Cary Coglianese, Ph.D., Deputy Dean and Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania Law School, is delivering the keynote address. Post your questions and we can pass them on to Dr. Coglianese during the Q&A session.
and 2 others are discussing.
sunny_hughes 2:43 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
If you would like to check out the site Dr. Coglianese mentioned, transparency-gov.com, here’s the link: http://www.transparent-gov.com/Pages/default.aspx
sunny_hughes 2:48 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
Want to read more about government transparency reports? Here are some links: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=government+transparency+reports
sunny_hughes 2:53 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
http://www.data.gov
sunny_hughes 2:55 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
To see the original documents that Dr. Coglianese is discussing:
Reno’s Memo on FOIA (Link)
http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XIV_3/page3.htm
Ashcroft’s Memo on FOIA (PDF)
http://www.doi.gov/foia/foia.pdf
Holder’s Memo on FOIA (PDF)
http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf
To see a complete list of documents related to FOIA (maintained by the National Security Archive at George Washing University): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/govfoia.html
MacKenzie Rawcliffe 3:11 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
The suggestion for moving towards a reasoned transparency is an interesting one. I was wondering to what extent or in what way Mr. Coglianese believes this would be expressed. Would agencies start writing Supreme Court like decisions for every regulation? Or would it just be a memo outlining the highlights?
sunny_hughes 3:38 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
We currently have reasoned transparency (The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946) allowing for review under the arbitrary and capricious standard. The courts can reject the agency’s rule in order to provide an incentive for reasoned transparency. The preamble in Federal Agency documents is the place where the agency can explain its rationale for the rule.
MacKenzie Rawcliffe 3:12 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
Where does wikileaks fit into this picture?
sunny_hughes 3:16 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
MacKenzie, WikiLeaks is a great contemporary example.
http://wikileaks.org/
Anonymous 3:26 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
So the framing of transparency as the expanded release of information is too narrow. If we are going to talk about moving towards a more transparent and functional democracy, shouldn’t we be expanding the conversation to discuss better funding of public schools, the proposed cuts of the corporation for public broadcasting, and other issues that deal with real ways of fostering an informed and engaged public? How is the public to question or measure the reason behind ‘reasoned transparency’?
jonippolito 3:28 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
Excellent question. This is related to the “conflicts of interest” thread below that Martin started.
sunny_hughes 3:46 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
Coglianese on WikiLeaks: “I don’t know if the official trumpeting of transparency is needed when we have this robust culture of transparency as WikiLeaks has demonstrated.”
MacKenzie Rawcliffe 3:14 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
Do you believe that there are places where transparency already has gone too far? And other than the damage to the President’s popularity has there been any documentation of damages to decision making or is it just a logical conclusion or sense?
sunny_hughes 3:14 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
The Administration’s Press Censorship
Published: September 17, 2010
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/opinion/18sat3.html
sunny_hughes 3:23 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
QUESTION FROM AUDIENCE: University of Maine History Professor Howard Segal would like Dr. Coglianese to discuss the term “transparency” in general. He would also like to know specifically about the connections between transparency and American voter participation.
Martin 3:25 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
The term ‘transparency” has been used in Europe for a long time. I think the US is just starting to use the term, although the concept of transparency is clear in the Constitution. (no pun intended)
sunny_hughes 3:26 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
Coglianese: The question is a good one. “It’s clear the message has gotten out from the top that that is one of the priorities.” Transparency is much like Democracy. Who wouldn’t be in favor of it? Transparency is also becoming part of foreign policy (ex. President Obama attended an open government meeting in India).
Concerns about transparency can be traced all the way back to the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act….. The Federal Register Act passed 75 years ago…
sunny_hughes 3:29 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
QUESTION FROM AUDIENCE: To what degree are FOIA requests being used politically? To what degree has transparency been examined to see if FOIA requests can be a “political sledge hammer” that discourages the openness that the government is trying to promote?
sunny_hughes 3:32 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
There are some limits that should be placed on transparency… some preference for secrecy in government communications with regulatory industry that sounds like regulatory capture, but it is an example of how we might carve out a space where the “fishbowl” is a little bit obscured but we can counteract the risk of regulatory capture in those cases by demanding better reasoned transparency.
sunny_hughes 3:48 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink
QUESTION FROM AUDIENCE: University of Maine Computer Science Professor George Markowsky makes a point about IBM data and efficacy of storing certain types of materials.
sunny_hughes 3:52 pm on November 12, 2010 Permalink