June 5, 2005
Concerns at A.C.L.U. Over Do ent Shredding
By STEPHANIE STROM
The American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding some do ents 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 do ents 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 ac ulating 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 do ent 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 do ented shredding program they will not be liable if do ents 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 do ent 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 do ents 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 do ents with the intent of preventing their use in official proceedings. Many lawyers for companies and nonprofit en ies have advised their clients to enact strict policies on records management.
The A.C.L.U. allows for do ent 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 do ents - 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 ins ution.
Under the A.C.L.U.'s policy, employees deposit do ents, 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 do ent 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 do ent 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 do ent 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 do ent 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 do ents outside a freight elevator and alerted the archival staff. "We really need to get this shredding do ented 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 do ents 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 do ents 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 do ents in the bags were résumés from the human resources department, a memorandum said.
Maybe I'm missing something, but basicaly this is an article about the ACLU trying to do exactly what it advocates other companies doing in regards to both privacy protection and leaving an appropriate paper trail.
I'm kind of suprised this is even news, though. In an organization as big as the ACLU, it is to be expected that some things take time to implement and work out the kinks.
i guess you are missing something.. it shows the aclu is a "do as i say, not as i do" company. shredding do ents against company policy.
but what do you expect from a group that protects pedophiles right to prey on children?
And because you don't understand equal protection of freedom, I won't bother arguing any further.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 American Civil Liberties Union has been shredding some do ents over the repeated objections of its records manager and in conflict with its longstanding policies on the preservation and disposal of records."
Actually he didn't miss anything, he, unlike you, read the whole article. The ACLU is moving to correct the problem.
As for "protecting pedophiles right to prey on children", what do you base that on?
I am *sure* you have possession of a memo that says "we need to let pedophiles molest children" right? Pfft.
The ACLU has NEVER said that molesting kids is ok, and you know it. No reasonable person beleives that and I defy you to find ANYONE in the ALCU that believes that. Your statement is pure distortion meant to villify an organization that does things that you don't 100% like. The ACLUs function is to protect due process for everybody. Yes, this unpleasantly includes s bags, but I would rather s bags have rights than the government being able to selectively deny people rights. If you want a government that can do that move to China and start waiving a sign around Tiannamen.
like rush limbaugh...conservatives far and wide were applauding the ACLU then when it suited their interestsThe ACLUs function is to protect due process for everybody. Yes, this unpleasantly includes s bags
Funny that your quote includes the PAST TENSE of the verb "to shred".
Honestly if you want any organization to keep 100% of the do ents they produce, you will get a big fight on your hands from just about anybody.
This is yet another cheap shot. Yawn.
Fun to pick apart tho'.
they've protected nambla... we've had a huge discussion on this already.
it appears the director is not going to follow the shredding practices the aclu has in place. no one ever said to keep every do ent. but they are violating their polices for a reason... i'd like to know why.
NAMBLA!!
Oh my god
nambla????????????????????
well i never knew the ACLU liked little boys
what a bunch of sickos
well we should just continue to take away and limit rights
so, you think nambla should be protected? you would
how many times could we discuss this nambla case?
well anyway one more time i really like the ACLU
but fighting for the cons ution and individuals freedoms is harmful to the neo-conservative Wstickercrowd, because it questions the president and the patriot act
but i like my rights and instead of just saying that our troops are fighting for it, i actually like to use it
so, you think the aclu can go enron on us and shred do ents just bc they are the aclu?
Again with the ignoring rationality in favor of demogoguery.
Asnwer this one question:
Is defending a child molesters right to due process the same as thinking it is OK to molest children?
Yes or no?
No I don't. Neither do I think the ACLU will shred do ents capriciously or with a malevolent intent. Doing so would harm them beyond repair. Their motivation to get things right far outweighs any possible benefit of getting rid of any possibly damaging evidence.
The ACLU exists because of very principled people devoting time and effort to a cause they find worthy.
The thing you seem to miss in your rush to condemn is that there was no evidence that do ent destruction was intended to obfuscate or obstruct legal precedings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
