T8 B5 Misc Loose Docs Fdr- 12-12-03 MFR Re Meeting w FAA Counsel Andrew Steinberg

8/14/2019 T8 B5 Misc Loose Docs Fdr- 12-12-03 MFR Re Meeting w FAA Counsel Andrew Steinberg

1/4

COMMISSION SENSITIVEUNCLASSFIED

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORDEvent: Meeting with FAA Chief Counsel, Andrew SteinbergType of event: M eetingDate: December 12, 2003Special Access Issues: N onePrepared by: Kevin ShaefferTeam Num ber: 8Participants - Non-Commission: Andrew Steinberg (FAA Chief Counsel), J.S.Dillman (FAAAssistant Chief Counsel), David Wiegand (FAA AGC-410), Anthony Ferrante (FAA AirTraffic), Shirley M iller (FAA Senior Advisor), T homas Da vidson (FAA Air Traffic)Participants - Com mission: Steve Dunne, John Farmer, Dana Hyde, M iles Kara, Kevin ShaefferLocation: FAAHQ

Team 8 staff requested a meeting with FA A Chief Counsel Andrew Steinberg to discuss thefollowing issues:

1. NC Staff interviews at Washington Center (ZDC) December 3-4,20032. Clarification of FAA facilities' tapes requested by the NC3. Understanding of future interview guidelines

M r. Steinberg opened the meeting by underscoring that the FAA has been fully cooperativewith the National Com mission. He reported that he had received "feedback" of accusationsdirected against his Counsel staff from the NC staff. He conceded that there may have beenmisunderstandings and miscomm unication w ithin the FAA on the NC-Administrationinterview guidelines. He stated that the FAA resents inferences that they are not being"above board" and that they understand the important mission of the NC. He further notedthat he didn't think the FAA subpoena was warranted, and stressed that he does not want tobe accused of not cooperating w ith the NC.M r. Steinberg mentioned that the NC staff has turned down "many offers of FAA technicalassistance" an d offers of help to better understand FAA air traffic matters. This point wasaddressed by Dana as not true, that she and Miles had indeed accepted several offers of FAAassistance.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE


2/4

COMMISSION SENSITIVEM r. S teinberg brought up the fact that they had a "number of discussions" with the N Cregarding the acc eptance of the FAA using some judgmen t on w hat ma terials they provide tothe N C (to help reduce the amount of irrelevant materials produced). He stated, "If you wantus to dump a truckload of documents onto you - you'll get them." As anexample, hepresented four audio cassettes, "that are totally blank, yet you have demanded we providethem."John Farmer explained the N C 's deadline concerns to Mr. Steinberg.Dana then addressed Mr. Steinberg's points. A discussion proceeded on the interviewguidelines agreed upon with the Administration, and how the FAA seemed to take a differentstance towa rds the interviews conduc ted at ZDC . In sum, the issues at ZDC were 1) pre-meetings with interviewees and FAA counsel; 2) the presence of a Union "minder" inaddition to the FAA Counsel minder; and 3) recording the interviews (just prior to the veryfirst interview at ZDC, FAA C ounsel M r. Wiegand told NC staff, in the presence of theinterviewee, that they did not want the interview recorded). The general theme was that theN C accepts document and interview guidelines, yet when the N C staff visits the Air TrafficControl facilities we discover a different "story on the ground." Dana c oncluded with thepoint that ZDC was the NC staffs fifth facility visit, the first visit post-subpoena, and that"things were clearly different" at ZDC in comparison to the other sites.M r. S teinberg replied to Dana, "We're not in a new ballgame post-subpoena."Dana addressed the specific issue over the tapes from the T M U and OMIC stations at ZDC.S he noted that the N C has received a letter from the FAA that the ZDC T M U admin phonesare not recorded. However, when walking the floor during the ZDC visit the QArepresentative said "yes w e do tape the T M U/O M IC lines, but we were told that you didn'twant them." (The QA rep mentioned T ony Ferrante's nam e as the individual whocommunicated that to them). Dana stressed that we wanted to clarify these issues.Specifically, that we want now (and have always wanted) "all" TMU/OMIC/MOS recordingsfrom ZDCbetween the hours of 8 am - 12noon on 9/11/01. FAAcountered that most ofthose lines are "blank" and T om Davidson stated that he directed th e facility to "not wastethe N C ' s t im e" by turning in mostly blank tapes. M r. Davidson stated he directed th e facilityto provide only "pertinent" information. Dana noted, however, that ZDC didn't produce anyof the recordings from those positions. M r. Davidson stated, "we see it as assistanc e, not

