On Goldman Sachs - GE Capital Bank, Federal Reserve Ignores Oct 16 FOIA Deadline, Collusion Like CIT?

By Matthew R. Lee

NEW YORK, October 17 -- The lack of seriousness in US bank regulation grows from the relatively smaller to the largest banks, with CIT and OneWest a major, and Goldman Sachs the most recent, example. Goldman is trying to speed through Federal Reserve approval to buy $16 billion in insured deposits from GE Capital, and the Fed so far seems bent on helping. It began by overbroad withholding of basic parts of Goldman's application, click here to view, which Goldman in an October 14 submission to the Fed, here, says has been cured (it has not been).

  Inner City Press still has a pending Freedom of Information Act request; Fair Finance Watch and others, including NCRC, asked the Fed to extend its comment period, which has now been done, until October 30, with the Fed's FOIA response to Inner City Press due on October 16. But as of October 17, no response from the Fed, despite this letter:

"Re:       Freedom of Information Act Request No. F-2015-0336

Dear Mr. Lee,

On September 2, 2015, the Board of Governors (“Board”) received your electronic message dated September 2, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for the entirely of the “Application by Goldman Sachs Bank USA for the Acquisition by Purchase and Assumption of Certain Deposit Liabilities and Certain Very Limited Non-Financial Assets of GE Capital Bank,” and for all records reflecting FRS communications with Goldman Sachs for the past twelve (12) months. On September 3 and September 9, the Board provided you with the public portions of the application.

Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until October 16, 2015, in order to consult with two or more components of the Board having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.

If a determination can be made before October 16, 2015, we will respond to you promptly.  It is our policy to process FOIA requests as quickly as possible while ensuring that we disclose the requested information to the fullest extent of the law.

Very truly yours,

/signed/

Jeanne M. McLaughlin
Manager, Freedom of Information Office"

 But even by October 16, no response from the Fed. Only this from Goldman Sachs, only snail-mailed by its counsel:

Goldman Sachs' 2d Reply to Inner City Press, As Fed Withholds FOIA Documents by Matthew Russell Lee

 On October 13 Inner City Press published the Federal Reserve's communications with the CIT Group's outside counsel, which shows how the release of public documents is allowed by the Fed to be delayed. CIT made disingenuous requests for confidential treatment of information that could not be withheld, without any repercussion. They were rewarded with FOIA appeal denials by Fed Governor Jay Powell; now Goldman is trying to withhold information that should be public. Will there be any repercussion or accountability? Watch this site.

Revealed: Federal Reserve Asking CIT Group About Inner City Press FOIA Request: Now Goldman Sachs? by Matthew Russell Lee

 After requests from Fair Finance Watch, NCRC and other NCRC members, the Federal Reserve belatedly responded:

"The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced that the public comment period has been extended through October 30, 2015, on the application by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, New York, New York, to assume certain liabilities and acquire certain assets of GE Capital Bank, Holladay, Utah, under section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act... The original comment period, which closed on September 19, 2015, is being extended to allow interested persons more time to review the proposal and to provide comments... Comments regarding this application must be received at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Attention: Bank Applications Officer, 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045; comments.applications@ny.frb.org) or the Office of the Secretary of the Board (20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20551) on or before October 30, 2015."

  Just last week, the Fed told Inner City Press a comment it submitted on Goldman Sachs, with new Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, was "untimely" --

"Dear Mr. Matthew Lee, Executive Director Inner City Press/Fair Finance Watch

We acknowledge receipt on September 22, 2015 of your email dated September 22, 2015  ("Comment Letter"), commenting on the application filed by Goldman Sachs Bank USA... The public comment period for this application ended on September 19, 2015. Since your Comment Letter was received after the end of the public comment period, it will not be made a part of the record of this application unless the Board in its sole discretion determines to consider your late comments. However, you previously submitted timely comments that have been made part of the application record that the Board will consider."

 Now it must be considered. reviously, the Federal Reserve wrote to Inner City Press, extending its own time to respond under FOIA until October 16 -- all while maintaining that the comment period closed on September 19:

"Dear Mr. Lee, On September 2, 2015, the Board of Governors ('Board') received your electronic message dated September 2, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for the entirely of the “Application by Goldman Sachs Bank USA for the Acquisition by Purchase and Assumption of Certain Deposit Liabilities and Certain Very Limited Non-Financial Assets of GE Capital Bank,” and for all records.... Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until October 16, 2015, in order to consult with two or more components of the Board having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.

