December 18, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

FOIA Officer
Office of Management and Budget
1800 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20503
OMBFOIA@omb.eop.gov
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Freedom of Information Act Officer:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the implementing
regulations of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 5 C.F.R. § 1303, American
Oversight makes the following request for records.
With scores of new individuals having joined and left the government in key, senior positions since
the new Administration took office in January 20, 2017, it is essential to understand who they are
and the backgrounds they bring to their work. Without such transparency, the public cannot have
confidence that government decisions are shaped by the interests of the American people, not
personal or professional allegiances.
Requested Records

American Oversight requests that OMB produce the following within twenty business days of this
request for responsive records:
1. Records sufficient to identify all employees who entered into a position at the agency as
“political appointees” since January 20, 2017 and the title or position of each employee (to
the extent that such individuals have held multiple titles or positions since January 20, 2017
identify each title or position). For purposes of this request, please consider any employee
in a PAS position, a presidentially-appointed position, a non-career SES position, a
Schedule C position, or any administratively-determined position to be a “political
appointee.”
2. Records sufficient to identify all career employees who have been detailed into a leadership
office or component front office since January 20, 2017; the title or position of each
employee while on detail; and each employee’s originating agency or component,
and prior title (to the extent that such individuals have held multiple titles or positions
since January 20, 2017, identify each title or position).

1030 15th Street NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005   AmericanOversight.org

 3. Names and resumes of anyone from the transition teams or beachhead teams who have
joined the agency in full-time capacity, either as career, political, or administratively
determined positions since January 20, 2017. For the purposes of this request, please
include any employee who previously had a temporary or provisional appointment at
OMB before January 20, 2017, and took on a permanent appoint after that date.
4. For each individual identified in response to requests 1 to 3:
a. The resume provided by the individual to the agency in connection with determining
the appropriate salary for the individual, or, if that is not available, a recent resume
contained within the agency’s records. We have no objection to the redaction of
contact information (addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses) for the employee
or references, or to the redaction of past salary information. Employment, education,
and professional association information is not exempt and we object to any redactions
of such information.
b. Any conflicts or ethics waivers or authorizations for the individual, including
authorizations pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502.
c. Records reflecting any recusal determination made or issued for the individual.
d. Copies of any SF-50 forms for the individual reflecting any change in position or title,
including when the employee enters or leaves a position. We have no objection to the
redaction of home addresses, telephone numbers, or social security numbers from the
SF-50s.
Please provide all responsive records from the date of January 20, 2017 to the date the search for
requested records is conducted.
In addition to the records requested above, American Oversight also requests records describing
the processing of this request, including records sufficient to identify search terms used and
locations and custodians searched and any tracking sheets used to track the processing of this
request. If OMB uses FOIA questionnaires or certifications completed by individual custodians or
components to determine whether they possess responsive materials or to describe how they
conducted searches, we also request any such records prepared in connection with the processing
of this request.
American Oversight seeks all responsive records regardless of format, medium, or physical
characteristics. In conducting your search, please understand the terms “record,” “document,” and
“information” in their broadest sense, to include any written, typed, recorded, graphic, printed, or
audio material of any kind. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, audiotapes,
videotapes, and photographs, as well as letters, emails, facsimiles, telephone messages, voice mail
messages and transcripts, notes, or minutes of any meetings, telephone conversations or
discussions. Our request includes any attachments to these records. No category of material should
be omitted from search, collection, and production.

