Put teeth in transparency

Transparency in government was one of Barack Obama’s “yes we can” calls to a new and better government. The new president’s first public act was to order more federal openness.

But most federal agencies are still conducting business as usual, withholding as much information from the public as they can.

Freedom of information advocates are beginning to demand that the administration’s promises of openness be met. Indeed, wording to strengthen the federal Freedom of Information Act has been twice passed by the U.S. Senate, but has yet to be taken up by the House.

The legislation is aimed at curtailing a particular form of secrecy called legislative exemptions, which are often slipped quietly into bills without notice to lawmakers, who then may pass the legislation without ever being aware of the last-minute changes. These exemptions relieve agencies or bureaucrats from having to abide by portions of the open-government law.

There are more than 240 exemptions on the books, most of them slipped into other pieces of legislation on the sly. They are also themselves exempt from any court challenge.

The practice is analogous to legislative amendments added to bills in the dark of night to advance measures that likely would not be passed if they had to stand on their own, under the scrutiny of debate. Repeated criticism from open-government advocates, including this newspaper, eventually helped modify the practice so that at least those who insert last-minute amendments must publicly identified.

A similar push may be necessary to combat legislative exemptions.

In addition to legislative exemptions are other methods for avoiding accountability.

The executive order was one of the chief methods the George Bush administration used to avoid public scrutiny. For many issues, and with too few restrictions, a president can avoid the lengthy and public process of submitting a policy to the legislative process by simply issuing an order to executive agencies. (Although the practice grew under the Bush administration, it was also heavily utilized by President Clinton.)

Nor is President Obama fully consistent in his call toward openness. His version of the executive order is the presidential “czar” program — the numerous special groups he has set up to address various issues and whose leaders report directly to him.

As civil liberties advocate John Whitehead has argued (“Policy czars expand administration’s power too far,” The Daily Progress, Sept. 27), these new entities dangerously bypass public oversight — even to the point of avoiding background checks. (This practice, begun under the New Deal, was also heavily used by the second President Bush.)

If President Obama is serious about transparency, he should bring his own czars under greater public accountability. Such efforts might help avoid such debacles as the Van Jones incident.

He also should press the agencies under his authority to make public openness their standard and watchword, rather than continuing to shield information from view.

And Congress should tighten open-government laws — and put some teeth in those laws — to help make sure the public’s right to know is protected.