Forest Service and E-mail Censorship

[James Love <love@tap.org>]

  the following is a forwarded message from tap-resources, another one of 
our lists.  Ned Daly reports on a proposal at the forest service to 
censor forest service employee email critical of the agency.
jamie




Distributed to TAP-RESOURCES, a free Internet Distribution List
(subscription requests to listproc@tap.org) 

TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY ADVISORY
(please distribute freely)

TAP-RESOURCES
February 1, 1995


     The Following is an excerpt from "Chainsaw Justice: The U.S.
Forest Service out of Control" which will be published soon by
Voices of the Environment (VOTE). If you would like the report or
more information, contact VOTE in Hamilton, Montana at (406)363-
4225. 

     The Forest Service presently has a proposal under review
that would prohibit Forest Service employees from criticizing
agency leadership and policies on the agency's electronic mail
system. The excerpt reprinted below looks at the Forest Service's
attempts to limit freedom of speech. The Forest Service's
proposed policy sheds light on the agency's attempt to quell any
internal criticism as well as the administration's (lack of)
commitment to privacy.  

     The author of the "Chainsaw Justice", Steve Taylor, also
wrote "Sleeping with the Industry" a report published by the
Center for Public Integrity and excerpts from that report were
published on TAP-RESOURCES earlier.

                              Ned Daly

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SECTION #7-ROADBLOCKS ON THE INFO HIGHWAY: CHILLING E-MAIL SPEECH
by Steve Taylor

When Jack Ward Thomas became Chief of the Forest Service on Dec.
1, 1993, many believed he would usher in a new era of openness
among agency employees and members of the press, that he would be
the arbiter of "glasnost."

In some respects, Thomas has met those expectations. He did grant
an interview for this report and has generally been accessible to
the media.

However, through the office of Thomas's underling, recently
retired Deputy of Administration, Lamar Beasley, the agency has
drafted a policy for the USFS [Forest Service]electronic mail
system, Data General (DG), that if implemented would chill free
speech among the Forest Service ranks, according to several
agency employees.

Most insidious and possibly illegal, they say, are two provisions
of the draft that prohibit criticism of agency leadership and
policy.

Agency brass assert that a clear policy for e-mail is needed to
ensure that "government electronic communications facilities" and
"official time" are not "misused," and to protect against the
"unauthorized disclosure" of government information, according to
a document signed by Lamar Beasley and obtained by VOTE.

Chief Thomas echoed these concerns about government employees
wasting the public's time and resources. He added that a major
reason for the policy was to prevent too many messages from
jamming the DG. (For a more thorough explanation of the Chief's
opinion on this policy, see the interview excerpts below.)

Considering that in the 1990's much of the inter-agency dialogue
occurs on the DG, the proposed policy would greatly hamper
constructive dialogue, said sources inside and outside the
agency. USFS personnel use the DG to discuss ecosystem
management, environmental laws, timber sales, fire control, and
other issues relevant to the management of the national forests.
And yes, sometimes these discussions criticize agency positions
and its leaders. But from such dialogue, innovative ideas often
emerge. 

"The DG is almost the exclusive form of internal communication,"
Andy Stahl, executive director of the Association of Forest
Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (AFSEEE), told VOTE.
"The message this [policy proposal] sends is: 'We don't want to
hear the bad news. We certainly don't want to hear your opinions
of where we might be going wrong.'"

The policy draft was released during the summer of 1994 with
little fanfare. "It's been amazingly low-profile," said a
Washington Office employee, who asked to remain anonymous for
fear of reprisal. "This is a blast from the past," the source
said. "If this policy is adopted it would be very telling."

Others within the agency are more caustic. "It is a very
repressive policy," a USFS source in a western state said. "in a
way, it is reprisal in a systematic sense." 

     A Dictator's Policy?
A USFS employee in the Southeast United States had this to say:
"This attempt to muzzle free speech reminds me of a dictatorship
in trouble. It seems like a desperate move and a tacit admission
that they, that is, Beasley and Thomas, have lost control. What's
next? Are they going to confiscate are pencils and notepads so we
can't write bad things about them. This is really sick."

In a written response to the proposed policy that was submitted
to the agency, USFS computer operator Debbie Tachibana and
wildlife biologist Donald Yasuda tread more lightly in their
criticism. They first expressed concern that the Washington
Office staff worked on writing the policy without consulting
those in the field or the agency's union. "Such top-down
solutions usually ensure a lack of commitment to the product by
the bulk of FS employees," they wrote. "In reading this report,
we can only assume that field level personnel are part of the
problem you are trying to solve."