2

OMB-17-0580

 Please search all records regarding agency business. You may not exclude searches of files or
emails in the personal custody of your officials, such as personal email accounts. Records of official
business conducted using unofficial systems or stored outside of official files is subject to the
Federal Records Act and FOIA. It is not adequate to rely on policies and procedures that require
officials to move such information to official systems within a certain period of time; American
Oversight has a right to records contained in those files even if material has not yet been moved to
official systems or if officials have, through negligence or willfulness, failed to meet their
obligations.
1

2

In addition, please note that in conducting a “reasonable search” as required by law, you must
employ the most up-to-date technologies and tools available, in addition to searches by individual
custodians likely to have responsive information. Recent technology may have rendered OMB’s
prior FOIA practices unreasonable. In light of the government-wide requirements to manage
information electronically by the end of 2016, it is no longer reasonable to rely exclusively on
custodian-driven searches. Furthermore, agencies that have adopted the National Archives and
Records Agency (NARA) Capstone program, or similar policies, now maintain emails in a form
that is reasonably likely to be more complete than individual custodians’ files. For example, a
custodian may have deleted a responsive email from his or her email program, but OMB’s
archiving tools would capture that email under Capstone. Accordingly, American Oversight insists
that OMB use the most up-to-date technologies to search for responsive information and take
steps to ensure that the most complete repositories of information are searched. American
Oversight is available to work with you to craft appropriate search terms. However, custodian
searches are still required; agencies may not have direct access to files stored in .PST files, outside
of network drives, in paper format, or in personal email accounts.
3

Under the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, agencies must adopt a presumption of disclosure,
withholding information “only if . . . disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption”

See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, 827 F.3d 145, 149–50 (D.C. Cir.
2016); cf. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955–56 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
See Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Office of Sci. & Tech. Policy, No. 14-cv-765, slip op. at 8 (D.D.C.
Dec. 12, 2016) (“The Government argues that because the agency had a policy requiring [the
official] to forward all of his emails from his [personal] account to his business email, the
[personal] account only contains duplicate agency records at best. Therefore, the Government
claims that any hypothetical deletion of the [personal account] emails would still leave a copy of
those records intact in [the official’s] work email. However, policies are rarely followed to
perfection by anyone. At this stage of the case, the Court cannot assume that each and every workrelated email in the [personal] account was duplicated in [the official’s] work email account.”
(citations omitted)).
Presidential Memorandum—Managing Government Records, 76 Fed. Reg. 75,423 (Nov. 28,
2011), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/28/presidentialmemorandum-managing-government-records; Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the
President, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments & Independent Agencies,
“Managing Government Records Directive,” M-12-18 (Aug. 24, 2012),
https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/m-12-18.pdf.
1

2

3

3

OMB-17-0580

 4

or “disclosure is prohibited by law.” If it is your position that any portion of the requested records
is exempt from disclosure, American Oversight requests that you provide an index of those
documents as required under Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415
U.S. 977 (1974). As you are aware, a Vaughn index must describe each document claimed as
exempt with sufficient specificity “to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is
actually exempt under FOIA.” Moreover, the Vaughn index “must describe each document or
portion thereof withheld, and for each withholding it must discuss the consequences of disclosing
the sought-after information.” Further, “the withholding agency must supply ‘a relatively detailed
justification, specifically identifying the reasons why a particular exemption is relevant and
correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply.’”
5

6

7

In the event some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure, please
disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records. If it is your
position that a document contains non-exempt segments, but that those non-exempt segments are
so dispersed throughout the document as to make segregation impossible, please state what
portion of the document is non-exempt, and how the material is dispersed throughout the
document. Claims of nonsegregability must be made with the same degree of detail as required for
claims of exemptions in a Vaughn index. If a request is denied in whole, please state specifically
that it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release.
8

You should institute a preservation hold on information responsive to this request. American
Oversight intends to pursue all legal avenues to enforce its right of access under FOIA, including
litigation if necessary. Accordingly, OMB is on notice that litigation is reasonably foreseeable.