C O M M I S S I O N S E N S I T I V E


3/4

COMM ISSION SENSITIVEresistance. We have a good story to tell. I directed them to provide an y calls pertinent to thehijackings and the attacks."Dana pointed out that sh e distinctly recalled conversations with M r. Davidson an d Mrs.Miller "about efforts to take judgment and discretion out of it, by limiting the request tospecific phones, positions, an d times." Mrs. Miller acknowledged that there could have beenan internal-FAA "miscommunication" regarding ZDC and their efforts to utilize judgment asto what would be most helpful an d responsive to the N C request. M r. Davidson stated, "they(TMU/OMIC) had communications with the Command Center, but since we thought youalready had those, th e recorded lines from ZDC were not provided."M r. Steinberg noted that he saw a need to "document agreement on interview guidelines."Steve noted that there are detailed interview guidelines that have been worked out betweenthe N C and DOJ. W e agreed to fax copies of the exchange of letters (a total of 3) betweenthe NC and DOJ.M r. Wiegand stated that he "was appointed to liaison with the NC post-subpoena." And, thatthere was "increased sensitivity to the NC since the subpoena, that's why I was assigned."As for the interview guidelines, he stated, "I had no knowledge of the pre-existingagreements." "I was told that the NC was a fact-finding effort, and I met with eachinterviewee fo r five minutes to explain what th e purpose was." M r. Wiegand then recountedthat when he saw that the interviews were going to be recorded, he asked the Unionrepresentative at ZDC if he knew about the recordings - which he did not.M r. Wiegand stated that D an Marcus told him that if the interviewee wanted th e Unionrepresentative present along with Mr. Wiegand, that was "ok."M r. Wiegand stated that "I at no point advised th e interviewee to object to the recording ofthe interview." "I got hot when you (Dana) implied that I was coaching the witnesses. Iapologize. You (Dana) said there was an agreement that there would be no pre-meetings. Iwas unaware of it and wanted to see it. I called Dan Marcus and he said that if I wasn'tadvising the witnesses, he'd "take my word."Dana responded that she assumed that Mr. Wiegand had knowledge of the interviewguidelines that exist between the NC and the administration. S he added that the ZDC visitwas the fifth site visit an d this was the first instance of misunderstanding. Dana highlightedthe fact that most of the heated disagreement at ZDC came after Mr. Wiegand mentionedthere were "post-subpoena sensitivities."

C O M M I S S I O N S E N S I T I V E 3


4/4

C O M M I S S I O N S E N S I T I V EM r. Steinberg stated that he assumed that preparation for the interview is covered by thewritten agreement between the NC and DOJ. Steve replied that while there are detailedinterview guidelines, not all were put to writing because the NC takes the view that this is notan adversarial litigation-type of investigation. Mr. Steinberg replied, "you have tounderstand that we don't know how the FAA will be handled in the NC's report. So we haveto , and should, approach this as more of a litigation matter." As such, he concluded "I'dmuch rather have an explicit understanding of the agreement." T h e N C agreed to send M r.Steinberg a letter on some of the specific issues raised during this meeting.

C O M M I S S I O N S E N S I T I V E

Documents

T8 B5 Misc Loose Docs Fdr- 12-12-03 MFR Re Meeting w FAA Counsel Andrew Steinberg