"If a determination can be made before October 16, 2015, we will respond to you promptly.  It is our policy to process FOIA requests as quickly as possible while ensuring that we disclose the requested information to the fullest extent of the law."

  But what about the request to extend the comment period? Is the Fed extending its time to rule on that, as well?

  Inner City Press made a similar request to the New York State Department of Financial Services and on September 25, some information was released -- not enough -- and the NYS comment period was extended for 30 days. 

 NYSDFS Senior Attorney George Bogdan wrote:

"Dear Mr. Matthew Lee: Your FOIL request has been granted in part. My response letter and 2 Goldman Sachs documents are attached to this e mail. Also note that the comment period for the Goldman Sachs application has been extended by 30 days. An official notice for the extension will be posted online in the DFS Weekly Bulletin for the week ending September 25, 2015."

  While Inner City Press prepares a FOIL appeal, why hasn't the Federal Reserve even ruled on its FOIA request, and extended the comment period like its state counterpart? We'll have more on this.

  On September 22, 2015, the Federal Reserve belatedly released the 2014 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. A quick review of the lending of Goldman Sachs Bank USA in the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area shows the Goldman Sachs focus which should require publish hearings in this case. 

  Fair Finance Watch, hours after the data was released, has commented to the Federal Reserve at the highest level that "in the New York City MSA in 2014, for conventional home purchase loans (Table 4-2), Goldman Sachs Bank USA made 45 such loans to whites, only two to African Americans and only one to a Latino. For refinance loans (Table 4-3), Goldman Sachs Bank USA made 16 loans to whites and NONE to African American or Latinos. This is inconsistent with the demographics of the New York City MSA and with other lenders' records; it further militate for the timely requested public hearings."

  Goldman Sachs has purported to respond to the comments of Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch by releasing a small amount of the withheld information, and arguing that what the wider Goldman Sachs does cannot or will no be considered by the Federal Reserve on this Bank Merger Act application by Goldman Sachs Bank. We've put Goldman Sachs' response online, here. It says:

“FFW states that the audio released by examiner Ms. Carmen Segara requires an extension of the comment period and a public hearing... GS Bank believes the issue is outside the scope of the statutory factors for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act... Goldman Sachs Bank USA ('GS Bank') hereby submits its response to the three comment letters, submitted on September 2, September 3 and September 9, 2015 (the 'Comment Letters'), by the Inner City Press's Fair Finance Watch ('FFW')....

"FFW makes accusations of 'predatory practices' in the 'mortgage field' and 'municipal finance,' and states that there are a number of compliance settlements that must be reviewed in connection with the Application. FFW references several articles related to lawsuits, settlements and other events, all but one of which involve Goldman Sachs but not GS Bank. GS Bank respectfully submits that such comments are not substantiated by specific arguments or facts. GS Bank notes that none of the articles relate to GS Bank itself, and believes these issues are outside the scope of the statutory factors for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act.”

  Goldman Sachs is arguing that the acts of a parent company cannot be considered when its bank applies to buy ($16 billion) in insured deposits, an absurd argument. FFW has submitted another comment to the Fed, including that 

"ICP has received by mail from Goldman Sachs' counsel a purported response which claims that issues ranging from conflict of interest and under-regulation by the FRB (evidenced for example by the audio leaked by whistleblower Carmen Segarra) is not cognizable under the Bank Merger Act - an absurd argument. The FRB would be the decision maker, therefore such issues must be addressed.

 "Goldman Sachs cavalierly states that since it withdrew some of its indefensible requests for confidential treatment of its application, that issues is resolved. It is not - too much is still being withheld. Significantly, Goldman Sachs has offered no explanation of the specious requests for confidential treatment it made, denying commenters access to information during the comment period. As others now argue, the comment period would be extended and hearing held."

  Inner City Press will be covering this wider National (Community Reinvestment Coalition) protest, in which it joins; it has also submitted more comments to the New York State regulator, in a proceeding currently slated to come to a head on September 28, the first day of the UN General Assembly debate.

Goldman Sachs' Response to Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch Comments on GE Capital Application, Sept 1... by Matthew Russell Lee

 As Inner City Press exposed last month, Royal Bank of Canada jumped the gun and began doing business with City National Bank without any Federal Reserve approval (see Los Angeles Times, here.)

