"DHS Eases Its Nondisclosure Rule"

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Security Dept. Eases Its Nondisclosure Rule
By JOHN FILES 
The New York (NY) Times


WASHINGTON, - The Department of Homeland Security will no longer require
employees to sign a nondisclosure agreement that prohibited them from
sharing some information with the public, it said on Friday.

The agreement, which went into effect in May, barred department employees
from giving the public "sensitive but unclassified" information. It also
allowed government officials to "conduct inspections at any time or place"
to ensure that the agreement was obeyed. 
 
Civil liberties groups and two unions for thousands of federal workers
contended that the policy was an unconstitutional restriction of privacy and
free speech. 

Under the agreement, any information that could compromise the privacy of
individuals or "adversely affect the national interest or the conduct of
federal programs" was considered sensitive. Those who violated the
department's policy could be disciplined with administrative, criminal and
civil penalties. 

In place of the nondisclosure agreement, the department said it would adopt
procedures to ensure that employees have the proper education and training
for handling sensitive information. 

A department spokeswoman, Valerie Smith, said on Friday that the shift was
"the evolution in our policy of protecting information and sharing it
effectively." The unions that opposed the nondisclosure agreements, the
National Treasury Employees Union and the American Federation of Government
Employees, together represent about 35,000 Homeland Security employees,
including a large number of customs and border workers. 

The unions applauded the department's decision to change its policy, but
said its amended plan for safeguarding sensitive information covered "a
broad and vaguely defined universe of information." Further, the unions
said, what they describe as the department's rigid approach in managing
employees may "undermine national security and the public interest by
suppressing whistle-blowing and discouraging dissent."

In November, the department released the results of an audit of the Federal
Air Marshal Service and the Transportation Security Administration related
to accusations from employees who said that they were punished for speaking
to reporters in 2002 and 2003. 

The audit, conducted by the department's Office of the Inspector General,
found that several air marshals said their supervisors threatened them with
prosecution if they were found to have released sensitive information to the
public. 

As a result of investigations by the air marshal service and the security
agency about the disclosure of sensitive information, the audit said one air
marshal was terminated, one was suspended for being a second-time offender,
two resigned before investigations were complete, and one was placed on
administrative leave. 

The inspector general's office determined that the investigations by the air
marshals and the security agency were "consistent with current guidelines
and regulations." 

Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, a
nonprofit watchdog group here, called the nondisclosure agreement a "secrecy
oath" that affords a government bureaucracy a means for hiding corruption,
waste, fraud and abuse from Congress and the public.

Mr. Amey, who called on lawmakers to intervene on such matters, said he
feared that employees will continue to be threatened with discipline even
though they no longer have to sign the pledge.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************