effect to this recommendation of the interagency committee Subsequent to the issuance of Recommendation No. 24 by the Administrative Conference, Chairman Moorhead requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a letter dated July 19, 1971, to investigate the appropriateness of fees charged by Federal agencies for searching and copying. Several meetings between the subcommittee staff and GAO investigators resulted in inquiries to the interagency committee established by Justice, OMB, and GSA as to progress being made on their study, so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort by GAO. Conclusions of the interagency committee as stated above were duly referred to OMB because of its overall responsibility for the administration of user charges through Circular No. A-25. 'On May 5, 1972, Chairman Moorhead was advised by letter from Mr. William L. Gifford, Special Assistant to the President, that a memorandum, dated May 2, 1972, had been sent to the heads of all executive departments and agencies "asking that they initiate a review of their agencies' charges for search, reproduction, and certification of records. The purpose of this review is to determine whether some reductions of current charges could be made while continuing to cover the costs of providing the service. The memorandum emphasizes that fees should not be set at an excessive level for the purpose of deterring requests for copies of records." 164 Mr. Cramton summarized the findings of the Administrative Conference's survey of agency fee schedules in his testimony: 165 Almost every agency has a rule which calls for charging fees. Almost every agency has a rule permitting the waiver of any charge in appropriate cases and most make no charge where costs would be $1 or less ***. Several agencies have a mandatory minimum charge for handling information requests whether any documents are provided or not. But mandatory fees are often not charged even when applicable * * *. Copying charges vary widely, from 5 cents per page at Agriculture to perhaps as high as $1 per page at the Selective Service System. A charge of 25 cents per page is most common. Clerical research charges vary widely, from a low of $3 per hour at the Veterans' Administration to as much as $7 per hour at the Renegotiation Board. The committee is concerned over the real possibility that search fees and copying charges may be used by an agency to effectively deny for exemption under subsection (b) of the act. As Chairman Moorhead pointed out during the hearings, many agencies have circumvented the copying cost problem by leasing copying facilities to private companies who charge the public for the services. Such 144 Hearings, pt. 4, pp. 1223-1224. 165 Ibid., p. 1218. A table showing typical agency fees for the production of documents compiled by the Conference appears at p. 1245. charges-which obviously include a profit margin for the companyare also a matter of concern to this subcommittee.1 166 Fee Problems Under Freedom of Information Act Several witnesses detailed their experiences with Federal agencies on the fee problem. Reuben B. Robertson, III, an attorney with the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, testified: My own view is that the search fee should be eliminated entirely, because it is essentially inconsistent with the basic provision of the Freedom of Information Act that the Government should properly index and file and maintain its records. The only reason that a search fee would be necessary is that there is no index in the agency of what information is available and where it is located. Very few, if any, agencies have gone to any kind of automatic data processing. Very few have comprehensive resources where you can go and find out what is available, and how you can get it, and whom you are supposed to ask. One particular incident, which demonstrates the intentional harassment aspect, occurred when one of the students working under me in a study of air safety asked an official at the Federal Aviation Administration for the names of the 26 inspectors who reported directly to him. He was charged a search fee for that information. That is typical of what can happen. Mr. Harrison Wellford, also with the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, described to the subcommittee a case involving a scientist teaching at the University of Georgia who requested information on pesticides from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and was asked to give some assurance "that he could pay at least a fee of $100 before they would go to the trouble of making the search." 167 He went on to detail a personal case with the Department of Agriculture, also involving pesticide information, in which the "USĎA stated that if the information were made available, it would cost $91,840 to prepare the registration files for public viewing." 168 Still another witness, Mr. Bertram Gottlieb of the Transportation Institute, told the subcommittee of his efforts to obtain information from the Maritime Administration on all ships that had been purchased by American operators from the U.S. Government under the Ship Sales Act of 1946 and the amounts of operating differential subsidies each received from public funds.169 His request was turned down as being "too broad," whereupon he submitted the names of each of the ships, obtained from another source. The Maritime Administration then quoted a minimum fee of $8 an hour for its personnel to produce the subsidy information requested, working on weekends, or a total minimum fee of some $12,000. Mr. Gottlieb testified that after "considerable dickering", he received permission to employ 160 Ibid., p. 1252. 167 Ibid., p. 1253. 168 Ibid., p. 1255. This matter was discussed by a USDA witness, see hearings, pt. 5, p. 1559 and 1595. 100 Ibid., p. 1270–1271. some university students to review the agency records and in this way finally obtained the data he was seeking. The imposition of fees by agencies for searching and copying information sought under the provisions of the FOI Act is further complicated by the agency's administrative costs. Chairman Moorhead pointed out: 170 Although the authority to impose fees was designed to offset the cost of the Government for the provision of requested information, it is questionable whether this intent is effectively being carried out. One regulatory agency did a statistical study of this problem. About 34,000 items for which a fee could have been charged were handled during the fiscal year in question. The fees collected would have amounted to about $17,000. However, some 11,000 bills would have been mailed to collect those fees. Since it costs this agency $1.60 to send out a bill, the cost of billing would have been about $17,600—or about $600 more than the amount they could have collected. At last word, the agency is still pondering the problem. During the hearings, departmental and agency witnesses were asked to furnish statistics on the amount of fees collected during fiscal year 1971 for search and reproduction of records made available under the FOI Act. Some departments, such as Defense and Transportation, said that they kept no such records; others provided estimates. The total fees collected by the 10 responding agencies that kept records was $345,955.171 170 Ibid., p. 1218. The agency referred to is Federal Power Commission. 