Confusion Over Federal Agency Public Information Guidelines
Keith’s note: According to NASA HQ PAO there is no change in NASA policy with regard to the release of data or information to the public.
White House says no curb on federal agency media activities, Reuters
“The White House denied on Wednesday that the new Trump administration ordered a curb on the flow of information from several government agencies involved in environmental issues. “They have not been directed by us to do anything,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, adding employees have been told to adhere to their agency’s own policies. “But that directive did not come from here.”
EPA science under scrutiny by Trump political staff, AP
“The Trump administration is mandating that any studies or data from scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public. The communications director for President Donald Trump’s transition team at EPA, Doug Ericksen, said Wednesday the review also extends to content on the federal agency’s website, including details of scientific evidence showing that the Earth’s climate is warming and man-made carbon emissions are to blame. Former EPA staffers said Wednesday the restrictions imposed under Trump far exceed the practices of past administrations.”
Firestorm over supposed gag order on USDA scientists was self-inflicted wound, agency says, Science
“Don’t blame this one on the Trump administration. In a bungled attempt to anticipate the wishes of their new political bosses, the U.S. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) on Monday imposed what was widely interpreted as a gag order on its scientists communicating with the public. But a senior ARS official tells ScienceInsider that it was a poorly-worded effort by career officials – not anyone appointed by Trump — to remind employees of a longstanding U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy on clearing statements that have policy relevance with senior officials before releasing them.”
After huge outcry, USDA scales back its limits on scientists’ contacts with public, Geekwire
“U.S. Department of Agriculture officials have rescinded an order that barred its researchers from releasing “public-facing documents,” ranging from news releases and photos to social media posts.”
Information lockdown hits Trump’s federal agencies, Politico
“On Monday, the Transportation Department advised its employees not to publish news releases or engage on DOT’s social media accounts until they get more guidance from the new administration. The move was not a “ban,” a department spokesperson told POLITICO, and DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration continued to tweet about distracted driving and vehicle recalls. Meanwhile, employees at HHS and the National Institutes of Health received a memo telling them to halt external correspondence. “For your additional awareness, please note that we have been directed not to send any correspondence to public officials (to include Members of Congress and state and local officials) between now and February 3, unless specifically authorized by the Department,” said one section of the memo, which was obtained by POLITICO.”
USDA Scientists Have Been Put On Lockdown Under Trump, Buzzfeed
“The US Department of Agriculture has banned scientists and other employees in its main research division from publicly sharing everything from the summaries of scientific papers to USDA-branded tweets as it starts to adjust to life under the Trump administration, BuzzFeed News has learned. According to an email sent Monday morning and obtained by BuzzFeed News, the department told staff – including some 2,000 scientists – at the agency’s main in-house research arm, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), to stop communicating with the public about taxpayer-funded work. “Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents,” Sharon Drumm, chief of staff for ARS, wrote in a department-wide email shared with BuzzFeed News.”
EPA Freezes Grants, Tells Employees Not To Talk About It, Sources Say, Huffington Post
“The Environmental Protection Agency has frozen its grant programs, according to sources there. EPA staff has been instructed to freeze all its grants – an extensive program that includes funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, among other things – and told not to discuss this order with anyone outside the agency, according to a Hill source with knowledge of the situation. An EPA staffer provided the information to the congressional office anonymously, fearing retaliation.”
Trump’s pick to lead Commerce Department says NOAA scientists can freely share their work, Washington Post
“Scientists have expressed concern that the Trump administration may impede the communication of climate science findings and data. But Trump’s pick for secretary of commerce, Wilbur Ross, says scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will be permitted to share peer-reviewed work with the public. Such concern increased early this week as the Trump administration issued a “media blackout” at the Environmental Protection Agency, banning news releases, blog updates or posts to the agency’s social media accounts, according to the Associated Press. In addition, science researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture were ordered to stop publishing news releases.”
EPA memo says agency is not allowed to issue press releases, add new content on websites, or post on social media – Huffington Post pic.twitter.com/3lJSk5BoFi
— BNO News (@BNONews) January 24, 2017
.jpg)
Waiting to see if NASA and NOAA are on the hit list …
I have an empending feeling of doom.
