Is State Dept. Trying to Stop Employees From Talking to Congress, Media, and Public?

Jeffdunetz | August 20, 2015
DONATE
Font Size

It sounds a bit like "newspeak," the language of the oppressor society in George Orwell's 1984 (war is peace, ignorance is truth, freedom is slavery, etc.). The State Department issued a revised set of rules that many observers believe are designed to cut down conversations between department employees and the press, public, or even Congress. Yet, the State Dept. claims the rules are actually meant to encourage "employees to engage with the public."

The revised "3 FAM 4170" rules were issued to employees at the end of July and first exposed to the public by blogger Diplopundit, who regularly covers the State Dept., three weeks later.  Many of its provisions elicit a chill down the spine of any department employee, even those who are testifying before Congress. Paragraph "f" of the "Applicability" section reads:

Employee testimony, whether in an official capacity or in a personal capacity on a matter of Departmental concern may be subject to the review requirements of this subchapter. Employees should consult with the Department of State’s Office of the Legal Adviser or [U.S. Agency of International Development’s] Office of the General Counsel, as appropriate, to determine applicable procedures.”

As the Diplopundit points out, the way this reads is that the State Dept. has final say over any testimony that a current or former employee gives to Congress. This is especially troublesome when one reads paragraph "A" on page 17 of the new rules, which indicates that the review will be more concerned about how any communication will affect the department than with the "public’s interest in receiving the communication.”

 “A principal goal of the review process for personal capacity public communications is to ensure that no classified or other protected information will be disclosed without authorization. In addition, the Final Review Office will evaluate whether the employee’s public communication is highly likely to result in serious adverse consequences to the efficiency or mission of the Department, such that preventing those consequences outweighs the employee’s presumptively high interest in communicating and the public’s interest in receiving the communication.”

The revised rules end with a blatant warning that, if the employee fails to get pre-approval for any statement (to Congress, the public, or the media) it "may result in disciplinary or other administrative action up to and including separation." And a reminder that, "Publication or dissemination of classified or other protected information may result in disciplinary action, criminal prosecution and/or civil liability."

Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson asked the State Dept. about the rules - and received a 1984-style "newspeak" response:

State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner says the reason for the revisions is actually “to underscore that the Department encourages employees to engage with the public on matters related to the nation’s foreign relations.”

“The revised policies and procedures are more protective of employee speech as they establish a higher bar for limiting employees’ writing or speaking in their personal capacity, while also recognizing changing technologies in communication, such as social media,”

Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the House oversight committee, disagreed with State's characterization of the new rule:

“It’s an absolute overreach,” says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. His committee has jurisdiction over numerous issues that may call for testimony from current and former State Department employees.

“They should be able to talk to the media, they should be able to speak to Congress,” the Utah Republican said. “They have an absolute and total right to interact with Congress. There are whistleblower protections. That’s not a balanced approach to current and former employees’ rights.”

The new rule is already working.  Ms Attkisson spoke to a former State Department official who wished to remain anonymous, who said, "At the very least, it will have a chilling effect."

donate