Comment and Question about Conflicts of Interest
My comment has to do with conflict of interest in government. In Coglianese’s paper, he explains that the administrations of Clinton, Bush, and now Obama are all guilty of facilitating secretive meetings and that each in turn have been reproached by the public for their secrecy.
While on the surface the public outcry seems reasonable and valid, but Coglianese seem to ignore the role that conflicts of interests played in the Bush administration that led to the outcry against Dick Cheney’s secretive energy meetings. One could reasonably argue that the Clinton and Obama examples of secrecy are justified, for the reasons Coglianese explains in his paper, but I don’t believe that the same can be said in the Bush administration example can because of the obvious conflicts of interest inherent in that administration to be secretly setting energy policy.
My question is, is there a policy that recuses elected officials and their appointees from participating in secretive meetings where there are conflicts of interest, and if not, would such a policy help to build the public trust in government and allow these officials to hold secret meetings without so much public outcry?
jonippolito 2:35 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink |
This seems like a legitimate question. Steve Mann has suggested that transparency should be required especially for those who wield the most power, and conflicts of interest make a clear case for this.
Martin 2:50 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink |
Here is the paper “The Transparency President? The Obama Administration and Open Government”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01451.x/abstract
It appears to be available for free download.
jonippolito 3:08 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink |
A quote from that article that summarizes what Cary’s talking about now: “reasoned transparency can still discipline governmental decision making—serving the same goals as fishbowl transparency—if officials know they must provide sound reasons for their decisions. Unfortunately, the current fascination with the Internet appears to make it easy to lose sight of the value of reasoned transparency…Modern information technology may give us more noise, when what we really need is better music.”
I’m concerned that not demanding more of politicians than that they supply “good reasons” for their actions will help conceal conflicts of interest behind closed doors.
sunny_hughes 3:44 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink |
(Coglianese response paraphrased when not quoted) This administration has engaged in a number of reform efforts (lobbying reform). This administration has put in place what amounts to a “ban” on having former lobbyist serve in the administration. There was then an exception made which raises many issues. It is often more than perceived conflict of interest when people have come from an industry in the past. “The Obama administration has tried to accommodate this. I think the challenge is endemic and it can’t be simply papered away with a rule change very easily without creating again some real potential for public backlash.”
Martin 3:46 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink |
I don’t think he understood what I was asking, this answer didn’t address the specific points I was making. Oh well.
sunny_hughes 4:34 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink |
Martin, perhaps Dr. Coglianese will participate in this forum to clarify his response. I’m curious, are you suggesting that public officials should say (a) I don’t want to participate in this meeting or (b) I don’t want to participate in this meeting unless it is open… it should be public. I don’t understand your question fully, but do you think that they should be allowed to publicize their refusal to participate in either case? I know in some instances they might be barred from disclosing the existence of secret meetings.
Martin 6:31 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink |
I think there should be a policy that addresses conflicts of interest directly. If that had been the case in 1999, Dick Cheney probably would not have been selected Bush’s running mate and even if he had, he most certainly would not have been allowed closed-door meetings to draft energy policy. If such a policy were in place, individual officials or appointees would have to disclose any conflicts of interests that they have, and recuse themselves from participation on committees or in meetings where secrecy is paramount and where their conflict of interest is relevant to the committee/meeting. If this were the case, the public could place more trust that the business taking place in these secret meetings are in fact being deliberated in the public interests, not in the interests of oil companies and their contractors.
Dr. Coglianese discussed very broadly Obama’s ban on lobbyists (which I think is also very important) but did not specifically address the problems of conflicting interests and why those cause such public outcry.