NASA Refuses To Accept Its Own News Media Accreditation (Update)
Keith’s update: NASA HQ PAO has informed me that my FOIA request for CASIS documents is now being processed. PAO tells me that the “media” status of NASAWatch is not an issue. The NASA FOIA office has initiated the search for what I have requested and will work with me on the details once FOIA at HQ and JSC get a handle on the size of what is found. I’ll let you know what I hear back from NASA. I was very specific about the documents I requested – just the NASA/CASIS Cooperative agreement and regular CASIS status reports and NASA responses. Nothing else. Since Sam Scimemi is the CASIS POC at NASA, he’d have all this within easy reach, yes? After all, CASIS is responsible for 50% of the allocation in the U.S. segment of the ISS – so one would reasonably expect that Scimemi and his staff would take these reports very seriously. When I worked at NASA – even back in the day – I had everything organized in folders for projects I managed – either electronically or on paper so that others could find things if I was not in the office. One would think that this is a simple matter of going to Scimemi’s desktop computer, electronically copying the files, dragging them into to an email, and then emailing them to me. Yes, I am applying logic here folks – will all the associated assumptions in so doing.
Keith’s 5 April note: I just got this response from NASA on my FOIA request this morning, among other nonsense, it says:
“You have requested a fee waiver and asserted status as a representative of the news media. Please note that while you are a recognized journalist, qualifying for the FOIA fee category as a representative of the news media requires a distinct multi-factored analysis. Representatives of the news media are not granted a fee waiver based solely on an assertion of that FOIA fee category. Therefore, we are asking you to provide justification to warrant news media status. In accordance with Department of Justice guidance, a representative of the news media is defined as ‘any 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.’ The ‘news’ must also be of current events or of current interest to the public and the requester must substantiate the current interest in each of the documents requested. Please be advised that merely making the information available to the public is not sufficient to qualify for this category. In your request you have also provided links to various articles. Unfortunately, we do not open links provided by requesters. In accordance with NASA FOIA Regulations, 14 CFR § 1206.506, the burden is on the requester to justify an entitlement to a fee waiver. (See CFR § 1206.507 for a discussion on fee categories.) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees shall be considered on a case-by-case basis using the criteria in this section. These statutory requirements must be satisfied by the requester before properly assessable fees are waived or reduced under the statutory standard.”
This response from NASA on my FOIA request really demonstrates some utter lack of communication inside of NASA. NASA HQ PAO has accredited me as news media since 2000. The issue as to whether I was news media was addressed back in 2000 in a series of letters between NASA. NASA OIG, and Congress. In this 4 February 2000 letter from the NASA OIG to Rep. Sensenbrenner NASA OIG noted that NASA created a new media policy to try and deny me accreditation. I found these old NASA HQ press credential badges in a box. I had to go through a full FBI background check to get them. Years later my personal data was part of that Chinese data breach. Why did NASA put me through that and then grant me accreditation if I was not news media? I guess I’ll have to go see if I have any more to refute NASA’s claim.
What is equally baffling is that I just sent NASA a long FOIA request that specifically addresses (in advance) the nonsense that they threw back at me the last time I tried to file a FOIA request. That time they did not even allow the waiting period to proceed before determining that I was not news media. So this time I added links to my own previous coverage of the topic surrounding my FOIA request plus links to NASA OIG and GAO reports. But they refuse to even open the links to the very evidence that they are seeking about my ability to generate news article and the relevance of the information I have requested including a report by NASA’s own Inspector General! This is not how an agency that vows to be open and transparent behaves.
RT @NASAWatch: NASA Refuses To Accept Its Own News Media Accreditation https://t.co/MfrOzD6Iyv
— WhiteHousePressCorps (@whpresscorps) April 5, 2016
This is crackers. @NASAWatch has been reporting news for 20 years. @NASA may not like it, but he's the press. https://t.co/fM8P66m3kr
— Dan Vergano (@dvergano) April 6, 2016
Reporters: contact #NASA #FOIA Josephine Sibley [email protected] 2023582462 to see if you're still "media" pic.twitter.com/PjxtRp4jpQ
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) April 6, 2016
This is just ridiculous.
Well yes but would you really expect anything different? It is a bureaucracy after all.
Cheers.