 Now, even as New York regulators says their comment period on Goldman Sachs' GE Capital proposal extends at least through September 28, Goldman has published fine print notices in the New York Post and a newspaper in Utah saying the Federal Reserve will stop listening on September 19.

  Really? After the Fed made Goldman Sachs a bank holding company with no public comment period at all, so Goldman could get a bail-out? After the Fed's coziness with Goldman Sachs was again demonstrated, by the audio taped by then-Fed examiner Carmen Segarra?

  Inner City Press immediately submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all of Goldman Sachs' GE Capital application and related records. The Federal Reserve has provided a heavily redacted copy, on which Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has commented to the FRB in Washington:

"Among many other things, Goldman Sachs believes it can withhold the volume of deposits it seeks to acquire from GE Capital Bank, WHAT is seeks to acquire (and what not to acquire) from GE Capital Bank, its number of employees in Utah, the contact people on its application, the number of non profit organizations it tells the FRB it serves on the board of -- presumptively public -- and even the NAMES of the exhibits it seeks to withhold entirely. This is abusive and unprecedented and the FRB must, in response, have the comment period begin again. Otherwise, applicants only benefit by making absurd and abusive requests for confidential treatment. There is much more to be said, including at the public hearings ICP is requesting, but it is imperative that the Board act on this as quickly as possible."

Goldman Sachs' Heavily Redacted "Confidential" Application to the FRB to Acquire GE Capital Bank Deposits by Matthew Russell Lee

 
  When Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company literally overnight in 2008, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch and others including NCRC asked the Fed how this was done with no public comment period at all. 

  The answer, it seems, is to be found in the audio leaked by Carmen Segarra of the Federal Reserve, showing further Fed favors for Goldman Sachs.

 With this history, and Goldman's history in predatory lending with Litton Servicing and as an underwriter, see Occupy Wall Street video here, and UN / migration connection here, it seems clear that the Fed must hold public hearings on Goldman Sachs' GE Capital application, when it is filed. 

  But with the Federal Reserve, you can never be too sure, or too careful.

  When Community Bank System of upstate New York filed with the Fed nine answers to questions asked after Inner City Press' challenge, it tried to withhold fully eight of the nine responses. More here.

  Inner City Press immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the whole submission - and even the Federal Reserve saw through Community Bank System's absurdly -- and tellingly -- overbroad withholding, releasing all but one part of one of the eight withheld responses. But since then, all the Fed has done is seek a mere antitrust control commitment.

  Here's is the Federal Reserve's letter to Inner City Press granting most of its FOIA request:

Freedom of Information Act Ruling Rejecting Community Bank System Withholding 8 of 9 Responses on Oneida Ap... by Matthew Russell Lee

here is the now unredacted version of Community Bank System's submission. 

Unredacted Version of Community Bank System's Responses on Oneida, After ICP's FOIA Request by Matthew Russell Lee

We'll have more on this.

Background: The largest bank merger recently proposed, that of Royal Bank of Canada and affluent-focused Los Angeles-based City National Bank, has since April been the subject of a Community Reinvestment Act challenge by Fair Finance Watch.

  The LA Times has reported on the "letter from the Fed [which] asks the banks to respond to questions raised in written comments by [FFW]. Spokesmen for the banks declined to comment.... Fair Finance Watch, a New York advocacy group for minorities, questioned a deal between the banks in a June 11 comment letter to the Fed."

  Inner City Press first put that Fed letter online, here; then Canada's National / Financial Post reported without credit it had "obtained" it. 

  By contrast, in the pending proposal of Community Bank System - Oneida, the Syracuse Post-Standard disclosedthat "Inner City Press forwarded the letter to news outlets. Some of the Fed's questions focus on whether Community could improperly control matters at Oneida in advance of the acquisition. Community is working on Fed's questions, said Hal Wentworth, Community's senior vice president for retail banking."

  One common theme is that non-control (and therefore antitrust) laws are being violated. One difference is that Community Bank System does comment to the media -- if only to blame the messenger -- while larger RBC and CNB do not. Arrogance?

 On Community Bank System's blaming the messenger, FFW has commented to the Fed that it will "will comment again when Community Bank System I has provided a copy of its response to the FRS' questions of July 13. Beyond the CRA and impermissible “control” questions raised therein, we wish at this time to raise the issues that, in a public response to ICP's comments, Community Bank System's SVP for retail banking said the following, in a prepared statement no less:

'In a statement today, Hal Wentworth, Community's senior vice president for retail banking, said that Inner City Press is not a local group and pointed out that letter was the only one filed on the Oneida deal. "This activist does not do business with either Oneida or Community Bank."'

