Tuesday, January 03, 2017

NCUA: Requests For Comment on FOIA... Part 4.


Hope you will take a look at the comment submitted on "NCUA FOIA... Part 3" of this series [here's the link], it poses some appropriate questions: "What's the problem with NCUA FOIA? What information are you not receiving that you asked for? Define the issue!"

In response, I would ask you to review the post below, which is a recap of Congressional testimony given by the Chair of NCUA last year on the use of FOIA at the Agency. [simply play the video if you have doubts!] 

"What's the problem with NCUA FOIA?" You mean other than the admitted misuse of FOIA by NCUA, the admitted lack of internal review and controls at NCUA over the use of FOIA, the admitted involvement of the NCUA OGC in the misuse of FOIA, the admitted "cluelessness" of the Board Chair (and presumably the entire NCUA Board) on the misuse of FOIA, and the shaming of the entire credit union movement by the admitted mockery and disdain of FOIA by the NCUA? 

"Define the issue?" The issue is not FOIA; the issue is the NCUA.  And its repeated, egregious lack of...


ACCOUNTABILITY - COMPETENCY - TRANSPARENCY    



HERE'S THE PRIOR POST:
[The testimony was before the House Financial Services Committee on July 23, 2015]




Oh! Gee! See...
Would someone please ask NCUA's General Counsel (OGC), preferably under oath, why he felt it necessary to redact the Executive Summary of the 2011 PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) study of the Overhead Transfer Rate? Was it bad law or just bad judgment? Assume the OGC agrees with his boss, the NCUA Chair, that he didn't know what he was doing.


Not trying to be harsh. In some important positions, you are entitled to make repeated mistakes. Can't think of any right off hand, but anyway...  Just following up on what Chair Matz told the House Financial Services Committee, under oath. Here take a look for yourself:

[... it starts at @ minute 2:40]

Or here follow the purple duck...


3:47 Rep. Mulvaney: "Who made the decision to redact the 2011 report before it went up on the website...?


3:54 Ms. Matz: "Our General Counsel's office."


3:56 Rep. Mulvaney: "Did you approve that decision?"


3:58 Ms. Matz: "I wasn't aware of it."


4:00 Rep. Mulvaney:  "Do you believe that information to be a trade secret?"


4:01 Ms. Matz: "I don't."


4:05 Rep. Mulvaney: "By the way, the irony of redacting something which asks you to be more transparent..."


4:08 Ms. Matz: "Yes, I got the irony."



[As to transparency, most folks are pretty sure "NCUA doesn't get it" - irony or otherwise.]


Wouldn't an appropriate first step on "FOIA
COMMENTS" be for the NCUA Board - given this admission under oath before Congress - to publicly disclose [the January Board meeting would be a timely forum!] what steps have been taken within the Agency to assure the public that FOIA will be honestly and legally implemented within the NCUA? [Why should citizens file FOIA requests, if they can't be certain NCUA will follow the law?]


I'm FOIA!
Not agin ya -
promise!



IF IT HELPS, JUST CONSIDER THIS AS A FORMAL FOIA REQUEST TO THE NCUA BOARD - OK?
[Another chance to "ACT"!]



1 comment:

William Brooks said...

Irony? It is incompetent, corrupt and abusive! The real question should be why the NCUA Board did not immediately correct this abuse of power?

Draining the swamp needs to start on Duke Street!