The website Public Domain published a draft version of a strategic plan for the Department of the Interior.
Here’s what the Department of the Interior said about the leakage:
“It is beyond unacceptable that an internal document in the draft/deliberative process is being shared with the media before a decision point has been made,” an Interior Department spokesperson wrote in response to queries from Public Domain. “Not only is this unacceptable behavior, it is irresponsible for a media outlet to publish a draft document. We will take this leak of an internal, pre-decisional document very seriously and find out who is responsible. The internal document is marked draft/deliberative for a reason – it’s not final nor ready for release.”
Nothing sounds too surprising in the Public Domain summary, and it says that when the Department releases a draft we’ll all have an opportunity to comment.
DOI will seek input from the public, tribes and Congress from May to July and plans to finalize its strategy by October, according to the draft.
I thought that this might be a good time to discuss leaking to the media and to others. Personally, I’ve never done this. I have worked on projects whose drafts were regularly leaked to outside groups, but not necessarily the media. It seems to me that it happens more in some Admins than others.. this could be due to the political predilections of employees, and/or that of the media. I wonder whether anyone has ever studied that question?
In what kind of situations would you consider that leaking should be done? Why?
Here in southern Oregon the BLM regularly confabs with AFRC and the timber purchasers in a closed door meeting and informs them of the exact location, timing, volume, harvest prescriptions, and yarding mechanisms of the forthcoming FY timber sales prior to any NEPA planning or public commenting and its just considered “the way things are” as opposed to “leaking.” And now the actual timber sale auctions of timber sales on BLM public lands that occur in a federal building belonging to all Americans are closed to the public, the press, and appellants and are only open to representatives of the timber industry. I wish I was a timber dude instead of Joe Public, then the BLM would serve me coffee and donuts and we could leak like there’s no tomorrow.
Just Ken, that’s a really interesting example. I would think of that as more of a “pre-NOI or draft involvement of certain groups.” This happens all the time. It might be timber industry sometimes, or The Wilderness Society other times. Lots of times we don’t know what groups are in the room when pre-draft decisions are made.
The other thing I think about timber folks though is that I think O&C lands are required to produce timber. So sales have to be bid upon for the BLM to be successful. No one knows the costs and what is needed for the purchaser to bid other than the purchasers. So it seems to me that there is a need for the FS to get that info before they put time into prepping a sale that won’t sell.
Suppose, for example, the FS granted Trout Unlimited funding for stream rehab, as they have done in Alaska. I think we might expect that the FS and TU would have many discussions about where and how best to do it before developing a proposed action for NEPA analysis and public comment. They might invite other experts in, or not.
Leaking is a sign of a much larger problem. One earns loyalty. Good leaders never demand it. We will never stop “leaking” 100 percent, of course not. But, with the seemingly large increases of late in this tactic, one has to ask why? Maybe what is being proposed is idiotic and the leaders have not produced an organization that invites other voices. Demanding loyalty without earning it first has always been and will always be a non-started. And even loyal workers need to have a voice if you want them to remain that way. Pretty much, “Management 101.”
A friend of mine, a former NFL Quarterback, always was able to through a beautiful football. I asked him, “how do you throw such a tight spiral?” He said, “easy, I just don’t hold onto the ball that tight.” Really good leaders know when and how much pressure to apply.
Very respectfully,
Michael, I guess I naively thought that when I signed up, I was trading getting paid for following the rules. And I don’t remember my voice being heard too much… in fact, I got in trouble sometimes for expressing it. But for me, that wasn’t a justification for leaking.
You were and are not naive. Your core values I bet were, “don’t lie, don’t cheat, be respectful and follow the rules.” And, knowing you these years, that’s you. Sharing your voice doesn’t mean you will be followed, heard or indeed, appreciated. But I have found for me, I was able to effectively provide my opinion. That’s all I wanted. And, for 50 years, 99 percent of the time I worked for a grand organization that allowed me to share my voice. From time to time, the path taken was not what I would have liked but there always seemed to be logic behind the decisions. That did not give me a reason to break confidences, of course not. Like I have said before and I am very proud of this: I worked for 5 Administration and 9 Forest Service Chiefs. For example, I may not have agreed with everything that Presidents Carter or Bush directed the USDA to do, but I was always quite proud to say I was part of the Administration. I do not think I could say that now. Not because I disagree with the direction being taken; not at all. In fact, in my view, there are some reasonable directions being proposed. It’s the methods being used that trouble me deeply.
Let me try to explain. When I substitute teach 7th grade math students, I sign my name on the front board: “Mr. Rains: R.K.P.” Since I substitute at the same school, most students know this means “…be respectful, be kind and be as productive as you can, in and outside of the classroom today.” That’s my core values. Do I fail to achieve these from time to time? Of course I do. But I try to move ahead each day.
I have never witnessed an Administration like the one we currently have. It is mean spirited; incredibly punitive. People live in fear to doing something wrong. The slightest action seems gallows-worthy. When people live in fear, they become anxious. Anxiousness breeds tentativeness. That is, DMU (“Don’t Mess Up”). When DMU strikes, people become “dot people.” That is, terrified to take any first step. Then when it becomes too much, your core values of following rules, for example, become compromised. Most cannot live like that. I can only wonder what “non-leakers who feel compelled to leak” square that choice with core values they have held for most of their lives. The compromise must be excruciating.
