Request for communications with Congress regarding certain legislation (Department of Treasury Office of Inspector General)

To confirm – Mr. Vitka and I spoke last week, and I explained that Treasury OIG has no responsive records:

Mr. Vitka - Confirming our phone discussion: Treasury OIG has no records responsive to your request.

If you disagree with this resolution of your FOIA request, you can appeal the matter pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 552(a)(6)(A)(i). Pursuant to the Department's FOIA appeal process set forth in 31 C.F.R. section 1.5(i), an appeal must be submitted within 35 days from the date of this response to your request, signed by you and addressed to: Freedom of Information Act Appeal, DO, FOIA and Transparency, Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C. 20220. The appeal should reasonably describe your basis for believing that Treasury OIG possesses records to which access has been wrongly denied, or that we have otherwise violated applicable FOIA law or policy.

Rich Delmar
Counsel to the Inspector General
Department of the Treasury
202-927-3973

My apologies, and thank you Rich. I'll disable this auto-followup feature
now.

Many thanks,
Sean

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Delmar, Richard K. <DelmarR@oig.treas.gov>
wrote:

> To confirm – Mr. Vitka and I spoke last week, and I explained that
> Treasury OIG has no responsive records:
>
>
>
> Mr. Vitka - Confirming our phone discussion: Treasury OIG has no records
> responsive to your request.
>
>
>
> If you disagree with this resolution of your FOIA request, you can appeal
> the matter pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 552(a)(6)(A)(i). Pursuant to the
> Department's FOIA appeal process set forth in 31 C.F.R. section 1.5(i), an
> appeal must be submitted within 35 days from the date of this response to
> your request, signed by you and addressed to: Freedom of Information Act
> Appeal, DO, FOIA and Transparency, Department of the Treasury, Washington,
> D.C. 20220. The appeal should reasonably describe your basis for believing
> that Treasury OIG possesses records to which access has been wrongly
> denied, or that we have otherwise violated applicable FOIA law or policy.
>
>
>
> Rich Delmar
>
> Counsel to the Inspector General
>
> Department of the Treasury
>
> 202-927-3973 <(202)%20927-3973>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sean Vitka [mailto:seanvitka@gmail.com <seanvitka@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:48 PM
> *To:* Delmar, Richard K. <DelmarR@oig.treas.gov>
> *Subject:* Re: FOIA - Treasury OIG - FISA
>
>
>
> Thank you, Rich. I'd be happy to speak on the phone. How do 3 or 4 pm
> tomorrow work for you?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Delmar, Richard K. <DelmarR@oig.treas.gov>
> wrote:
>
> Mr. Vitka – got your FOIA request (attached) asking for all communications
> with Congress relating to several specified pieces of FISA-related
> legislation. Based on my preliminary checks, it appears that we do not
> have any responsive records, but before I make a formal determination, I’d
> like to talk with you to be sure of what you’re interested in. Can you
> give me a call?
>
>
>
> Rich Delmar
>
> Counsel to the Inspector General
>
> Department of the Treasury
>
> 202-927-3973 <(202)%20927-3973>
>
> 202-528-8997 <(202)%20528-8997> (cell)
>
> delmarr@oig.treas.gov
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* requests@muckrock.com [mailto:33117-06002749@
> requests.muckrock.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2017 12:36 PM
> *To:* Delmar, Richard K. <DelmarR@oig.treas.gov>
> *Subject:* RE: Freedom of Information Request: Request for communications
> with Congress regarding certain legislation (Department of Treasury Office
> of Inspector General)
>
>
>
>
> March 15, 2017
> Department of Treasury Office of Inspector General
> Office of the Inspector General
> Department of the Treasury
> Attn: Freedom of Information Act Office
> 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 4436
> Washington, DC 20220
>
> This is a follow up to a previous request:
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
> copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 13, 2017. Please let me know
> when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
> needed.
>
> Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
>
> ---
>
> On Feb. 13, 2017:
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request
> the following records:
>
> To whomever it may concern,
>
> This is a request for all communications between your agency and Congress
> or Congressional staff that include one or more references to any of the
> following pieces of legislation:
> 1) H.R.2048, USA FREEDOM Act of 2015;
> 2) S.1123, USA FREEDOM Act of 2015;
> 3) H.R.3361, USA FREEDOM Act (2013 and 2014);
> 4) S.2685, USA FREEDOM Act of 2014;
> 5) S.1599, USA FREEDOM Act (2013);
> 6) H.R.3773, FISA Amendments Act of 2008;
> 7) S.2248, FISA Amendments Act of 2008; or
> 8) the "Massie-Lofgren amendment" to the Defense Appropriations bills of
> 2014, 2015 and 2016.
>
> Fees:
> Demand Progress requests a complete fee waiver because it is a member of
> the "news media," because disclosure of the requested information is likely
> to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and
> activities of the government, and because Demand Progress has no commercial
> interest in the requested documents. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
>
> News Media Status:
> The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has elaborated
> upon the definition of "news media," holding that “a representative of the
