WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - The Homeland Security Department is requiring employees to sign a nondisclosure agreement so restrictive that it might be unconstitutional, two unions for thousands of border workers said Monday.þþThe agreement, which was introduced in May, prohibits department employees from giving the public ÿsensitive but unclassifiedÿ information. It also says the government ÿmay conduct inspections at any time or placeÿ to ensure that the agreement is obeyed.þþThe two unions, the National Treasury Employees Union and the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a statement that the agreement gave the government ÿunprecedented leeway to search employee homes and personal belongings in violation of the Fourth Amendment.ÿ The unions, which together represent about 35,000 Homeland Security Department employees, include a large number of Customs and border workers.þþThis month, lawyers for the unions wrote to the general counsel of the department, Joe D. Whitley, asking that the agreement no longer be distributed and that a directive that outlines the policy for identifying and safeguarding sensitive but unclassified information be withdrawn. The letter also says that the directive gives officials a device ÿto suppress and cover up evidence of their own misconduct or malfeasance by stamping documents 'for official use only.' ÿþþA spokesman for the department, Brian Roehrkasse, said in a telephone interview, ÿThe notion that this would be used to cover up evidence of wrongdoing is baseless.ÿ þþMr. Roehrkasse said that the policies were meant as a reminder of the need to protect the large quantity of sensitive information in the department and that they did not necessarily exempt releases under the Freedom of Information Act.þþThe agreement affects just new employees.þþMr. Roehrkasse said he did not know the reason for that, speculating that it was most likely because of an increase in the distribution of sensitive information as the department grew. þþLawyers from the unions said they were unsure what prompted the policies. A report in The Washington Post this month brought the agreement to light. The article said several Congressional aides had refused to sign the agreement. þþA lawyer for the American Federation of Government Employees, Mark Roth, said the policies would discourage employees from talking to the public and Congress about ÿmatters of public concern.ÿ Mr. Roth said he was also worried that the government would use the agreement to pick out and discipline outspoken workers.þþÿI think, sadly, it will probably be used to keep information that the public needs to know out of the public's hands until we challenge it in court,ÿ he said.þþMr. Roehrkasse said that the department was reviewing the concerns and that they would be addressed ÿat the appropriate time.ÿ þþþþ
Source: NY Times
