Homeland Security Okays Closed Proceedings

CNet is reporting that a newly created branch within the Homeland Security Department that brings together many different federal agency employees and private sector players has been given the go-ahead to disregard a law requiring meetings to be open and proceedings public. From the article: "The 1972 law generally requires such groups to meet in open sessions, make written meeting materials publicly available, and deliver a 15-day notice of any decision to close a meeting to the public. The last is a particular point of concern for Homeland Security officials, who anticipate that private emergency meetings may need to be scheduled on short notice."

par for the course

[macshit]

The current administration seems to make just about everything it can closed to public scrutiny; in this case, it's even easier than usual because they can claim "it's against terrorists / fer the children!!!"

Sigh...

Re:Homeland Security Okay's Closed Proceedings

[amliebsch]

Do you know where that 15-day notice comes from? I'm looking at the Act itself, specifically, Section 10, and see no mention of a 15 day notice requirement. In fact, searching the PDF, there doesn't seem to be any mention of a 15-day notice anywhere in the Act.

Re:Homeland Security Okay's Closed Proceedings

[Anonymous Coward]

10. Advisory committee procedures; meetings; notice, publication in Federal Register; regulations;
minutes; certification; annual report; Federal officer or employee, attendance
(a)(1) Each advisory committee meeting shall be open to the public.
(2) Except when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security, timely
notice of each such meeting shall be published in the Federal Register, and the Adminis-
trator shall prescribe regulations to provide for other types of public notice to insure that all
interested persons are notified of such meeting prior thereto.
(3) Interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with
any advisory committee, subject to such reasonable rules or regulations as the Administra-
tor may prescribe.

The 15-day notice is not statutory, but is generally accepted under the rulemaking because that is the leadtime for the notice to reasonably get into the Federal Register and/or other channels of public notice.

In sum, this "revelation" that CIPAC will have closed meetings without the 15-day notice is no revelation at all, as such federal committees have ALWAYS been able to have closed meetings. And in 1972 maybe 15 days was required for reasonable "notice" to the public that a meeting would be closed. However, in 2006, I think 15 minutes is all the notice anyone needs. The end result is still that the meeting is closed to the public. There is no need to arbitrarily wait 15 days to have a meeting that will still be closed.

Re:Heh

[daveschroeder]

Except that meetings of such advisory committees have already been able to be closed to the public for 34 years (and could also be closed to the public with NO notice before that).

FACA stipulated a reasonable notice to the public when a meeting was to be closed, so as to advise the public where additional information may be obtained, or information about when the results of such a meeting may become public, or when future public meetings may occur.

That was in 1972.

The meetings were still closed.

In 2006, there is no reason to give 15 days notice of a closed meeting of a federal advisory board. Ample information can be broadly provided to meet the statue, which specifically states:

(a)(1) Each advisory committee meeting shall be open to the public.

(2) Except when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security, timely
notice of each such meeting shall be published in the Federal Register, and the Adminis-
trator shall prescribe regulations to provide for other types of public notice to insure that all
interested persons are notified of such meeting prior thereto.

(3) Interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with
any advisory committee, subject to such reasonable rules or regulations as the Administra-
tor may prescribe.

Public notice of a closed meeting can reasonably happen a lot more quickly in 2006 than it could in 1972. Remember, the meeting is still closed.

So, your quote isn't very relevant. At all.

Re:I'm eno2001. Who the HELL are You?

[happy cricket]

If you honestly beleive that tech-heads don't understand or research politics, then you need to broaden your scope. Come out of the box, man, there's a whole world out here.

Re:Eroding, eroding, eroding

[Watson Ladd]

That is the original use of Catch-22. Catch-22 the book has a plot that revolves around a laws like that.

Cheap Shot article

[cagle_.25]

This is not the first time someone's done this, and it's no doubt too much to hope that it will be the last time, but this article somehow turns "following the law" into "ignoring the law." Perhaps Roland should read From The Friggin' Law Itself:

(a)(1) Each advisory committee meeting shall be open to the public. (2) Except when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security, timely notice of each such meeting shall be published in the Federal Register, and the Administrator shall prescribe regulations to provide for other types of public notice to insure that all interested persons are notified of such meeting prior thereto. (3) Interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with any advisory committee, subject to such reasonable rules or regulations as the Administrator may prescribe. (b) Subject to section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of the advisory committee or the agency to which the advisory committee reports until the advisory committee ceases to exist. (c) Detailed minutes of each meeting of each advisory committee shall be kept and shall contain a record of the persons present, a complete and accurate description of matters discussed and conclusions reached, and copies of all reports received, issued, or approved by the advisory committee. The accuracy of all minutes shall be certified to by the chairman of the advisory committee. (d) Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section shall not apply to any portion of an advisory committee meeting where the President, or the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports, determines that such portion of such meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code. Any such determination shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons for such determination. If such a determination is made, the advisory committee shall issue a report at least annually setting forth a summary of its activities and such related matters as would be informative to the public consistent with the policy of section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.

No question: Chertoff's actions are entirely within the scope of the law.

NOW: is all this secrecy a good thing? I doubt it. But anyone who really cares about this ought to do something: join the NSA, put your uber-coding skillz to good use, and find bin Laden.

Re:I'm eno2001. Who the HELL are You?

[techno-vampire]

The kind of mind that takes a keen interest in government and politics and the kind of mind that has a strong interest in computers and technology typically do not mix.

ROTFLMAO! What a crock! Just because somebody's interested in computers and tech doesn't mean they're not interested in politics and vice versa. Just to show you how possible it is, take a look at Jerry Pournelle, [jerrypournellec.com] a major computer columnist (and SF author) with a PhD in Poly Sci, and another one in Psyc, both earned. He's not the only one, either. I'm quite interested in politics and I've been earning my living from computers, off and on, for over thirty years.