-
What is at stake?
-
President-elect Obama faces many daunting challenges as he prepares to take office. In particular, there is one word with which he most captured the attention and imagination of supporters: change.
However, in a nation of nearly 400 million citizens, how does a leader define what changes to make, and in what order, to maximize the benefits to the largest number of people? Priorities must be set, hard decisions made, and ultimately there will be many who will feel that they were cheated of the change that they were expecting. In fact, weeks before our new President even takes office, there are already rumblings of discontent over some of the decisions that been made even now. Setting the sails for a new direction must be done properly if it is to succeed.
-
What is being proposed already?
-
Obviously, a discussion of "transparent government" cannot begin without a clear understanding of exactly what that is. A sampling of blogs and other publications by the emerging leaders of the movement does not yield a single, concise definition of the term, but several key ideas are repeated often enough to give a sense of what is wanted.
First, many are focused on developing technologies commonly labeled "Web 2.0"; software and design principles that can be used to build Internet applications and web sites that are truly interactive. With such programs, users whether individuals or larger organizations can selectively access data from one or more sources, viewing that data in various presentation formats, and even combining it with data from other sources in ways that may yield new insights and uses for the data.
Doing this has its problems, though. One is the availability of resources: programmers and designers who already have access to this data, and who have the skills and tools needed to build public-facing portals. The shortage of these resources is not limited to government agencies: Web 2.0 is still quite new, the tools have not yet matured or even been standardized, and the designers are still learning how to build such applications. Additionally, communication channels through which such systems could be published by government agencies or requested by private entities are poorly defined or nonexistent.
Next, there has been a growing sense among many that the Federal government in particular has become too secretive. How are we to know what our government is doing on our behalf, if so much of what it does is "classified", when it is recorded at all?
-
What should be done?
-
I believe that all of these issues can be addressed by a two-pronged approach: the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 already provides private citizens and organizations a way to request access to any information in the government's possession, and compels the requested agency to comply with that request or give one of a very few reasons why it will not. We as a country need an an honest and intelligent re-interpretation of this legislation and its use as a tool for providing information to people, not an excuse for not doing so. Further, the process by which documents and other data are "classified" needs to be opened to ensure that such data is locked up instead of hidden or buried, that only truly sensitive information is classified in the first place, and that material which is no longer sensitive is de-classified in a timely and efficient manner.
If government agencies are required to build and maintain information portals, then the very nature of the Web 2.0 concept is turned around, making what is essentially a user-driven experience into a "push" technology. Critics already complain that the government does not make its data available in the right form, if at all: why would they be satisfied with yet another government-provided solution? Where will offices already facing budget cuts and hiring freezes get the resources to build and deploy such systems? No, better to ensure that these agencies are willing and able to provide the raw data and let the users decide how to present and interpret it. Additional government spending is therefore kept to a minimum, no new agencies need to be created, and those who feel that they would most benefit from more (or more flexible) access to government data are free to acquire it and do with it what they please, including publish their results to the community.
As to the topic of classified data, I believe that a restructuring of the current process is in order. Ours is a branched government, with powers carefully separated and balanced, and this power should be no exception. I propose a committee comprised of sub-cabinet representatives from the Departments of State and Defense and representatives from each House of Congress. A super-majority or unanimous vote would be required to approve the classification of state secrets, with documents that failed to pass being returned to the public domain as soon as practicable. The same or a similar committee should be in charge of de-classifying documents, with a super-majority or unanimous rejection required to retain classification. De-classified material would also be returned to the public domain in a timely fashion, with a list of document titles and abstracts published regularly by the committee.
-
What's left?
-
There may be other issues that could or should fall under the heading of government transparency, but making existing data sets and documents available to the public is an important place to start. Doing this in a way that is itself transparent and accessible will do much to satisfy the public's growing appetite for information and its need to trust its government. Much has been lost, but that only means that there is much to be gained by opening the doors of our officials and agencies and putting the government back into the hands of the people.