Tachibana and Yasuda also note that the e-mail system levels the
playing field for employees of all ranks. "It reaches employees
at all levels of the organization and provides all of them the
opportunity to give input to the dialogue regardless of
background, culture, or position in the organization."

And, they condemn the reach of government as a thought-control
mechanism. The policy seeks "not only to restrict information
sharing but also to restrict employees' abilities to exercise
independent critical thinking."

Others in the agency worry that the policy will further rip an
already tattered agency morale. Dave Iverson, an outspoken USFS
economist, wrote in his comments on the policy, "[It] upholds a
long-standing government tradition of establishing policy that
attempts to ensure 'employees don't do the wrong thing' rather
than encouraging 'employees to do the right thing.' This implicit
lack of confidence in the ethical foundation of government
employees breeds dissention and reciprocal mistrust between
employees and the agencies where they work."

Another employee commented on the DG, "... the knee jerk reaction
of an organization long accustomed to controlling information
flow via organization hierarchy is to attempt to do the same
thing in the automated information environment (i.e. computer
networks)."

Responding to one employee's criticism of the policy, Lamar
Beasley stated that the policy is intended as a preventive
measure, to keep employees from breaking the law, presumably
privacy laws. "I only ask you," he wrote to a respondent over the
DG, "to keep in mind that we cannot violate the law. We've had
people to do that [sic] and we've also had people that were
almost fired. We have an obligation to set policy in place that
prevents our people from getting in trouble." 

What Beasley may have overlooked is that the policy itself may be
illegal, particularly if it prohibits protected speech about
government behavior concerning environmental laws. Both the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require free discussion and
dissemination of new science as it evolves, and that the
government amend policies when appropriate.

"NEPA demands that policy be reexamined when there is new
scientific evidence," AFSEEE's Stahl said. "NFMA demands that
forest plans be revised when there's new information that might
trigger that. You'd be violating the law if you didn't bring
those concerns forward." Stahl added that because the DG is
virtually the exclusive form of communications it would impede
constructive information exchange and that "would short change
the public." 

When VOTE asked Beasley about the policy and USFS employees'
concerns that it restricts free speech, he was evasive saying
only that the policy had not yet been finalized. "We're along
ways from issuing a [final] policy," he said.

     Is the Chief out of the loop?
In a personal interview with Chief Thomas on Sept. 16, 1994, more
than three months after the policy draft was released, he said he
had not seen it. However, he did dismiss any notion that it was
written to restrict any criticism. Because the interview exchange
on this topic illuminates both the policy itself and his
leadership, Thomas's comments are included verbatim:

Thomas: "First there has been no decision made. It doesn't have
anything to do with criticizing leadership. It has to do with
jamming our electronic mail system. And then you begin to wonder,
should taxpayers pay people to sit there and use the government's
electronic mail system to do all this, or should they be doing it
on the job. It doesn't matter that they can't criticize."

VOTE: "I have seen the draft policy and it does say that Forest
Service employees should not use the e-mail to criticize
leadership and policy. Some would say that discussion of
leadership and policy is what the taxpayers need and even
deserve, and that, in the electronic age, this is the one way to
do it."

Thomas: "First, I haven't seen the policy. I know that there is
one being prepared for my consideration...   They can write
anything they want. They have their own home computer. That is
the question and I'm not sure I know what the answer is. I don't
know if I'll approve the policy or not. I do know that the
general complaints of the administration is that their employees
are using a considerable amount of government equipment and
government time on e-mail games. I'm not concerned about
criticism one way or the other. I'm concerned about jamming and
people using time to gossip."

Interestingly, when management issued the second policy draft,
the suspect provision on prohibiting criticism of leadership and
policy was no where to be found -- until the very last page.
Management had moved it from up front to the bottom. But it was
still there.

--------------------------------------------------------------
TAP-RESOURCES is an Internet Distribution List provided by the
Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP).  TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to
monitor the management of government property, including
information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum,
allocation, public lands and mineral resources, and other
government assets.  TAP-RESOURCES reports on TAP activities
relating to natural resources policy.  To obtain further
information about TAP send a note to tap@tap.org.

Subscription requests to: listproc@tap.org with the
message:  subscribe tap-resources yourfirstname yourlastname
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC  20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: tap@tap.org