If it would be inappropriate for Community Bank System to comment on or disclose information about its customers, in this context the same applies to the above-quoted, which, separately, is reminiscent of human rights abusing countries emphasizing where the rights groups who study and report on them are based."

   Now Community Bank System is trying to withhold eight of its nine responses; Inner City Press is challenging this under the Freedom of Information Act, comparing Community Bank System's outrageous withholding at the Fed with other banks, and with Community Bank System's to the OCC, more here.

   

UN's Ban Ki-moon Preaches Freedom of Information for Post-2015 Goals, While UN Has No FOIA, Free UN Coalition for Access Notes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 5 -- When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon unveiled his “synthesis” report on the UN’s post-2015 development agenda on December 5 it said, "Press freedom and access to information, freedom of expression, assembly and association are enablers of sustainable development."

  This is hypocritical on more than one count, including that the UN Secretariat has no Freedom of Information Act or process, something that Inner City Press and now the Free UN Coalition for Access have been asking about and pushing for. 

  As with legal accountability for harm done, as by the UN bringing cholera to Haiti, how can the Ban's UN preach to member states policies that are not applied to the UN at all?

The UN's lack of accountability, from bringing cholera to Haiti to using as “peacekeepers” armies under investigation for war crimes like those of the DR Congo and Sri Lanka, is enabled by the lack of even a basic FOIA covering the UN.

Inner City Press, which has litigated FOIA cases all the way to the US Supreme Court and submitted FOI request to dozens of countries, haslong pushed for a UN Freedom of Information Act. 

  On November 7, Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric point blank: why not disclose for example when Ban takes gifts like Qatar's of free private jet travel to the Middle East this year?

  Dujarric after claiming that disclosing such information, or setting up "structure" to disclose such basic information, would required General Assembly approval, said he had nothing to add. Video here. Nothing to disclose?

   As reported on September 15 by the Columbia Journalism Review, “Inner City Press... reported that Burnham’s successor, Alicia Barcena, said it would be in place by the end of 2007. But the General Assembly never agreed on the scheme, and it was quietly shelved. “There were differing views among Member States about what constituted openness,” said Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, in an email.”

  (Inner City Press asked Dujarric about the quote at the September 15, 2014, noon briefing, video here and embedded below.)

  What leadership -- citing “differing views,” the UN Secretariat gave up before it even began. CJR also quotes a rights group which won't disclose what issues it raises to Ban, and correspondents happy to get leaks and text from their Western sources. This same organization, beyond its Executive Committee trying to get the investigative Pressthrown out of the UN, withheld its Q&A with Ban Ki-moon even from its own members, here. 

  This group, the so-called United Nations Correspondents Association, has now returned its censor in chief Giampaolo Pioli to its helm, to raise toasts with Ban Ki-moon while having tried to get the investigative Press thrown out, and doing nothing for freedom of information. 

  As to freedom of association, Pioli declared to someone whose vote he was soliciting -- in an election without competition -- that no one can be a member of FUNCA and "his" UN Correspondents Association at the same time. That is, he can tell people what they can join, and how they should think. This is the UN's partner.

  In order to pursue more access to information -- and the protection of the rights of investigative journalists against such insider approaches -- Inner City Press co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access.

  FUNCA says it is absurd for the UN Secretariat to blame member states for its own refusal to be transparent with its own financial information. Furthermore, how can Ban's UN make claims about “we the peoples” while blaming unnamed governments for banning accountability to the peoples?

  CJR concluded, as we will for now, with this: “Inner City Press continues to advocate for a systematic freedom of information policy, but admits that there is little binding pressure journalists can put on the UN legally. 'Ultimately you end up making a moral argument, which is that more so than most governments, the UN is always pontificating about good governance and transparency,' he said. 'That’s what I find so ironic.'”

Ironic is a diplomatic way to put it. Watch this site -- and this (FUNCA) one.

   

As US Supreme Court's Narrow Reading of FOIA Rights in McBurney Case Voids ICP Delaware Win, Pushing for a FOIA at UN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 29 -- The US Supreme Court is not a beat Inner City Press covers day to day, but this time we must. In Monday's decision in McBurney v. Young, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that Virginia limiting its Freedom of Information Act responses to state residents does not burden interstate commerce, and that no Constitutional right was at stake.

