Scott Hodes, an attorney who devotes his practice to Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") cases, has commented on the archaeological blogosphere's attack on the efforts of ACCG, IAPN and PNG to seek transparency in how the State Department and US Customs impose import restrictions on cultural goods.
The drafters of FOIA hoped that the release of government files would help the public learn what its government is up to. The fact that ACCG, IAPN and PNG have sought to shed some light on what State Department and US Customs Bureaucrats have been up to behind closed doors should be applauded, not condemned by archaeological groups, particularly given their own demands for transparency from private parties involved in the trade in cultural goods.
Showing posts with label FOIA Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FOIA Lawsuit. Show all posts
District Court Again Accepts State Secrecy Claims; But Transparency Needed More than Ever
The same US District Court judge who ruled for the State Department in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case has again ruled for the government on the remaining issues on remand from the D.C. Circuit.
Just because the US District Court gave the State Department another pass does not mean that the State Department is acting in accordance with President Obama's promise to make his Administration the most transparent ever. To the contrary, the veil of secrecy placed over State Department decisions to impose import restrictions on cultural goods would seem to be entirely inconsistent with that pledge.
The State Department needs to be far more transparent about its decision making processes, which after all have a real impact on the ability of American collectors, businesses and museums to import cultural goods.
Archaeologists should also support greater transparency. The archaeological lobby harps on the need for more transparency about private transactions involving the sale or transfer of cultural goods, but has been supportive of government secrecy concerning how import decisions are made. Why? Could it be that it fears that any such transparency will only confirm that such decisions are actually the products of bias/and or prejudgement and/or ex parte contacts between State Department staff and members of the archaeological lobby? The particular redacted document at issue in the remand (an email communication between an archaeologist associated with the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute and a State Department employee about including coins in the MOU that predated a Cypriot request for import restrictions on coins) certainly suggests as much.
Addendum 6/15/12): Some in the archaeological blogosphere have now claimed that using the FOIA process to seek the email mentioned above is somehow "absurd," "shameful," "disturbing" and "disgusting." Here is my response to archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, which he apparently refuses to publish:
Well, perhaps you should give your readers the whole context of why ACCG was seeking the Parks email, and let them decide if seeking some transparency as to how the import restrictions decision was made is as disgusting or disturbing as you claim: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/12/will-obama-state-department-uphold.html
Either State was using Parks (the now deceased archaeologist in question) as a supposedly neutral expert (when she was not) or conferring with her about CAARI's effort to include coins in the Cypriot MOU. Because we don't have the entire document, we don't know which it was, but since Cyprus had not yet asked for restrictions on coins when the email exchange occurred, it presumably would be the latter.
Just because the US District Court gave the State Department another pass does not mean that the State Department is acting in accordance with President Obama's promise to make his Administration the most transparent ever. To the contrary, the veil of secrecy placed over State Department decisions to impose import restrictions on cultural goods would seem to be entirely inconsistent with that pledge.
The State Department needs to be far more transparent about its decision making processes, which after all have a real impact on the ability of American collectors, businesses and museums to import cultural goods.
Archaeologists should also support greater transparency. The archaeological lobby harps on the need for more transparency about private transactions involving the sale or transfer of cultural goods, but has been supportive of government secrecy concerning how import decisions are made. Why? Could it be that it fears that any such transparency will only confirm that such decisions are actually the products of bias/and or prejudgement and/or ex parte contacts between State Department staff and members of the archaeological lobby? The particular redacted document at issue in the remand (an email communication between an archaeologist associated with the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute and a State Department employee about including coins in the MOU that predated a Cypriot request for import restrictions on coins) certainly suggests as much.
Addendum 6/15/12): Some in the archaeological blogosphere have now claimed that using the FOIA process to seek the email mentioned above is somehow "absurd," "shameful," "disturbing" and "disgusting." Here is my response to archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, which he apparently refuses to publish:
Well, perhaps you should give your readers the whole context of why ACCG was seeking the Parks email, and let them decide if seeking some transparency as to how the import restrictions decision was made is as disgusting or disturbing as you claim: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/12/will-obama-state-department-uphold.html
Either State was using Parks (the now deceased archaeologist in question) as a supposedly neutral expert (when she was not) or conferring with her about CAARI's effort to include coins in the Cypriot MOU. Because we don't have the entire document, we don't know which it was, but since Cyprus had not yet asked for restrictions on coins when the email exchange occurred, it presumably would be the latter.
Open Government Watchdog Criticises DC Circuit Decision
An advocate for open government has criticised the DC Circuit decision in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case. See
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11827
Meanwhile, predictably at least one self-appointed spokesman for the archaeological community is gloating about the ruling while at the same time attacking the DC Circuit's decision to require State to further justify its search and its withholding of one document. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/04/coiney-guilds-want-access-to-deceased.html
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11827
Meanwhile, predictably at least one self-appointed spokesman for the archaeological community is gloating about the ruling while at the same time attacking the DC Circuit's decision to require State to further justify its search and its withholding of one document. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/04/coiney-guilds-want-access-to-deceased.html
Ruling in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA Case
The DC Circuit has affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the District Court in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case. See
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/U_S_Appellate_Court_rules_on_FOIA_case.aspx
Overall, the ruling supports the Department of State's efforts to keep its decision making secret from the public.-- this despite the Obama Administration's claims that it is the "most transparent" in history. Moreover, as we have seen from the recent CPRI seminar, such secrecy has been used to cover up results oriented short cuts designed to ensure the broadest application of import restrictions on cultural goods. Any benefits confidentiality brings to decision making should never come at the expense of encouraging evasion of legal process.
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/U_S_Appellate_Court_rules_on_FOIA_case.aspx
Overall, the ruling supports the Department of State's efforts to keep its decision making secret from the public.-- this despite the Obama Administration's claims that it is the "most transparent" in history. Moreover, as we have seen from the recent CPRI seminar, such secrecy has been used to cover up results oriented short cuts designed to ensure the broadest application of import restrictions on cultural goods. Any benefits confidentiality brings to decision making should never come at the expense of encouraging evasion of legal process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)