171 See hearings, pt. 6, appendix for a listing by agency. 59 VII. PUBLIC INFORMATION VERSUS PUBLICITY It is axiomatic that the requirement for Government agencies to inform the public about their activities can result in propaganda. The line between "public information," "publicity or public relations," and "propaganda" is fine indeed and, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. Mr. Robert O. Beatty, HEW's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, testified: 172 Generally, in government, public information is "good" and public relations is "bad," because it's supposed to connote some sort of self-serving propaganda effort for the perpetuation of bureaucrats or politicians. As discussed elsewhere in this report, Beatty preferred the term "public affairs," and urged repeal of the 1913 statute which prohibits the use of appropriated funds to pay a "publicity expert.' 173 Such action is necessary to help legitimatize essential Government information activities and to raise the role of public information personnel to a higher level of professionalism and status within the agency to enable them to fully participate in effectively administering the Freedom of Information Act. Warnings against press agentry or image making by Federal agencies apply equally to those which seem to be administering the FOI Act properly, as well as to those agencies which have made few changes in their public information policies and practices since the new law took effect. Examples are apparent in the old line agencies like the Department of the Interior and in new agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), established after the enactment of the FOI Act. The Image of EPA "A Federal agency that wishes to have credibility with the public must be frank and open in its conduct of affairs," John R. Quarles, Jr., general counsel of EPA, testified about his agency's implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.174 EPA witnesses also testified that final authority on refusals of access to public records rests with the agency's public affairs officers and that other provisions of the act are administered to speed the disclosure of information. For instance, tight limits are applied to the time EPA officials may take to make disclosure decisions, and fees for search and copying public records often are waived. Such forward-looking provisions for public access to EPA information can, however, be nullified when information activities become publicity-seeking devices. Shortly after testifying to EPA's steadfast commitment to a proper Government information program the agency selected two New York 172 Hearings, pt. 5, p. 1666. 173 For a discussion of this aspect of public information's role in Government, see pp. 49 and 50 of this report. 174 Hearings, pt. 6, p. 1876. (60) City agencies to develop plans to advertise the work of EPA. Both agencies were to develop comprehensive advertising plans to cover, among other things, "the image of EPA projected through advertising." 175 One of the image-making companies was to concentrate on advertising strategy for inner city programs. The other company was to worry about the EPA's image in the rest of the nation. The agency selected to handle the overall EPA "image problem" is Geer, DuBois & Co. of New York City; the agency selected for an "inner-city image-making plan" is John F. Small, Inc., of New York's Madison Avenue. Both agencies were directed to make sure their employees working on the project were thoroughly familiar with EPA's mission and the environmental problems it is supposed to help solve details which the EPA's full-time public information staff would not have to spend time learning. The price EPA paid the advertising agencies to find out EPA's mission and develop an advertising program to sell EPA to the public was $101,535. The contracts were of an open-end nature, with wage rates pegged on an hourly basis for 22 employees specifically named in the contracts. The contracts call for the hourly rates to be paid "for the duration of this agreement," which is to be 1 year from the date the contracts are signed.176 For John F. Small, Inc., the hourly wages range from $50 an hour for Small himself and two of his top associates down to $25 an hour for a print production supervisor. For Geer, DuBois & Co., Inc., the hourly wages range from $50 an hour for Peter Geer and $40 an hour for his executive vice president, down to $16 an hour for a production and traffic operator. The Interior Department's Publicity Program The Department of the Interior confuses "image-making" with "public information" on a slightly smaller scale than EPA. The agency paid $121 a day to a political publicity man to recommend improvements in Interior's public information practices and then decided that the public information report was not a public record under the FOI Act. Harry Treleaven, who worked in President Nixon's successful 1968 campaign and was a leading character in the book "The Selling of the President, 1968," prepared a report to Interior Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton on the information and public relations activities of the Department.177 The 85-page report was presented in April 1971. It included 18 pages of general observations and recommendations with the remainder covering in slightly more detail the information activities of the Department's 11 divisions.178 Ward Sinclair, a reporter for the Louisville Courier-Journal, asked for copies of the Treleaven report but was refused. He appealed the refusal under the Freedom of Information Act but was again refused. Mr. Mitchell Melich, Solicitor of the Department of Interior, argued 175 For details of these contracts see hearings, pt. 6, appendix. 176 Ibid. 177 This case is discussed at length in the hearings; see pt. 4, pp. 1280-1281 and also pt. 5, pp. 1743-1751. An article by columnist Jack Anderson, revealing portions of the Treleaven report appears on pp. 17401741 of the hearings. 178 This 18-page portion of the report may be found on p. 1744 of pt. 5 of the hearings. |