July 1, 2011 Freedom of Information Act Appeal

Ms. Mary Schapiro, Chairman U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, DC 20549 Dear Chairman Schapiro: I am writing in regards to the ways and means the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) governs and manages matters relating to Freedom of Information Act processing and the Commissions Ethics Compliance system. It is of the private and public right to understand the operations and activities of the Commission with respects to honoring the Code of Ethics and maintaining Ethics Compliance for, among other things, the reasons outlined in 200.7352 Policy, which states: (a) The Securities and Exchange Commission has been entrusted by Congress with the protection of the public interest in a highly significant area of our national economy. In view of the effect which Commission action frequently has on the general public, it is important that members, employees and special Government employees maintain unusually high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and conduct. They must be constantly aware of the need to avoid situations which might result either in actual or apparent misconduct or conflicts of interest and to conduct themselves in their official relationships in a manner which commands the respect and confidence of their fellow citizens. (b) For these reasons, members, employees and special Government employees should at all times abide by the standards of conduct set forth in this subpart, the canons of ethics for members of the Securities and Exchange Commission (subpart C of this part 200) and, in the case of a professional person, the ethical standards applicable to the profession of such person. I kindly ask that you use your discretion and judgment to assure a full and adequate search for responsive records and grant for a full fee waiver in connection with this Appeal. Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this matter. Sincerely,

Michael Brozzetti Chairman, Business Integrity Alliance 1

1

Publically Available Certification and Acknowledgement to the Business Integrity Alliance Code: http://www.thebia.co/pdf/The%20BIA%20Code_Acknowledged_brozzetti.pdf

July 1, 2011

MATTER: SEC-FOIA-REQUEST-#002 (SEC Request Number 11-06336-FOIA) Dear Mr. Richard Humes, This correspondence is in regards to the final response letter dated June 24, 20112, signed by Mr. Mark Siford, concerning the above referenced Freedom of Information Act request received by the Commission on May 3, 20113 requesting the following: 1. [A] summary of all reported incidents and opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in connection with the adjudication of matters relating to the Canon of Ethics, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch and other Related Statutory Authorities (collectively the Code of Ethics) from 2006 to Present; and 2. A signed acknowledgment to the Code of Ethics for each Commission employee. The purpose of this letter is to appeal both decisions relating to (1) the adequacy of the Commissions search and (2) the Commissions fee waiver decision. (1) The adequacy of the Commissions search In the June 24, 2011 letter, Mr. Siford states, After consulting with the Office of the General Counsel, we have determined that the Commission does not maintain any records that are responsive to No. 1 of your request. The Commission does not adjudicate matters relating to the Canon of Ethics. This response does not address the full scope of my request, which includes a clear definition of the Code of Ethics, which also includes the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch and other Related Statutory Authorities, therefore the Commissions search is inadequate. In addition, Mr. Siford makes note of a consultation with the Office of General Counsel, without any reference to the Commission Ethics Official, which raises concern. Specifically the concern of the Commissions interpretation of the term adjudication and its derivative forms. The intent of my request is clearly with respects to ethics-based judgment and not solely that of legal-based judgment. Therefore, this term is intended to be broadly defined as to sit in judgment4 rather than the narrower definition to pronounce or decree by judicial sentence.5 As an illustrative example, the conflict of interest matter raised by Mr. David Becker in an e-mail dated May 4, 20096 and its subsequent opinion provided by Mr. William Lenox constitutes a responsive record to my request.

2 3

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59033358/SEC-FOIA-2011-6336-Response-from-FOIA-Office-06-24-2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/59034238/SEC-FOIA-2011-6336-Request-for-SEC-Ethics-Information-04-29-2011 4 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adjudicate (Ref #3) 5 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adjudicate (Ref #1) 6 http://www.scribd.com/doc/50169346/Becker-5-2009-Email

In the June 24, 2011 letter, Mr. Siford states, With respect to No. 2 of your request, we were likewise unable to locate or identify any responsive records. The commission does not maintain signed acknowledgement[s] that relate to the Code of Ethics for its employees. As of this time, No. 2 of my request is satisfied based on the Commissions official statement that it, in fact, does not maintain, Signed acknowledgement[s] that relate to the Code of Ethics for its employees. (2) the Commissions fee waiver decision

