Text 13390, 172 rader
Skriven 2005-06-05 06:40:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: ACLU
============
More hypocrisy from the liberal left:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/05aclu.html?ei=5065&en=6ae08e
08ba53587f&ex=1118548800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

June 5, 2005
Concerns Arise at A.C.L.U. Over Document Shredding
By STEPHANIE STROM 
The American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding some documents 
over the repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with 
its longstanding policies on the preservation and disposal of records.

The matter has fueled a dispute at the organization over internal 
operations, one of several such debates over the last couple of years, 
and has reignited questions over whether the A.C.L.U.'s own practices 
are consistent with its public positions.

The organization has generally advocated for strong policies on record 
retention and benefited from them, most recently obtaining and 
publicizing documents from the government about prisoners at Guantánamo 
Bay, Cuba.

The debate over the use of shredders is reminiscent of one late last 
year over the organization's efforts to collect a wide variety of data 
on its donors, even as it criticizes corporations and government 
agencies for accumulating personal data as a violation of privacy 
rights.

Janet Linde, who oversaw the A.C.L.U.'s archives for over a decade until 
she resigned last month, raised concerns in e-mail messages and 
memorandums for over two years that officials' use of shredders in their 
offices made a mockery of the organization's policy to supervise 
document destruction and created potential legal risks.

"It has been shown in many legal cases over the years, including the 
Enron case, that if a company has an established and documented 
shredding program they will not be liable if documents at issue in a 
lawsuit are found to have been destroyed," Ms. Linde wrote in a 2003 
memo. "If, however, the means for unauthorized shredding is present in 
the office we cannot say that we have made a good faith effort to 
monitor and document our records disposal process."

Ms. Linde said she was disturbed that her correspondence had become 
public and declined to comment further. A spokeswoman for the 
organization, Emily Whitfield, declined to answer specific questions but 
made the following statement: "The A.C.L.U.'s records management 
policies have always been of the highest standards in keeping with, if 
not more stringent than, those of other nonprofits."

The organization refused to address which documents were being shredded, 
among other questions.

Shredding has become more closely controlled after scandals arising from 
questionable record-keeping have rocked the corporate world. 

Congress has amended the criminal code to permit fines and jail 
sentences for those who alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal documents 
with the intent of preventing their use in official proceedings. Many 
lawyers for companies and nonprofit entities have advised their clients 
to enact strict policies on records management.

The A.C.L.U. allows for document shredding but has policies for 
recording what is destroyed that predate recent changes in the law, and 
it has historically placed great emphasis on preserving records. Its 
policy lists specific types of documents - including duplicate records 
and outside publications - that can be destroyed without creating a 
record. For other materials, employees are instructed to contact the 
archives.

In a speech to the Society of American Archivists last year, Nadine 
Strossen, the president of the A.C.L.U., said that at its inception in 
1920, the civil liberties group arranged for the New York Public Library 
to archive its records and those of its predecessor organization. 

"I'm especially impressed by how prescient the A.C.L.U.'s founders were 
in understanding the importance of preserving our organizational 
records," Ms. Strossen said.

In 2003, the Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York gave Ms. 
Linde an award for her role in helping draft and enact a public records 
law after Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, moved 
records from his administration to a private institution.

Under the A.C.L.U.'s policy, employees deposit documents, disks and 
other files slated for destruction in locked bins in their departments. 
They are required to complete and sign a form next to the box, 
describing what they have deposited. 

A contractor collects the bins each month and shreds the contents under 
the watch of an A.C.L.U. records manager, who then countersigns the 
sheets to confirm the destruction.

So when Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the organization, 
casually mentioned to a group of employees in 2002, about a year after 
his arrival, that he had a shredder in his office, they were shocked, 
said two former employees who did not want their names used because they 
feared it would interfere with future employment. Mr. Romero was told it 
was a violation of policy, the former employees said, but no one pushed 
the issue. 

That encounter came several months after the New York attorney general's 
office had begun an inquiry into security breaches on the A.C.L.U.'s Web 
site that had resulted in leaks of information about donors and members. 
The organization is sensitive to such leaks, given past government 
scrutiny of its membership.

"As an advocacy organization dedicated to protecting privacy," Ms. 
Whitfield said on Friday, "we take very seriously the confidentiality of 
our donor records and have policies in place to ensure proper document 
management procedures." 

To end the attorney general's inquiry in December 2002, Mr. Romero 
signed an agreement that obliged the organization to strengthen its 
online and computer security and pay a $10,000 fine, a cost covered by 
the company that manages their Web site, where the problems originated.

The organization hired Richard M. Smith, an Internet and computer 
security expert, to examine its practices and offer suggestions for 
improvement. Among other things, he recommended that shredders be 
installed in every department to make document disposal more convenient.

In a July 2002 e-mail message to Barry Steinhardt, an A.C.L.U. lawyer 
who specializes in matters of privacy, Ms. Linde objected to that 
recommendation, saying that Mr. Smith seemed unaware of the 
organization's document retention policy. She noted that she had asked 
to sit in on his audit but had been excluded.

Employees began noticing shredders next to copiers throughout the 
organization in early 2003, according to e-mails. 

Ms. Linde wrote a memorandum voicing her concerns, so the A.C.L.U. 
sought advice from the law firm that handles its real estate matters in 
Washington, D.C. The firm forwarded a report that echoed many of Ms. 
Linde's points, and several shredders were removed, according to 
memorandums.

Mr. Romero kept his shredder, as did Alma Montclair, the director of 
administration and finance, according to those memorandums. Later, 
records managers noted that the accounting and human resources 
departments had shredders, and, more recently, that Donna McKay, the 
A.C.L.U.'s director of development, had one, too.

To track what was being destroyed on those machines, the records 
managers attempted to impose a system similar to the one used for the 
locked bins, putting document destruction sheets next to all the 
shredders except Mr. Romero's about a year ago. Employees in the 
departments with the shredders signed the sheets, according to a 
memorandums, but rarely noted what they were shredding.

In January 2004, an employee found bags of shredded documents outside a 
freight elevator and alerted the archival staff. "We really need to get 
this shredding documented if there is that much of it going on," Ms. 
Linde then wrote to David Baird, who worked with Ms. Montclair. 

Mr. Baird responded that he knew nothing about the bags and defended the 
shredding of documents with Social Security numbers, salary information 
and other information in Ms. Montclair's administration and finance 
department.

"It is not clear to either Alma or I the specific reasons why shredding 
these clearly confidential documents needs to be reported to you," Mr. 
Baird wrote in an e-mail message. 

Ms. Linde wrote back, "This is the kind of thing that gets companies and 
organizations into lawsuits."

She was eventually told that the shredded documents in the bags were 
résumés from the human resources department, a memorandum said.


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)