I was under the impression that there was a congressional mandate that taxpayer funded research had to be publicly accessible, hence the pushback in recent years against proprietary data periods and closed journal access. I know it has been a huge deal in NIH. How is this supposed to interact – can the President defy the will of Congress if it written into law? Or will they try a dodge, like saying the raw data is public, but federal workers can’t talk about it? How will this interact with results coming from universities that receive this research funding? I’ve got a bad feeling this a prelude to cutting the research grants off.
I think that’s the law for NIH, but the act didn’t apply to all government research. A bill was introduced a few years ago to expand this, but I don’t know if it passed. My impression was that the current push for open access came from the White House, not Congress. As for universities, well, some of them have their own policies requiring open access, and the terms of federal grants typically _require_ publication of the funded work.
“No blog messages”
“A Digital Strategist will be coming on board to oversee social media.”
This looks bad….
Is this beyond the normal restrictions or is it simply reemphasizing the guidance all employees receive that “Only PAO talks for the agency”? Frankly I’m not allowed to comment on or tweet on social media, or provide commentary except as myself, and even then never on things I have direct involvement in or that might bear on NASA or employer policies or operations. The guidance I’ve always had (and this was in non-government jobs as well as contractor employee) was, you don’t talk about work, policy or anything you have information on. There are privacy issues, policy issues, confidential material issues, contract issues, eic. that you are unaware of because you don’t have the whole picture. Simply don’t talk about it. PAO or the CEO”s talk, you don’t. Just wondering.
Good questions. I’ve a friend who does some amazing work as an EPA worker who has always posted stuff about the intersection of environmental issues and human issues, and was proud enough of the everyday work being done that this info was shared and linked to various reports and releases.
Information should not be shackled. Even though we aren’t really good with unfettered access to information (as a culture) we should embrace it if we want to move forward.
Bloggers always represent only themselves. The problem is that they are being told they can’t even do that.
If the blog is on a government website then they are blogging in relation to their job in the government and represent the government. It’s no different than if they are using a government postage meter for their personal mail. If they want to blog personally there is WordPress and the other free blogging sites.
Bloggers do need to take some care, as well as people writing letters to the editor on print media. Just a statement that the author works for X can cause problems. If it could be misinterpreted as saying the author is speaking for X, the author can get in trouble.
If it’s in relation to the job I suspect they will be allowed to do so in the future. In fact the digital strategist may well use it as a role model for others in the agency to follow. That is what they do in private industry.
Same here and I teach at an university. There has always been a divide between what I am to say to reporters, etc. as an university employee and what I am able to do as a private individual. You accept it as being an responsible employee.
I suspect what your are seeing is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy. Some government employees are so fearful of President Trump they are speaking out on things they really don’t have authority to do and this is triggering the review of public communication procedures. The example of the environment protest messages coming out under the Badlands National Monument tweet account, which is intended to just inform individuals of events/conditions at the Monument is a good example
He’s talking about rules what people can say as a private individual. Many companies have policies on the subject. Writing a letter to the editor against your employer’s environmental practices isn’t a good career move, even if you make it clear you aren’t speaking for the company.
In contrast, when I was an undergraduate at Berkeley, I remember quite a long list of professors being very vocal about the Regents investments in (then Apartheid) South Africa.
Of course, those professors were tenured.
I honestly don’t remember how many of those professors had tenure. It was a long time ago and, as an undergraduate, tenure and academic freedom were not things I was sensitive to.
However, many universities have policies about academic freedom which are not limited to tenured professors. Since Berkeley’s free speech movement in the early 1960s, that university has included undergraduate and graduate students in its academic freedom policies. I would be very surprised if they left out non-tenured faculty. Of course, things may be different at other universities and non-tenured faculty do have to consider department politics and what their tenured colleagues think of them.
The information discovered by scientists at NASA, NOAA and EPA is intended to be available to the public in an accurate and unbiased form, as stated in the Freedom of Information Act. With a few exceptions for military secrets and private or proprietary information, the government does not have the right to gag its scientists. They are free to discuss facts with the public, whether or not they support Mr. Trump’s opinions.
