January 18, 2005 Security Dept. Eases Its Nondisclosure Rule By JOHN FILES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/politics/18disclose.html?oref=login&pagewa nted=print&position=
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 - 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. You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.
