BLM gift card investigation

Dear FOIA Officer:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:

The case file, including all interviews and notes, for the OIG's investigation into BLM Law Enforcement gift cards that led to Report Number: 17-0820, the summary of which is published here: https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/InvestigativeSummary_LackofGovtGiftCardAccountability.pdf

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

As a freelance journalist, I expect to be placed in your news media category. As evidence of my publication record, here are links to some of my stories:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/11/zoos-protect-animals-fire-disaster/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/how-california-fire-catastrophe-unfolded/
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/wildlife-watch-sea-cucumbers-illegal-wildlife-trade-coral-reefs/

I request a fee waver on the grounds that this information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations of the government — i.e., fraud and waste at senior levels of federal law enforcement.

However, if you do require fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me if the total charges exceed $25.

I would prefer that the request be filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Maraya Cornell

Dear FOIA Officer:

I'm writing in regards to this request, originally sent to FOIA@doioig.gov on August 19, 2019. Please let me know whether you received this request and when I may expect an acknowledgment letter.

Thanks and regards,
Maraya

Dear FOIA Appeals Officer,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL

Re: FOIA Request #OIG-2020-00015

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552, I write to appeal the Office of Inspector General’s (“OIG”) November 25, 2019 partial denial of my October 8, 2019 FOIA request, control #OIG-2020-00015. The requested documents are the case file for OIG case number OI-PI-17-0820, an investigation into how senior management at the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) Office of Law Enforcement and Security (“OLES”) lost track of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded gift cards. I appeal both the redaction of identifying information in the released documents and the withholding of most of the responsive documents.

On November 25, 2019, the OIG released 25 pages in response to my request. My request for a fee waver was granted, indicating that your office agrees with my reasoning that these records are likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations of the government—i.e., waste, fraud, and abuse at senior levels of the BLM OLES.

However, your office refused to disclose most of the requested material. Those pages which it did provide are so heavily redacted that it is impossible to make sense of how this waste, fraud, and abuse is happening.

The OIG stated in its determination letter that it was withholding 87 pages of interview transcripts in their entirety under Exemption 7(C) and 7(D). These pages appear to also include a “Memorandum: Review of [redacted] District Expenditures dated July 13, 2011,” as well as three property receipts (Attachments 2-5 in the OIG’s report). The inventory of the safe in which the gift cards were found was omitted without explanation, and while my original request did not specifically ask for it, one might reasonably assume that it would be considered part of the case file.

In addition, in the 25 pages it did release, the OIG deleted names and titles of senior officials, locations of BLM offices, and even, it appears, some agency names.

The OIG defends the vast majority of its redactions (and also, apparently, the withheld pages) by Exemption 7(C), which exempts material that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Courts have ruled that under 7(C), “personal privacy” must have “more than a de minimis privacy interest” that would be compromised by the release of the requested material.

Furthermore, the statute requires an agency to weigh the privacy interest in withholding records against the public interest in their release.

For example, in Casa de Maryland, Inc., 2011 WL 288684 at *3-4, the court found the public interest sufficient to override a privacy interest under Exemption 7(C). An internal investigation report from the Department of Homeland Security contained the identities of agents and third parties interviewed or mentioned in connection with an immigration raid that allegedly involved racial profiling. The court found that the public interest in knowing whether such improprieties had occurred outweighed any privacy interest.

The privacy interest of most of the BLM officials in these records—and certainly the names of offices and entire agencies—is diminished by the fact that the individuals concerned are not only government officials (See Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash., 2012 WL 45499), but high-level employees (See Forest Serv. Emps. for Envt’l Ethics, 524 F.3d). Moreover, these records reveal “official misconduct” (See Lissner v. U.S. Customs Serv., 241 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001)), the very sort of public interest which courts have shown to override privacy interests.

It’s worth mentioning that the missing gift cards which are the subject of the OIG’s investigation were illegally acquired in the first place, and that several lower-level BLM employees were criminally charged for their involvement in that misconduct. Here we see the very same gift cards disappearing, only now it’s under the watch of senior officials who were, at the very least, grossly negligent in their responsibility to safeguard public property. Yet the OIG refuses to name them. This is a particularly baffling case of obstruction given that the individuals in the report are law enforcement officials. When those who are entrusted by the public to enforce the law break the law, do we not name them? Non-disclosure could be construed by both the general public and BLM employees to mean that the OIG is displaying favoritism toward senior DOI law enforcement officials. An observer cannot help but wonder what other misconduct by high-level officials the OIG may be protecting.

It appears that the OIG has acted arbitrarily and capriciously by denying the full disclosure of this investigative case file. I ask that you reverse the decision to withhold and/or redact the requested documents, and provide me the entire unreacted case file, including the inventory of the safe located in the BLM’s OLES. I further request that if any portions of the requested documents are withheld, the OIG describe the deleted material in detail and specify the statutory basis for the denial as well as their reasons for believing that the alleged statutory justification applies in each instance.

I look forward to your response within 20 days as required by the statute. Previous correspondence attached.

Sincerely,

Maraya Cornell
310-591-6258
maraya.cornell@gmail.com