That generally doesn’t apply to scientific research. Scientists are _expected_ to present their results at conferences. That sure sounds like talking about their work to a public audience. In general (and at universities) those presentations aren’t cleared with PAO or PIO people (some companies and government labs have them vetted over ITAR issues, but I’m not familiar with any which go through PIO.)
As far as policy goes, NASA’s Planetary Science Division has a number of “assessment groups”, which hold a meeting once or twice a year. They are public, presentations go online, and scientists are encouraged to attend at tell the folks from NASA headquarters what they think NASA should be doing (e.g. is a Discovery mission every two years a better choice than another flagship mission on the distant horizon.) Lots of people from universities, industry and NASA centers attend and express their opinions on policy. They aren’t going through a PIO/PAO.
Finally, universities tend to have policies about academic freedom. In fact, that’s one of the original purposes of tenure. Professors can openly speak their minds, even if their opinions disagree with those of the university. (And, occasionally, you will hear them speaking out against their own universities policies.) How far that extends depends on the university, but it usually includes more than just tenured professors. There is one very clear rule: You can’t claim or imply you’re speaking for the university, just for yourself. But other than that, their aren’t any rules about publicly stating your views on work-related issues (subject to limits implied by professional ethics, laws against hate speech, etc.)
Perhaps its the second coming of George Deutsch.
So research we, the taxpayers, do not have access to the results of USDA and EPA research that we are paying for? Lovely.
I read it more like “hey guys: no freelancing or policy campaigning,” which is proper. Their job isn’t to set policy, but to implement it once it’s set. Been there.
That can be a very fuzzy line. “Today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher that at any time in the last 650,000 years,” is a statement of fact. The Park Service deleted that from one of their Twitter accounts. The fact that the Park Service, or more specifically Badlands National Park, considered that relevant to their Twitter account could be questioned. But it is a statement of fact not policy, and does not advocate any specific policy. It might have policy implications, but I don’t think cutting of statements of fact with policy implications is a good idea.
The problem is a former employee probably broke to law to hack their Tweeter account to post it.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/…
“In a statement, the National Park Service blamed “a former employee who was not currently authorized to use the park’s account” for the tweets, which the NPS said they deleted
of their own accord.
“The park was not told to remove the tweets but chose to do so when they realized that their account had been compromised. At this time, National Park Service social media managers are encouraged to continue the use of Twitter to
post information relating to public safety and park information, with the exception of content related to national policy issues,” the National Park Service statement said.”
There is #AltUSNatParkService and he tweeting up a storm
That may be true in this case. But the question is still important: Where do you draw the line between stating facts and making a statement about policy. What if some national park had tweeted something about banning all camp fires due to the longest drought on record and the risk of wildfires? That could be both factual and perfectly appropriate to their mission, but it could also be seen as a comment about climate change.
So the logical conclusion here is that the policy makers that are in power do not want to set policy based on publicly available peer reviewed scientific results.
The Doctor (Doctor Who) : “You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
That was long, long ago. The first budget in six years was actually passed by the Senate, the way the process was designed to work. Gosh, that was amazing! Now, perhaps, you can remember how things were handled by a former American Senator from Nevada.
oh HELL no.
USDA also includes the extension service. A small item to be sure, and partly funded at the state level, but a government program important to me and to farmers as well.
I expect there will be no impact there.
Don’t forget the subsidies for corn, wheat and soybeans and the multibillion dollar tax support for corn ethanol despite the fact that it costs more fuel than it saves. Don’t expect any cuts there!
You guys forget that the new President has no clue whatsoever how to run the government; he simply figures he’s ‘smart’ and can step in. As a result, there will be fear on his part until he ‘gets his hands around it’. Which he cannot do.
I so love science. Its becoming like “Soylent Green, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451” all rolled together is coming true. Oh, my bad. That is just Science Fiction… Right?
Yeah, going in the Starship Troopers direction (book, not movie)
A newspaper in Scotland did print a television guide, listing the Inauguration as the kickoff of a new Twilight Zone alternate-history revival. One planned to run for four years, and include reality TV features and social media.
“A Digital Strategist will be coming on board to oversee social media”
I believe in the Soviet Union they were called “Political Officers.“
Funny, in the Obama Administration this would have probably been viewed as evidence of how futuristic they are in their social media policy.
He had 8 years to do so and didn’t. Trump did it in his first week.
In spite of that, you still can’t stop your automatic “both sides are as bad, you just prefer one of them” reaction.
Instead we know what Obama did do. After the failed ACA website launch, he personally went around pitching to recruit IT hotshots to form a roaming multi-departmental IT dev team to bring “start-up culture” to struggling government computer systems modernisation projects.
I agree. The Obama Administration didn’t do it, and the Freedom of Information Act was passed to ensure that we as citizens are fully informed, not just told what the president wants us to know.
???? I guess digital strategists are new to government although they have been around in private industry for years. All they do is coordinate the social media of an organization to maximize its impact in getting the message out to the public. Seems to me it would not only be consistent with the Freedom of Information Act but should have been done by the Obama Administration to improve its implication. But the government usually lags private industry in managing its IT resources.
But I see how someone working in an environment where there has been no control or coordination before would fear a policy that would start to hold them responsible for their productive use of social media at work.
I think the concern is about government agencies “getting the message out.” It may be idealistic, but some people think the only “message” federal agencies should be putting out is spin-free, accurate fact about what they do. Politicians are expected to have agendas and messages they want communicate, but should the EPA or NOAA?
The public is entitled to the facts, as accurately as our federal agencies can determine them. To suggest that “all politicians lie” is not a rationale. No politician has the right to lie in his or her official capacity, or to insist that federal agencies distort the truth. Mr. Trump is entitled to his tweets, but they are opinions, not facts. His own legal team claimed there was no evidence of voter fraud when they were arguing against recounts. Now he claims without evidence that there were millions of illegal votes. EPA, NOAA and NASA report the facts. Mr. Trump does not have the authority to distort the facts to suit his agenda.
This is not argument put forth in good faith. The policies and actions of the Obama Administration are public record. We know what they did (which as Paul451 points out was pretty much the opposite of what you suggest), there is no need to argue a hypothetical about what they might do. Do you not see that?
What I see is a number of folks who have overdosed on the campaign rhetoric and see President Trump as a combination of Stalin, Hitler and the bogeyman. As a result they are in full panic mode with some using social media in a matter that is inappropriate for government representatives. This is playing right into his hands by giving him the justification needed to tighten up on it.
This by the way is how he got elected, by folks panicking and demonizing him in a way that just kept increasing his base. Hillary Clinton’s statement that his supporters were deplorable probably got him more votes than all his speeches did.The way to respond is the way Elon Musk is, by constructively engaging him, not panicking and doing things that strengthen him.
Or, speak truth to power.
Precisely.
And its probably long overdue to debate what the government should or shouldn’t be doing.
My first reaction to your comment: you know, he’s right.
But isn’t that very fact at the heart of this great struggle we’ve been fighting for almost 50 years? The role of government? Think back to Pat Buchanan and Richard Nixon and the Southern Strategy; it was more than just an appeal for votes. It was a desire to reduce government.
Add Mr. Reagan to the mix: “the government IS the problem”. That notion is entirely new in American history. We were a country proud of our government, but the right has so denigrated government (and governmental employees) that they stand below car salesmen. Or congress critter, I suppose.
To me the efforts are nothing less than unpatriotic. The debate over what the government funds or not is legitimate. But don’t conflate that question with the role of government: to keep us safe and ensure a level playing field.
Well, the House did pass budgets many years but they were not acted upon by the Senate; that’s what I was referring too.
Another ‘frog in a pot’ moment.
It is growing.
http://usuncut.com/resistan…
The really telling part of this is that no one was surprised. Regardless of how outrageous the fake news, if it says that Trump is outrageous then everyone believes because he is.
I reacted to this on social media, now I have to backpedal. We all need to vet more carefully.