Although much work is ahead in digging through the details, President Obama’s early actions on information transparency are very good news. However, the history of information policy shows us that these gains may be only temporary, and that we must fight to maintain them.
Tension between the instinct to protect information and the democratic call for transparency has meant that for much of American history public access to government information has been more often restricted than not. The public information section of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, which enabled promulgation of the methods by which information could be obtained, was tempered both by discretionary controls on information provision and a growing appetite for secrecy on the part of the federal bureaucracy (McDermott, 2007; Relyea, 2008). The APA’s successor legislation, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), wasn’t to come until 1966, and after a long struggle (including executive branch opposition). The great step forward represented by FOIA was the clear establishment of the public’s right to know, supplanting the former need to know test (McDermott, 2007). (The concept of a basic right to know was embedded in the earliest deliberations about the shape of the republic—see Relyea—but McDermott emphasizes that in the practical application of law and procedure most information was held back from the public.) The executive branch continued to press back against the law, and the history of FOIA has been one step forward, two steps back as Congress continued to amend the Act to strengthen access (McDermott, 2007; Relyea, 2008).
The executive branch has been growing in strength relative to the legislature since the 1930’s, and so White House predilections about information transparency have greatly affected the effect of FOIA. As we have discussed in class, the G. W. Bush administration used all tools at its disposal (and that it could develop) to restrict the distribution of information. In doing so, they more than undid strides made during the Clinton era (McDermott, 2007; Relyea, 2008). Much of the Bush pull back was done in the name of national security, an category long used to hold information from the public. In this area, in fact, the see-saw nature of information restriction is evident in the use of secrecy classifications. Eisenhower’s E.O. 10501 limited classification authority, restricting the broader reach of E.O. 10290. The animating nature of this action held and was strengthened through successive administrations, until Reagan began expanding classification categories. In the 1990s Clinton moved back toward an assumption that only select information should be secret, but then Bush took secrecy to new heights (McDermott, 2007; Relyea, 2008).
References
McDermott, P. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press.
Relyea, H. C. (2008). Federal government information policy and public policy analysis: A brief overview [Electronic version]. Library & Information Science Research, 30, 2-21.
Tension between the instinct to protect information and the democratic call for transparency has meant that for much of American history public access to government information has been more often restricted than not. The public information section of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, which enabled promulgation of the methods by which information could be obtained, was tempered both by discretionary controls on information provision and a growing appetite for secrecy on the part of the federal bureaucracy (McDermott, 2007; Relyea, 2008). The APA’s successor legislation, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), wasn’t to come until 1966, and after a long struggle (including executive branch opposition). The great step forward represented by FOIA was the clear establishment of the public’s right to know, supplanting the former need to know test (McDermott, 2007). (The concept of a basic right to know was embedded in the earliest deliberations about the shape of the republic—see Relyea—but McDermott emphasizes that in the practical application of law and procedure most information was held back from the public.) The executive branch continued to press back against the law, and the history of FOIA has been one step forward, two steps back as Congress continued to amend the Act to strengthen access (McDermott, 2007; Relyea, 2008).
The executive branch has been growing in strength relative to the legislature since the 1930’s, and so White House predilections about information transparency have greatly affected the effect of FOIA. As we have discussed in class, the G. W. Bush administration used all tools at its disposal (and that it could develop) to restrict the distribution of information. In doing so, they more than undid strides made during the Clinton era (McDermott, 2007; Relyea, 2008). Much of the Bush pull back was done in the name of national security, an category long used to hold information from the public. In this area, in fact, the see-saw nature of information restriction is evident in the use of secrecy classifications. Eisenhower’s E.O. 10501 limited classification authority, restricting the broader reach of E.O. 10290. The animating nature of this action held and was strengthened through successive administrations, until Reagan began expanding classification categories. In the 1990s Clinton moved back toward an assumption that only select information should be secret, but then Bush took secrecy to new heights (McDermott, 2007; Relyea, 2008).
References
McDermott, P. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Lanham, MD: Bernan Press.
Relyea, H. C. (2008). Federal government information policy and public policy analysis: A brief overview [Electronic version]. Library & Information Science Research, 30, 2-21.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment