Comments on: The Office of Science and Tech Policy, and More from CRS http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/11/ost.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:23:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Steven Aftergood http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/11/ost.html/comment-page-1#comment-2245 Steven Aftergood Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:28:25 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2083#comment-2245 CRS management says that it cannot (and does not want to) change the current non-disclosure policy unless and until Congress directs it to do so. Congress has shown little interest in the possibility so far. CRS defended its position in this April 2007 <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/crs041807.pdf" rel="nofollow">memorandum</a> (pdf). The issue is not so much who requested a particular report, but whether any reports at all will be publicly disseminated. Specific research projects that are undertaken by CRS for a particular member of Congress are rarely disclosed anyway, unless the member chooses to do so. As you suggest, the CRS (non-)disclosure policy is one more item that is ripe for reconsideration as we move towards a new administration and a new Congress. CRS management says that it cannot (and does not want to) change the current non-disclosure policy unless and until Congress directs it to do so. Congress has shown little interest in the possibility so far. CRS defended its position in this April 2007 memorandum (pdf). The issue is not so much who requested a particular report, but whether any reports at all will be publicly disseminated. Specific research projects that are undertaken by CRS for a particular member of Congress are rarely disclosed anyway, unless the member chooses to do so. As you suggest, the CRS (non-)disclosure policy is one more item that is ripe for reconsideration as we move towards a new administration and a new Congress.

]]> By: KF Groves http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/11/ost.html/comment-page-1#comment-2244 KF Groves Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:22:10 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2083#comment-2244 I have it in my brain that CRS was going change its policy against direct release to the public, and that I received that impression in a post on Secret Steve news - am I wrong, or did something change? I assume there is a policy in place at CRS against identifying the rationale behind what subjects are written about, again presumably including the identity of persons instigating interest in particular subjects. Right or wrong on that, is there a statement of such policy available? The reason I raise these questions now in particular is the coincidence of timing with these particular subjects and the ongoing executive transition process [I realize you're much too ...polite?...to note that such a possibility occurred to you. I have it in my brain that CRS was going change its policy against direct release to the public, and that I received that impression in a post on Secret Steve news – am I wrong, or did something change?

I assume there is a policy in place at CRS against identifying the rationale behind what subjects are written about, again presumably including the identity of persons instigating interest in particular subjects. Right or wrong on that, is there a statement of such policy available?

The reason I raise these questions now in particular is the coincidence of timing with these particular subjects and the ongoing executive transition process [I realize you’re much too …polite?…to note that such a possibility occurred to you.

]]>