Secrecy hides accountability
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-secrecy-editorial_x.htm

In the movies, government confidentiality is typically depicted
by documents stamped "Top Secret." In real life, much of
what's kept under wraps has little or nothing to do with national
security or the war on terror.

Instead, it can involve muzzling critics, covering up corruption
and incompetence, or simply mindless bureaucracy. Phone
numbers, policy papers, contracting details, historical
documents, whistle-blower allegations - they're all
disappearing from public view. By one estimate, government
papers are being classified at the rate of 125 a minute.

To those in power, keeping facts hidden makes life easier; the
probability of oversight drops. But those who believe the
sunshine of disclosure makes democracy stronger are denied
the tools of accountability.

Examples abound:

Environmental secrecy Like virtually all top climate experts,
NASA's James Hansen thinks global warming is an urgent problem.

But Hansen's view doesn't line up with the White House's
wait-and-see position. Recently, NASA's public affairs officials
leaned on him to curtail media contacts and speeches. His message
is one they'd rather not hear discussed.

Fortunately for Hansen, his high profile insulated him
from dismissal or other retribution. "We live in a free country
and work for the taxpayer," he told The New York Times last month.
"We should provide useful information, not propaganda."
For scientists with a lower profile, though, speaking out
against the party line can endanger their job security.

Another environmental secrecy debate has emerged over the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.
It's likely that federal officials downplayed the impact
of toxic gases, a federal judge concluded recently as she
allowed a lawsuit to proceed against former
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Whitman.
Residents moved back into the lower Manhattan area after the
EPA assured them there was no risk from pollutants such as asbestos dust.

Many of the federal advisory committees - established to provide
unvarnished scientific and technical advice to government -
meet in secret. Nearly two-thirds of the more than 7,000 meetings
in 2004 were closed to the public. It's hard to see special interests
at work when the doors are closed.

Contracting secrecy Each year, the government hands out about
$300 billion in contracts. Yet there's no requirement that it
collect and publish information on criminal, civil and administrative
actions involving contractors. Industry lobbyists for the largest
contractors have no trouble foiling efforts by shoestring-budget
public interest groups to force the government to reveal those details.

What doesn't get published doesn't get reviewed.
For instance, important details about reconstruction
contracts in Iraq and the Gulf Coast never make it
into public view.

Companies winning work despite having skeletons in their
closets need not worry about exposure.
The "administrative agreements" and waivers that government
agencies routinely issue to contractors neatly cover those up:
They're secret.

Secrecy for the sake of secrecy. This is the most perplexing
and insidious of all the secrecy excesses. Recently, scholars
researching history lessons involving the Korean and Vietnam wars
noticed that documents once available had disappeared.
Half-century-old intelligence analysis from the Korean War,
for example, went from open files to closed ones.

A program to reclassify declassified documents at the National
Archives began nearly seven years ago - the result of a backlash
from intelligence officials who believed the declassifying had
gone too far. But much of that program, involving as many as
55,000 pages, appears to involve documents of interest only
to historians.

The irony of secrecy for the sake of secrecy is that it can
make the nation less safe. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey
governor who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, said lack of
communication among government agencies, which ranged from
senseless turf wars to legal impediments, hindered efforts to
uncover the 9/11 plots.

As a symbolic gesture, the commission suggested,
the government should start releasing the budgets of the
nation's intelligence agencies. Terrorists aren't
likely to care whether the number is $20 billion or
$30 billion. But taxpayers deserve to find out whether
their money is being well-spent.

Open government isn't about partisan politics or
journalists' rights. It's about your right to know what your
government is doing with your money. Especially when
national security is not involved, secrecy should be
the rare exception, not the rule.
___________________________________________

Hear hear.