access and/or written reprimands, fines, imprisonment,
and loss of employment
…
5. PRIVACY:
a. Protect employee information, medical records, historical data or client lists
b. Properly dispose of unneeded data:
(1) Don’t throw sensitive hard copy into a wastebasket (shred or burn)
(2) Delete sensitive information from storage on hard drive and diskettes
permanently by overwriting; ask your ITSO for aid in doing this, if necessary
It would have been good to provide a link to all the policy recommendations. Here it is:
https://www.csp.noaa.gov/policies/noaaguide09-25-02a.pdf
The guidelines include this section.
Constabulary in the investigation of the “hacked” (read “leaked”) emails of climategate.
I bought a used computer that was previously owned by a university from a firm in Norwich. I wondered why the disk physical size and partitions did not match. It turned out that the drive had mixed windows and unix partitions and only the windows one had been cleaned and reinstalled leaving the unix ones intact. I would love to know if this sort of error was the real source of climategate data.
I’m beginning to think the lazy teenager is anything but. Perhaps a hard at ‘work’ middle aged bureaucrat hard at work, dealing with nasty hobbitses?