Keith being treated unfairly by NASA HQ PAI refuse to process your FOIA fee category waver for unknown reasons is beyond disbelief. Very sorry for this problem you are having with NASA and maybe you should call Charles Boldren by phone. I bet he could fix the problem real fast by talking to those NASA official that are you very giving hard time settle it no time problem solved.
Some NASA folk are going to get another kicking!
First I hope it had nothing to do with Keith’s mug shot (you never know:)). That said the NASA reaction is typical of a Bureaucracy fearing being exposed, and selective use of regulations to hide behind.
It’s simply the runaround. They get paid by the hour.
Any human or organization by humans who puts up such a fight
to deny openness, especially in a publically funded organization, are doing so because they have something to hide and are fearful of having their egos hurt or damaged. Where there is smoke there is always fire. This is most decrying and disgusting for an organization touting truth and inspiration as hallmarks. There are many humans who do not understand these concepts though, and yet ignorance is no defense. Words for most seem meaningless when ego and money are
involved. Where there is no honesty or honor there is no dignity and therefore no deserving of respect, because the only way to engender respect is to have earned it through action.
So, they are afraid to click on a link because it might bring in a virus. Why not send them the documents by PDF?
They have not explained why they do not click on links. They have virus protection software. Also one of the documents in on a NASA webserver, another on a GAO server. This is the stupidest thing I have ever had NASA say.
I’m sure you’re right. The person you are dealing with probably was given a generic prohibition on clicking on web-links at some point. That policy is likely ignored most of the time, and common sense would make the prohibition moot for GAO & NASA servers. But, that roadblock is convenient to make your life more difficult.
I think it is worthwhile to ask why the person you are dealing with is giving you grief? In my life experience, I believe it takes 2 people to hate. Treat someone with kindness and respect and they generally find it hard not to like you. Muckraking serves a very valuable service for NASA. It makes them a better organization and provide better public service. I think you do it because you love the agency, not hate it. Sometimes, people could think the opposite, especially if communication is frustrated. Just my $.02
(I dunno — with a mug shot like that i might not let you in either!)
Link-fear is dominant in the civil service. No one responsible for security wants to get their butt (or pension) in a crack because some doofus in your chain of responsibility clicked on an e-mail link or document and opened a hole in the organization’s security. Easier just to say No.
(And after all, even places like the, um, State Department, have trouble with e-mail security, hmmm?)
Never ask or expect a bureaucracy to act in an intelligent manner.
A version of this is as close as your local primary school, where teachers will tell kids to stay indoors during a solar eclipse.
Just NASA PAO trying to keep up with the rest of the stonewalling Joneses in the “most transparent in history” Obama administration, I guess.
CFR › Title 14 › Chapter V › Part 1206 › Subpart E › Section 1206.506
14 CFR 1206.506(c) Records shall be furnished without charge or at a reduced rate if therequester has demonstrated, based on all available information, that disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it:
(1) Is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Government; and
(2) Is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
[it seems to me that the key word here is “primarily”. I guess it could be argued that NW is a commercial interest.]
Daniel, that interpretation would disqualify any commercial media outlet from publishing a story based on a FOIA request. Commercial media outlets can, and do, publish stories in the public interest. Public interest and commercial interest are not mutually exclusive and a story with a primary public interest may also a secondary commercial interest. A better test of whether the public interest is the primary interest is to consider whether or not the story would be of the same substantial benefit to the public regardless of the publisher. That is highly likely to be the case.
On a related note, we all know Keith only does this for the love of it anyway 😉
I am confident that I will prevail on this issue. Stay tuned.
This section is only on the free or reduced rate provision of the FOIA. If a newspaper or media outlet is willing to pay the cost of providing the information then they can indeed get the information and use it for commercial purposes without having to qualify under this provision.
The response Keith got suggests he was asking for the free or reduced rate, so they might have been blocking the request based only on that point, but again I do not know if this was actually the case. Keith might wish to fill us in on that.
I do not know whether most media outlets pay for FOIA requests or how much they pay. It does not seem to be a major expense unless there is a huge amount of data.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-…
It’s not just whether a media outlet can make money from selling papers/clicks. “Commercial interest” has a fairly narrow legal meaning. NASAWatch doesn’t have a commercial interest in a contract between NASA and CASIS. Bigelow might. SpaceX might (Dragonlab). Etc.
In other words, “please stop being such a thorn in our side”
Keith, Kudos for if you still have so much of your hair?
… I would have pulled all mine out by now.