Transparency, liberty and security.

Rick Blum, director of OpenTheGovernment.org (www.OpenTheGovernment.org), was a "Civil Liberties: Balancing Liberty and Security" forum panelist at the League Council meeting in Washington, DC. After the June 13 forum, Blum met with LWV staff member Sara Conrath in an exclusive interview on open access to government, individual liberties and security. (See p. 14 for more on the forum. A DVD of the forum, Pub#2075, is available from LWVUS Pub Sales for $5.00. Call 888-287-7424 or e-mail [e-mail].)

League of Women Voters: Have you seen challenges to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at the federal and state level since September 11th?

Rick Blum: Before September 11, there was a growing tendency to be more open, and there was optimism among people who were watching these kinds of things that the government was increasingly using the Internet to make information more accessible. The public was relying on government Web sites to access more information. It might have been about their tax returns ... or what have you.

Since September 11, what happened has been used as an excuse to put into place more secrecy that undermines the ability of the public and citizens' groups like the League to get more engaged. Right after 9/11, (former Attorney General) John Ashcroft issued a memorandum to all agencies saying basically, if in doubt, withhold documents under the FOIA. That reversed the (prior) presumption of disclosure and openness. Then there was what we think were thousands of pages being removed from government Web sites. All this was done in haste with the concern that we need to keep information from terrorists. A lot of that information, we think, was restored.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Some agencies didn't restore much of their information and then the mantra has been "Will this information be helpful to a terrorist?" And if there's some conceivable way that that might happen, then the government's general approach has been not to provide information and to fight it. Luckily, we do have the FOIA. We do have some laws in place that provide a guaranteed backstop for the public to be able to find out from the government what's going on in their communities.

That general atmosphere (of withholding information) has filtered down to the state and local level. We have stories of people not being able to get information about chemicals in the ground water. An example is Aberdeen, MD, where a citizens' group was trying to get information about perchlorate in their drinking water, and it moved from a very constructive relationship to one of hostility and eventually a lawsuit. That's wrong. Citizens shouldn't have to sue in order to find out if their communities are safe and to participate in the process. That's been a huge problem.

Another example is a citizen who was trying to figure out whether an oil pipeline was going to run right through his house or his neighbor's house, and only after all the permits were issued did the map show up in his local library. Are we trying to secure ourselves and keep that information from terrorists, or are we trying to cut out the community?

LWV: What can we do to secure our open communities? What can citizens or Leagues do at the state and local level, especially?

RB: We can talk more at the community level about the best way to secure our open society, and not talk as much about balancing liberty and security because that's a false choice--we want both. We want to be safe and we want to be free. And we can have both.

Democracy and all those wonderful values that the League works on every day actually have practical impacts of making us safer. We make better decisions when we are participatory in the way that we make those decisions. It's fundamental tenet of democracy, and we've moved away from that.

I think we just should continue to ask questions, to document where citizen engagement works, to move government officials to take steps or move private industry to take steps to make us safer ... "Are we safer? Is this chemical plant down the street running safely? Is it as safe as a similar plant across the country? Are there ways that it can be improved?" We need to try to answer those questions and hold company officials and government officials to account for their statements. We need to investigate, find out if these things are true or not.

LWV: Would you say the same tactics would work at the federal level, or should they be more focused?

RB: There is more interest in this and legislation in Congress now to improve the way citizens can get information under the FOIA ... (which) has become less and less effective at ensuring that citizens have a right to get documents from their government when they request them.

There is the OPEN Government Act. The bill states that government officials actually have to respond to your request within 20 days, rather than just give you a form letter. It sets up a tracking system, so you can get a tracking number if it is going to take a lot longer. It's a lot harder for agencies under this legislation to withhold documents. If they don't respond at all to your letter or if they completely ignore you, there are some penalties. Never has there been a federal official who has gone to jail for keeping a document from a citizen or from any member of the public. This bill puts into place some enforcement efforts, some small steps towards enforcement. That is something specific for people to rally around.

I think the same (advice) is true at the federal as at the local level. We need to document successes and document problems, and really push aggressively to defend participation and democracy. That's critical.

LWV: The League has been a supporter of the OPEN Government Act (S.39) that you refer to. What is the outlook for this legislation?

RB: It's going to be tough. I'm hopeful that it can get passed in this Congress. We're spending way too much on secrecy and very little, comparatively, on ensuring democratic values of participation and openness, especially public access to government documents.

I think that (amongst) government officials and leaders, there's a reluctance to help journalists, to be perceived as helping journalists, and that's what I think this legislation is wrongfully perceived to be. So, we have some education to do of all members of Congress. I'm hopeful.

There was a small piece [FOIA Exemption Disclosure Bill, S. 1181, by Sens. John Cornyn (R TX) and Patrick Leahy (D VT)] that went through a key committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, in early June. That piece simply said that if Congress is going to exempt information, or keep information from the public and exempt it from the FOIA, it has to specifically say so. So the piece doesn't do a whole lot. But there are currently about 140 laws on the books that exempt information from access for the public under FOIA. This (bill) says that Congress has to be clear about the exemptions. At least we can identify that Congress is trying to push legislation through. It's a start, and I'm hopeful that we can advance.

I think more and more people care and see that secrecy is getting in the way of both democracy and public safety, and our broader vision for how we fight terrorism. There's beginning to be a pushback. I'm hopeful, I'm optimistic. These are dark times, but there's hope out there.

LWV: It's apparent that you know the League of Women Voters and its mission very well. When were you introduced to the League?

RB: I grew up as a small child playing with trucks under the conference room table at the local Santa Barbara (CA) chapter of the League. That taught me that any citizen can make a huge difference, both in your local community and nationally, and I also learned that national issues and international issues are important in any work that you do, going through life. It's important to get involved in your community. Citizens getting involved is important and good for the country. It was good training.