In the June 24, 2011 letter, Mr. Siford decided to deny my fee waiver request for the following reason It is evident that, if obtained, you would use the requested records almost solely for the purpose of advancing your economic interests. It appears Mr. Siford based his decision without regard for complete and sufficient information. For example, Mr. Siford fails to cite my complete statement: The disclosure would likely further any commercial interests of the requester [in the accomplishment of the mission to advocate and advance practices supporting the principles of integrity, transparency, accountability, and risk governance to the private and public sector - omitted by Mr. Siford.] This mission statement is consistent with the Commissions to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation and Chairman Schapiros statement that Good corporate governance is a system in which those who manage a company that is, officers and directors are effectively held accountable for their decisions and performance. But accountability is impossible without transparency [emphasis added.]7 Moreover, the Commission is already aware of possible commercial interests, as well as the Business Integrity Alliance mission by way of a letter to Chairman Schapiro dated July 14, 20108, which the Commission responded to on December 2, 20109. The Commission is further aware of the referrals made from Senator Jon Kyl and Senator Dianne Feinstein on behalf of Mr. Mark Rome, a Business Integrity Alliance member, in its searchable database of public correspondence, which the Commission has stated is available to all Commission employees. Mr. Siford further states in the June 24, 2011 letter At this time we do not address the first part of 17 CFR 200.80(e)(4), public interest in the disclosure of responsive records. Our analysis focuses solely on the second part of the regulation: the commercial interest of the requester. In contrary, Mr. Siford stated in an earlier letter dated May 24, 201110 This office will determine whether disclosure is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government based upon four factors. In addition, This office will determine whether disclosure of the requested records is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester based upon two factors. These statements combined establish the six factors relevant to an appropriate evaluation of a fee waiver (the Fee Waiver Criteria.)

SEC tightens rules on investment advisers, corporate transparency. Washington Post. December 17, 2009 http://www.scribd.com/doc/59026795/Business-Integrity-Alliance-Letter-to-SEC-Chairman-Mary-Schapiro-Copy-07-14-2010 9 http://www.scribd.com/doc/59026860/SEC-response-to-Business-Integrity-Alliance-Letter-Copy-07-14-2010 10 http://www.scribd.com/doc/59033363/SEC-FOIA-2011-6336-FOIA-Office-Response-5-24-2011
7 8

On May 26, 201111, I issued an appeal letter to the Commission (the First Appeal) with substantive reasons, facts, and supporting documentation citing appropriate authoritative guidance relative to the Fee Waiver Criteria to grant a full fee waiver. The Commission has made no protest in the June 24, 2011 letter disputing my arguments relative to the Fee Waiver Criteria as referenced in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 in the First Appeal. Therefore, it is both fair and reasonable to conclude that I have satisfied the burden of proof and that the disclosure of responsive records are, in fact, of greater interest to the public then any possible commercial interest. Without undue delay or further procedural burden, please take into consideration these reasons to perform a full and adequate search for responsive records and grant a full fee waiver. Please submit any inquiries to me directly at mike@boundlessllc.com. Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this matter. Time is of the Essence. Sincerely,

Michael Brozzetti Chairman, Business Integrity Alliance

11

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56413817/SEC-FOIA-2011-6336-Correspondence-to-U-S-SEC-Chairman-Schapiro-regarding-Freedom-ofInformation-in-respects-to-the-Federal-Government-Code-of-Ethics-

VIA E-MAIL From: Michael Brozzetti Chairman, Business Integrity Alliance 3513 Bowman Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania E-mail address: mike(at)boundlessllc.com Ms. Mary Schapiro Chairman U.S. SEC schapirom@sec.gov

To:

CC: Mr. Richard Humes U.S. SEC ASSOC. GEN. COUNSEL (LIT/ADM PRAC) humesr@sec.gov Ms. Elizabeth Murphy U.S. SEC Secretary murphye@sec.gov Mr. William Lenox U.S. SEC Supervisory Attorney General lenoxw@sec.gov Mr. H. David Kotz, Inspector General U.S. SEC Office of the Inspector General (OIG) kotzd@sec.gov Ms. Shira Pavis Minton, Ethics Counsel U.S. SEC General Counsel mintons@sec.gov Mr. Hudson Hollister Committee on Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives Hudson.Hollister@mail.house.gov Mr. Chris Lucas Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate Chris_Lucas@judiciary-rep.senate.gov Mr. Mark Rome, American Entrepreneur zEthics, Inc. mrome(at)zethics.com VIA REGULAR MAIL ATTN: FOIA/Privacy Act Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission Station Place 100 F Street NE, Mail Stop 2736 Washington, D.C. 20549 ATTN: SEC Office of General Counsel Securities and Exchange Commission Station Place 100 F Street NE, Mail Stop 9612 Washington, D.C. 20549