Here are two trends to watch on the transparency of the Obama Administration. The first is how it will implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) generally. Early signs are not promising and a recent closed meeting on the FOIA has rankled the media. The second trend is whether it will retreat from newly imposed rules that limit direct access to staff at the Food and Drug Administration.
FOIA
We are familiar with the newsworthy and controversial blocking of items arguably involving national security -- such as photos of abused detainees. But the general public is probably unaware of the high volumes of information requests made regarding mundane, but important governmental functions. This is done through the Freedom of Information Act. In an Associated Press article entitled "Promises, Promises: A Closed Meeting on Openness," the writer examines how a government-wide conference on enforcing the FOIA was closed to reporters. http://www.google.com/...
"We'd like to know, when they're training agencies, are they telling them the same thing they're saying in public, that they're committed to making the Freedom of Information Act work well and make sure that agencies are releasing information whenever possible while protecting important issues like individual privacy and national security," said Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, of which The Associated Press is a member.
The government spokesperson in charge of the conference said she planned to "say the same things at the private workshop that she would say publicly." Her reasons for closing the meeting? "She wanted government employees to be able to speak candidly, and the conference would be in an auditorium at the Commerce Department, where she said a government ID was required to be admitted." The article points out that "AP and others news organizations routinely enter government buildings to cover the government." Another spokesperson cited a space problem at the auditorium. "The director of the new Office of Government Information Services, Miriam Nisbet, said the event was closed to make sure there would be room for all the government employees attending." This is not persuasive given that the auditorium seats 2,500 persons and is the government's largest auditorium. http://www.nps.gov/...
According to those professionals cited in the article who file large volumes of FOIA requests, no progress towards openness has been made since the previous administration, which was noted for being closed towards reporters and the public:
People who routinely request government records said they don't see much progress on Obama's transparency pledge.
"It's either smoke and mirrors or it was done for the media," said Jeff Stachewicz, founder of Washington-based FOIA Group Inc., which files hundreds of requests every month across the government on behalf of companies, law firms and news organizations. " *** "You just don't see a big movement toward transparency."
The FDA
The second trend to watch is how the Obama Administration feels about the public getting unvarnished information via the press from the health professionals who work within the Food and Drug Administration. There is a revolt going on right now by the reporters who cover the FDA regarding new rules that have been implemented to forbid immediate direct contact between staff and reporters. http://www.healthjournalism.org/... The letter below explains the reporters' contentions.
The organizations below, representing thousands of journalists, strongly urge the Food and Drug Administration to end practices that restrict the flow of information to the public. The free flow of information is essential to democracy. But in matters of health, even more is at stake: the ability of citizens to live healthful and productive lives.
We object to the requirement that journalists and FDA employees notify or obtain permission from an official to conduct an interview. And we object to public information officers listening to interviews. These relatively new practices hinder reporters' ability to learn the truth by inhibiting and sometimes barring employees from providing essential information.
Nearly all prior administrations allowed open communication between agency employees and the media. The FDA should restore this policy.
Public information officers can play an important role in answering questions and facilitating interviews. But when they forbid, delay or monitor contact between reporters and employees, they interfere with the public's right to know and can delay access to timely information necessary to protect and advance public health.
It will be interesting to see whether these two events are signposts indicating that the road to transparency is going to be a bumpy one.