To ensure that this request is properly construed, that searches are conducted in an adequate but
efficient manner, and that extraneous costs are not incurred, American Oversight welcomes an
opportunity to discuss its request with you before you undertake your search or incur search or
duplication costs. By working together at the outset, American Oversight and OMB can decrease
the likelihood of costly and time-consuming litigation in the future.
Where possible, please provide responsive material in electronic format by email or in PDF or
TIF format on a USB drive. Please send any responsive material being sent by mail to American
Oversight, 1030 15 Street NW, Suite B255, Washington, DC 20005. If it will accelerate release of
responsive records to American Oversight, please also provide responsive material on a rolling
basis.
th

4

FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 § 2 (Pub. L. No. 114–185).
Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 223–24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original).
Id. at 224 (citing Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C.
Cir. 1977)).
Mead Data Central, 566 F.2d at 261.
5
6
7

8

4

OMB-17-0580

 Fee Waiver Request

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 5 C.F.R. § 1303.70, American Oversight
requests a waiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. The subject of this
request concerns the operations of the federal government, and the disclosures will likely
contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by the general public in a
significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial
purposes.
American Oversight requests a waiver of fees as disclosure of the requested information is in the
public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations
or activities of the government. Since January 20, 2017, the Trump Administration has been
appointing or assigning individuals to play significant roles in shaping the agenda of every federal
agency. Moreover, since January 20, 2017, additional appointed, career, and transition team
members may have taken on full time positions in the OMB. Identifying who these people are,
and the background and perspectives that they bring to their jobs as federal employees, is essential
to informing the public regarding the operations and decisionmaking of the federal government. In
particular, only with clarity regarding the identity and background of these appointees can the
public make informed assessments regarding whether decisions might have been influenced by
conflicts of interest among the decisionmakers and whether those employees have personal or
private interests affected by their policy actions. Disclosure of the requested information will
contribute to the public’s understanding of these aspects of the operation of the federal
government.
9

10

This request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. As a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, American Oversight does not have a commercial purpose and the release of the
information requested is not in American Oversight’s financial interest. American Oversight’s
mission is to promote transparency in government, to educate the public about government
activities, and to ensure the accountability of government officials. American Oversight uses the
information gathered, and its analysis of it, to educate the public through reports, press releases, or
other media. American Oversight also makes materials it gathers available on its public website and
promotes their availability on social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter. American
Oversight has demonstrated its commitment to the public disclosure of documents and creation of
editorial content. For example, after receiving records regarding an ethics waiver received by a
senior DOJ attorney, American Oversight promptly posted the records to its website and
11

12

9

5 C.F.R. § 1303.70.
5 C.F.R. § 1303.70.
American Oversight currently has approximately 11,700 page likes on Facebook, and 37,400
followers on Twitter. American Oversight, FACEBOOK, https://www.facebook.com/weareoversight/
(last visited Dec. 13, 2017); American Oversight (@weareoversight), TWITTER,
https://twitter.com/weareoversight (last visited Dec. 13, 2017).
DOJ Civil Division Response Noel Francisco Compliance, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT,
https://www.americanoversight.org/document/doj-civil-division-response-noel-franciscocompliance.
10
11

12

5

OMB-17-0580

 13

published an analysis of what the records reflected about DOJ’s process for ethics waivers. As
another example, American Oversight has a project called “Audit the Wall,” where the
organization is gathering and analyzing information and commenting on public releases of
information related to the administration’s proposed construction of a barrier along the U.S.Mexico border.
14

Accordingly, American Oversight qualifies for a fee waiver.
Conclusion

We share a common mission to promote transparency in government. American Oversight looks
forward to working with OMB on this request. If you do not understand any part of this request,
have any questions, or foresee any problems in fully releasing the requested records, please contact
Pooja Chaudhuri at foia@americanoversight.org or 202.869.5246. Also, if American Oversight’s
request for a fee waiver is not granted in full, please contact us immediately upon making such a
determination.
Sincerely,

Austin Evers
Executive Director
American Oversight

Francisco & the Travel Ban: What We Learned from the DOJ Documents, AMERICAN
OVERSIGHT, https://www.americanoversight.org/francisco-the-travel-ban-what-we-learned-from-thedoj-documents.
Audit the Wall, AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, www.auditthewall.org.
13

14

6

OMB-17-0580