Washington Post On SEC Records Destruction -- I'm Quoted

The Washington Post has this on the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) destruction of records of preliminary investigation as soon as they find that a full investigation are not needed.  The story looks at other law enforcement agencies and finds that they keep them from as little as three years to as long as forever.  I am quoted in the story.

The SEC seems to always be up to something when it comes to record issues be it record keeping or access to records.  Last year, they were able to insert language into the financial reform law that gave them a broad statutory exemption for their records.  Once it was uncovered, Congress removed language from the bill.  Congress really needs to have a hearing on who at the SEC is advising the agency on these types of issues and determine if a personnel change is needed.

Update:  An unknown commenter known as Exemption 10 points out what he or she considers inaccurate comments I make above.  It would be nice to know who Exemption 10 is.  Anyway, I feel it is important to point out a few matters.  First, this is my blog and under the First Amendment I can pretty much write my opinion -- unless I libel or defame someone.  Second, while Exemption 10 is correct that Congress passes the laws and Congressman should read the laws they are passing, it is pretty much standard operating procedure that reading every word of every bill before it passes just doesn't happen (I'm not debating whether its right or wrong, it just doesn't happen).  Even if it does happen, it is unlikely that most people in Congress (and the world at large for that matter understand FOIA-speak).  So what the SEC was able to do in 2010 was, with the assistance of some in Congress, was insert language that was very friendly to the agency.  In the rush to get the bill through, it went unnoticed until later when it was repealed -- again Exemption 10 -- that is my opinion.  Finally, Exemption 10 tells my readers that I litigate against agencies.  That is indeed true.  But, I also work with agencies and FOIA personnel  on a number of matters, in litigation, in administrative matters and on issues involved in strengthening the FOIA.  In my previous life I worked in FOIA in the government and have made many friendships with people working in the FOIA world. 

Comments

[Exemption10]

You write, "Last year, they were able to insert language into the financial reform law that gave them a broad statutory exemption for their records." Not accurate, but it doesn't really matter. Nothing goes into a law without scrutiny by Congressional staff. Then you write, "Once it was uncovered, Congress removed language from the bill." Uncovered? The real story here is Congress passing bills without even knowing what's in them. You conclude with, "Congress really needs to have a hearing on who at the SEC is advising the agency on these types of issues and determine if a personnel change is needed." Readers of your blog know that you often call for "heads to roll" when these things occur. What they don't know, and you fail to disclose, is the fact that you litigate against many of the agencies you criticize in your blog, including the SEC.

[Jenny]

And for anyone wondernig "what does the records disposition schedule say about these records?" - there apparently is no approved records schedule for them: http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2011/nr11-170.html

This is another example of why agencies should be aware of what records they have by conducting regular inventories and then get their records scheduled. Without that records schedule to fall back on, it also makes it difficult for FOIA Managers to articulate to the public why records no longer exist.

[online writer jobs]

The real story here is Congress passing bills without even knowing what's in them.Of course, this is just something most people have to live with: working hard every day without getting any kind of satisfaction from it.