Inner City Press pursued and won an earlier case against a similar Delaware law, winning in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the rights or "privileges and immunities" to be a journalist were impacted by being denied access to records about HSBC.

The litigants in McBurney v. Young reached out to Inner City Press, it was was an amicus, along with other publications.

Now Inner City Press' earlier win in Lee v Minner is, in effect, erased, and it's back to the drawing board. More fights, for more information, now at and through the UN, including through the new Free UN Coalition for Access. 

  Just as Alito's logic doesn't seem to make sense when applied to Delaware, a state which because it incorporates businesses from all over has impacts well beyond its own citizens, it would make less sense applied to the United Nations.

 On that, compare the type of documents about UN inner working obtained by Inner City Press under US FOIA from the Voice of America (samples here and here and here) with the outright refusal of the UN to even state who it allowed into Inner City Press' office during a non-consensual raid on March 18, 2013. 

 The difference? The UN has no FOIA. But FUNCA is fighting for it. Watch this site.

UN Refuses To Explain Withholding Its Reports From the Public or Delaying Release, Gets UNCA Scribes to Defend It

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 20 -- Confronting the UN's practice of withholding information from the public, including its own reports, for days while making it selectively available to some, on April 15 Inner City Press wrote a story and then asked the UN about the issue.

  Tellingly, rather than explain, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky told Inner City Press, “I think you are aware of the distinction, and I don’t intend to go into that here.”

  The question is, why are reports made available to some in paper form before the digital file is put online through the UN Document System, ODS? Clearly the paper copies are printed from a digital file. So why withhold it?

   Inner City Press, like the Free UN Coalition for Access, is for due process rights for journalists, but does not believe that the media should be in the business of withholding, or supporting the withholding or delaying of information to the public.

   This came up recently on the annual Western Sahara issue, when Ban's (and French chief of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous') report on the MINURSO mission was reported on by Reuters and notably Agence France Presse, but not available to people and even journalists elsewhere.

Inner City Press received many requests for the report and got to wondering: why hasn't the UN just put it online? In this case, it allowed European and French media to pre-spin the report.

So the Free UN Coalition for Access raised the issue in writing to Nesirky and the Department in charge of UN documents, and at the April 16 noon briefing Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: I also wanted to know whether the report, for example, on Western Sahara, and other reports, are they put online on UN documents system when they are legally available to be given or is there some lull, and if so, what explains that lull? ...Paper copies of some of these reports are available as much as two days before they go online, so since it seems to me that paper copies probably are a printout of the digital file, does it take the UN two days to put a digital file… so what explains the up to 48-hour delay between printing out a digital file and actually just putting a digital file in the UN documents system?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think you are aware of the distinction, Matthew, and I don’t intend to go into that here. What’s your question on the CAR?

  While Inner City Press wrote of but didn't push the issue in that briefing, instead as FUNCA on April 18 putting the question to the head of the Department of Public Information who has, as of this writing on April 20, yet to respond, a letter did go in on the topic to Nesirky and DPI.

  The letter, apparently not publicly released on UNCA's website or glassed in bulletin board and so put online here, was from the UNCA Executive Committee ostensibly presided over by Pamela Falk of CBS TV News but which is dominated by the wire services which benefit from the UN's withholding of information from the public: Reuters represented by Louis Charbonneau, AFP represented by Tim Witcher, and others.

See Ban Ki-moon's UNCA Lunch of the Lost, Feb 7, 2013, credit EvanSchneider, UNPhoto. From left: OSSG's Del Buey; Denis Fitzgerald of Saudi Press Agency; OSSG's Nesirky; Melissa Kent of CBC; Sylviane Zehil of L'Orient le Jour; Tim Witcher of AFP; Ali Barada of An-Nahar; Ban Ki-moon, Kahraman Halicelik of Turkish Radio & TV; Pamela S. Falk of CBS; Lou Charbonneau of Reuters; Bouchra Benyoussef of Maghreb Arab Press; Yasuomi Sawa of Kyodo News; Masood Haider of Dawn; Unknown; Zhenqiu Gu of Xinhua; Stephane Dujarric of UN DPI

The UNCA letter, dated April 17 after the April 16 noon briefing exchange quoted above, says:

“The U.N. Correspondents Association's Executive Committee is writing to express its support for the continued use of the 'Gray Lady' -- a shelf used to make U.N. reports, calendars and other documents available to reporters interested in them. In addition to the U.N.'s online presence, the 'Gray Lady' has been a useful way to distribute all kinds of documents rapidly to the U.N. press corps. We hope the tradition will continue. The volume of printed matter involved is minimal so there is no reason to abandon a tradition that has proven to be extremely helpful for U.N. reporters over the years.”