> news media is, in essence, a person or entity that gathers information of
> potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to
> turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to
> an audience.” D.C. district courts have found that online publications
> count for FOIA fee purposes.
>
> Demand Progress is an incorporated non-profit organization that regularly
> publishes information of public interest (see https://demandprogress.org/
> news/), especially with regards to surveillance, transparency, government
> accountability, and corruption. Demand Progress employees investigate
> government corruption and secrecy and work to empower the public and other
> news media organizations with information. The requested documents, which
> the requester will editorialize and publish, will contribute to the
> public's understanding of the government's efforts to impact surveillance
> legislation and the information on which members of Congress based their
> votes.
>
> Public Interest Fee Waiver:
> In addition to the news media status determination, Demand Progress
> requests a full fee waiver because "disclosure of the information is in the
> public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public
> understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not
> primarily in the commercial interest of the requester." 5 U.S.C. §
> 552(a)(4)(A)(iii)
>
> The subjects of the records requested here concern government operations
> and activities, in particular agency contacts with Congress that may have
> informed or swayed political offices on matters of accountability,
> surveillance, and transparency. The records would contribute to public
> understanding of these activities by revealing the arguments and
> information presented to the political offices about the referenced pieces
> of legislation. Such improved understanding would be significant because
> these records are not currently public and because the political debates
> around these pieces of legislation relied heavily on undisclosed
> information and, like most legislation, on agency input. The requester,
> meanwhile, has no commercial interest in the documents, and therefore the
> public interest in disclosure of these records is far greater than the
> requesters' commercial interest in them.
>
> As an example of the requester's past efforts and current intentions with
> regard to the requested documents, one of the requester's employees (Sean
> Vitka), who is pursuing this request, is an experienced journalist who has
> written dozens of articles that are freely accessible to the public
> (including articles that expressly deal with these pieces of legislation,
> such as: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/doj-if-we-can-
> track-one-american-we-can-track-all-americans/ and
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/10/
> massie_lofgren_surveillance_reform_amendment_fails_
> despite_bipartisan_support.html). The requester's past and future
> authorship is and will be in the public interest as it informs the public
> debate around surveillance, especially surveillance of Americans, and such
> articles will continue to be free to the public. As an example of the
> public interest such authorship has served, the requester's article in Ars
> Technica (linked above) was the first free resource where the public could
> access the government's arguments against the defendant, Basaaly Moalin,
> which were the first time the government argued in court that the telephone
> metadata dragnet conducted under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act could
> be applied across all Americans without violating any individual's
> expectation of privacy. The requested records will be used to author such
> articles for news outlets and is not made for commercial purposes.
>
> Conclusion:
> Based on the above, the requester is both a representative of the news
> media and this request merits a full waiver of searching and duplication
> fees because it is made "in the public interest because it is likely to
> contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or
> activities of the government." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
>
> Format:
> The requester also asks that these records be provided in electronic
> format.
>
> Contact:
> We welcome communication about this request if further discussion would
> assist in the search and release of the requested records. Please feel free
> to contact the requester by email at seanvitka@gmail.com or by phone at
> 570.798.7678 <(570)%20798-7678>.
>
> Thank you,
> Sean Vitka
>
> The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and
> this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
>
> In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform
> me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer
> the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or
> CD-ROM if not.
>
> Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I
> look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business
> days, as the statute requires.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean Vitka
>
> ------
> Filed via MuckRock.com
> E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com
>
> For mailed responses, please address (see note):
> MuckRock
> DEPT MR 33117
> 411A Highland Ave
> Somerville, MA 02144-2516
>
> PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is
> being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share,
> and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed
> (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the
> department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
> ------
>
>
--
Sean Vitka