FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 12, 2005
Contact: Emily Ryan
(202) 639-6421

LINK

AFGE had protested draconian form, says agreement still requires changes

DHS SECRECY POLICY REVERSAL A STEP FORWARD, SAYS UNION
(Washington, D.C.)--"The Department of Homeland Security finally is moving in the right direction," American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) President John Gage said of DHS' decision to modify its mandatory non-disclosure agreement for employees. "However, there still is language that concerns us, specifically regarding the 'For Official Use Only' [FOUO] information category."

"DHS' decision to keep the FOUO category is an invitation for injustice," he said. "The potential for misuse here is astronomical. The policy still is not clear regarding who can designate FOUO and how employees who are found in violation of the agreement will be disciplined. Additionally, we still are concerned with the overly broad, subjective designation of sensitive but unclassified information."

Under the original policy, all new employees were required to sign non-disclosure agreements for handling unclassified information. The form also allowed the department to investigate employees at any given time. "This unprecedented access to employees' homes and personal belongings is illegal and horribly unjustified," Gage said.

"The original directive was nothing more than a fear tactic being used by DHS to censure its employees," Gage continued. "We are pleased that DHS has recognized its error and is taking the steps to correct it. We only hope that the agency continues on that positive path."

AFGE and NTEU had called upon DHS Secretary Tom Ridge to withdraw the original directive, citing it as imposing "unprecedented restrictions and conditions on the free speech rights" of DHS workers.

"We were very glad to see that DHS took our concerns into consideration," Gage added. "AFGE and NTEU certainly appreciate the need to, and importance of, safeguarding classified information; however, that simply was not the case here. Employees would have become fearful of every piece of information they received, which doubt would no have impacted their ability to act in the public interest."

For Imediate Release: Wednesday, January 12 2005

Contact: (202) 572-5500
Sheila McCormick, 7034
Mike Drapkin, 7011

LINK

DHS, Responding to Union Concerns, Revises Proposed Secrecy and Security Documents

Washington, D.C.-In response to concerns raised by the two unions representing tens of thousands of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees, DHS has made some positive changes in its proposed nondisclosure policy, but there continues to be the potential for the misuse of an "for official use only" designation for sensitive but unclassified and other materials, the leaders of the unions said today.

Presidents Colleen M. Kelley of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and John Gage of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) applauded the DHS decision that employees would not have to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

The union leaders had earlier warned that the nondisclosure agreement would impose "unprecedented restrictions and conditions" on employee free speech rights. In addition it apparently would have allowed the government unprecedented leeway to search employee homes and personal belongings. DHS contractors and consultants would still be required to execute the agreement.

At the same time, Kelley and Gage expressed their concerns that a companion document proposed by DHS-Management Directive 11042.1 ("Safeguarding Sensitive But Unclassified [For Official Use Only] Information"-still allows for a very broad definition of materials as "for official use only," and may continue to present First Amendment issues. That document would continue to apply to employees, as well as to contractors and consultants.

They warned that even though DHS said it plans training on the safeguarding of sensitive information designated as "for official use only," the directive still covers a broad and vaguely defined universe of information. It opens up the possibility of using the designation to cover up misconduct, among other things.

The union leaders initially raised their concerns in a joint letter in late November to DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, calling on him to turn his personal attention to the matter.

Kelley and Gage, in that letter, maintained that the thousands of front-line border security officers represented by NTEU and AFGE fully appreciate the need to safeguard classified and other highly-sensitive information. As they explained, the nondisclosure agreement and accompanying directive likely would undermine national security and the public interest by suppressing whistleblowing and discouraging dissent.

At the same time that the union presidents raised their concerns with Secretary Ridge, the general counsels of both unions sent a lengthy letter to DHS General Counsel Joe Whitley outlining what the union lawyers described as "significant constitutional violations" arising out of the nondisclosure agreement. .

"We are pleased that DHS heeded our concerns regarding the nondisclosure agreement," the union leaders said, "and we look forward to working with the department on adequate and appropriate training that ensures the First Amendment rights of our members are protected."

NTEU and AFGE are the two largest unions representing DHS employees.