   While this letter, and the sequence in time, speak for themselves -- can you say, UN's Censorship (and Withholding) Alliance? -- we will have more on this issue. Watch this site.

UN Won't Disclose Ban's 1 on 1 Meetings This Month, Presidents Beyond Sri Lanka?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 30, 2010 -- While the UN issued summaries of some 100 meetings between countries' leaders and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during this month's General Debate, for between five and ten of these meetings there was an additional one on one session which was not included in the UN's summaries, it has emerged.

On September 29, Inner City Press asked Ban's adviser Nicholas Haysom why Ban's statements minimizing the mandate of the UN panel on war crimes in Sri Lanka, about which Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa later bragged, had not been included in the UN's summary of the Sri Lanka meeting, which alone among the 100 summaries included a summary of non-Ban statements.

Hayson admitted this was “abnormal,” but said that one in ten or one in twenty of Ban's meetings also had a tete a tete (or one on one) segment, not included in the summaries. He said these might involve “staff issues” or other private issues.

For two days now, Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to disclose at least which of Ban's 100 meeting included one on one sessions not included in the summaries, and to either put an asteriskk by these incomplete summaries or expand them to include at least the issues discussed tete a tete.

Nesirky has for now refused. This is yet another reason the UN needs a Fredom of Information law.

From the UN's September 29 transcript:

Inner City Press: what Mr. Haysom said that apparently 1 in 10 of these bilateral meeting of the Secretary-General during this general debate have been separate tête-à-têtes on seemingly un-summarized portions. I just wanted to know…

Spokesperson Nesirky: This is standard, Matthew. Let’s knock this on the head straight away. First of all, he said 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. And it was a figure he clearly plucked out of the air as a generalization. He wasn’t saying — he didn’t have a spreadsheet in front of him that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20. First thing. Second thing is the very nature of diplomatic discourse is that if you have a tête-à-tête, that’s what it is. You can’t expect then to have a readout of what someone is trying to speak about confidentially. If the other party chooses to do so, that is for them to do and is not for us to judge. That said, the readouts that we provided, and which we tried to provide swiftly and provide in some detail, are to help you in the best way that we possibly can. Clearly you don’t seem to appreciate that.

Inner City Press: No, I guess my question is just that, rather than take his estimate of it, is it possible to get the number of the bilaterals with tête-à-têtes? And shouldn’t you put an asterisk on the ones that are incomplete summaries? It strikes me like, to have a summary that leaves the most important issues out is worse than having no summary, in a way.

Spokesperson: Well, you might want to ask your colleagues how useful or otherwise they believe the readouts have been. That’s the first thing. Second thing is to get involved in that kind of statistics, it really doesn’t work like that. And here is why: because sometimes there will be a meeting that is scheduled to be with delegations and the Secretary-General and the other principal will decide, no; they think that it would be time better spent given that most of these meetings are 20 minutes, 15 minutes — just the two of them, because they have one specific topic that they need to deal with. On other occasions, it can be the other way around. So, it’s not terribly helpful for you or anybody. We try to provide the information that we can in the best possible way. Next question, next question?

Inner City Press: I just want to ask one question actually about Israel in this situation, in which Israel made a representation about a promise they said the Secretary-General had made apparently in a tête-à-tête meeting. The Secretary-General and your Office said that’s not true, we deny that. So, it’s not the case that when Presidents or interlocutors make representations you don’t represent, it just seems like, given the controversy that surrounded the panel, given that the meeting with the panel wasn’t in his schedule, some conclude that he is somehow now ashamed of this panel or won’t include in the summary. Why wouldn’t he include his panel in the summary…?

Spokesperson: Matthew, with respect, with respect, the panel that you are talking about, we have spoken about that openly here. We’ve told you about the fact that they met. I don’t really see what your problem is there. What is your next question?

Inner City Press: I’ll ask this. There is a report…

Spokesperson: And then I might turn to some other people who might have some questions too. In fact I will take a question from someone else first and then I’ll come back to you.