This Administration has a skewed view of loyalty. I still know several members of Congress in the GOP that hate what is happening. But they are terrified to say anything. The consequences will be severe to our country. We are doing somethings now that I never would have thought a Democratic society would ever put up with.
I had the luxury of working for some great leaders in the Forest Service. I cannot recall anyone in the Forest Service SES cadre ever being afraid of a Chief, for example. Most of the time, members of the National Leadership Council were very loyal to the Chief. But the loyalty was largely based on respect; not fear. Respect is lasting.
I felt good that most people trusted my word. But I must admit that was a different time. I do not know how I would be within this Administration. Would I leak material? Well, I never did before, so I would have to think that I would not (if asked not to). But honestly, living in an environment of constant fear and retributions would be very impactful. I heard this just today: “really good people will leave and then get even.” Think about that. The constant incarceration by fear drives one to lose their core values. I have never felt that type of bondage, so I cannot judge. That’s why I said earlier, if “leaking” is on the rise, there is another reason that needs to be addressed. Will it be addressed with this Administration? Probably not. This means that the current leadership style needs to be adjusted. That requires self-reflection. I simply cannot see that happening now. And that is indeed a shame.
Very respectfully,
As a civil rights advocate I represent federal employees on personnel matters, issues of EEO, MSPB, and OSC. I only take things externally after trying to get the agencies to take internal action first. Thus, I’ve also filed whistleblower complaints to congress regarding prohibited personnel practices against employee rights with internal documents that the agency would not want them to see. I’ve also leaked documents to the media when the agencies refused to take action on serious matters. For example, on one forest a couple of fire crews had Hustler type photos posted all over the inside of the crew rigs. Female crew along with some male crew were offended but afraid to say anything. They contacted me. I contacted the agency. The agency did not take action. I took the photos of the posters and gave them to the media. I got prompt action. Sometimes you have to whistleblow. Sometimes you have to go to congress. Sometimes you have to go to the media. The agencies bring it upon themselves for not being transparent when they should be, or when they refuse to follow policy, regulation, and law.
Lesa, that’s very helpful. I was wondering about some possible criteria, and you have good examples.
I’m thinking that these could be criteria:
1) A problem that the Agency refused to take action
2) Serious matters
3) Didn’t give the public a chance to see or weigh in.
The leaks I’m most familiar with (and the plan in the post() are/ have been draft documents that will go to the public for review. So why leak drafts?
On the other hand, the whistleblower who sent me the agreement about the National Baptist grant knew that if they didn’t tell us, the public wouldn’t know. And I posted it and told some media folks about it, but they weren’t interested.
Of course, serious is in the eye of the beholder.
It turns out that there is extensive literature.. this one looks interesting. THE LEAKY LEVIATHAN: WHY THE GOVERNMENT CONDEMNS AND CONDONESUNLAWFUL DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION
“This Article begins to reveal that world. Drawing on a range of
theoretical perspectives and original sources — interviews with journalists and executive branch officials, plus records requested through
the Freedom of Information Act6 (FOIA) — it offers the first sustained
account of the regulatory regime applicable to leaking. Superficially
straightforward, this regime turns out to be an intricate ecosystem. At
the most general level, the Article demonstrates that the story behindthe U.S. government’s longstanding failure to enforce the laws against
leaking is far more complicated, and far more interesting, than has
been appreciated. More specifically, the Article argues that most components of the executive branch have never prioritized criminal, civil,
or administrative enforcement against leakers; that a nuanced set of
informal social controls has come to supplement, and nearly supplant,
the formal disciplinary scheme; that much of what we call leaking occurs in a gray area between full authorization and no authorization, so
that it is neither “leaks” nor “plants” but what I will term pleaks that
dominate this discursive space; that the executive’s toleration of these
disclosures is a rational, power-enhancing strategy and not simply a
product of prosecutorial limitations, a feature, not a bug, of the system;
and that to untangle these dynamics is to illuminate important facets
of presidential power, bureaucratic governance, and the national security state in America today. “
I once worked on a federal land exchange for the exchange proponent, where the BLM wouldn’t give us any information whatsoever about their internal reviews (it would prejudice the neutrality of the NEPA/FLPMA deliberative process!), but the environmental NGO opponent of the exchange (with whom we had friendly relations despite our differing views on the outcome) would happily share with us the requested internal BLM documents leaked to them in bulk.
That’s been my experience as well with environmental NGOs. I wonder what the rationale would be for the leakage? If it were the other way (say, an O&G company) we’d assume that there was some kind of quid quo pro.. but in this case I suppose it could be ideological alignment? I’d like to interview someone who has done leakage in our (BLM and FS) world and find out more.
Any idea what they teach in journalism school about leaks and leakers? The best articles seem to be the ones that cite sources whose names are withheld because they are not authorized to provide the information.
I was thinking more about leaking as sharing documents not so much talking, but that’s a good point.