From the UN's September 30 transcript:

Inner City Press: you’d said that there is no need of a spreadsheet of statistics. Having thought much about what Mr. [Nicholas Fink] Haysom said yesterday, which is that some portion — whether 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 — of these bilateral meetings with leaders included an heretofore undisclosed side meeting in which topics as public as the Panel would be discussed, is it possible to know which of the bilaterals involved in tête-à-têtes, not the topic of them, just the fact that…?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Typically, typically, as I said to you, there are different types of meetings. Sometimes a tête-à-tête will, if you like, spontaneously happen at the end of the meeting with the delegations. Sometimes it is pre-programmed, it’s scheduled as precisely that — a tête-à-tête, with no one else unless there is need for an interpreter. And sometimes, it is done at the request of one side or the other. There is nothing unusual or nothing new in this — absolutely nothing unusual or nothing new. What is new, and it doesn’t seem to be appreciated by you, is that we have been providing readouts of every single bilateral meeting, virtually every bilateral meeting that’s been held, the last one of which was held this morning with the Foreign Minister of Guinea.

Inner City Press: It was that Mr. Haysom used the word “abnormal”. I don’t want to belabour it, but he said it was abnormal that the readout of the Sri Lanka public, or open, meeting included a representation of what the President said. So, I’d actually thought since it’s abnormal, and I have looked at the other ones, there is not to my knowledge a single one of the other hundred that has such a representation. I think I would like to at least ask to know, how was that readout prepared? Was it prepared by the same people who prepared the other 99, or was it prepared in some special fashion? Because I think it’s relevant to get, he himself used the word abnormal, not me. So, if it’s abnormal…

Spokesperson: Well, I am the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. But I am not the Spokesperson for Fink Haysom. He speaks eloquently and on his own account and he also happens to be the Director of the Political Unit. So he has a very good understanding of how readouts are put together. But this is mechanics. I understand your interest, I do. And I also understand your interest in this particular country and subject matter, I do. Why it was done differently, I cannot say right now. If I can find out more, I’ll be very happy to tell you. But don’t simply assume that it’s been done for some particular political reason. It could simply be that that’s the way that that one was done. You don’t have to necessarily read something else into that.

But why not disclose at least which of Ban's 100 meeting included one on one sessions not included in the summaries, and to either put an asterisk by these incomplete summaries or expand them to include at least the issues discussed in the one on one meeting?

This is yet another reason the UN needs a Fredom of Information law. Watch this site.

UN Agency Tests Terror with Microsoft and Kennedy, UN FOIA Called For But Denied

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/foia1unicri012209.html

UNITED NATIONS, January 22 -- A little known UN agency, the Turin-based Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, held a conference on "security governance" at the UN on Thursday. Microsoft, despite the well known security flaws in its software, was invited to present, along with Kerry Kennedy of the RFK Foundation. Ms. Kennedy, it emerges, will be "partnering" with UNICRI to develop and disseminate a human rights curriculum for kids.

At a mid-day press conference, Inner City Press asked Ms. Kennedy if she or the RFK Foundation had played any role in the UN's September 2007 conference on the victims of terrorism, and whether she believes the UN should have a Freedom of Information Act and better whistleblower protection -- the lack of which in the US's Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq she has commented on.

Ms. Kennedy said she was not been a part of the September victims' event, but that she believes that more openness and information is important with anything associated with government, like the UN. She said of the UN, "I would be in favor of making those as rigorous and open as possible." Video here, from Minute 11:44.

Later, Inner City Press asked UN Assistant Secretary General Robert Orr, who had introduced both Ms. Kennedy and the Microsoft representative, to justify the UN's lack of a FOIA. He said that member states had rebelled at paying "the costs associated with FOIA." Video here, from Minute 35:14. But if those costs are mostly related to redacting and concealing information, and nearly all records are not electronic, this should not be a bar.

Orr encouraged questions to the director of UNICRI, Sandro Calvani. Inner City Press asked Mr. Calvani how UNICRI is funded. He said it is all "extra-budgetary," that one third of the funds from from the Italian government, and other funds from "corporations" including "US corporations." Like Microsoft? He said that UNICRI unlike the UN Secretariat "can take risks," and doesn't need concensus for what it does How nice, to have all of the powers of the UN with none of the accountability.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/foia1unicri012209.html