BC-FOI-BIGBUDDY-COMMENTARY:MCT -- op-ed (660 words)
Big Buddy government
FOCUS ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
(MCT)
Brenda Afzal, a registered nurse in Baltimore, tried to find out about dangerous chemicals stored in her area, but the Department of Justice denied her reliable access to this public information. Joseph McCormick of Floyd, Va., wanted to educate neighbors about plans to run a gas pipeline through his community, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied him the information. And Glenda Bowling of Aberdeen, Md., sought maps of water contamination in her neighborhood's drinking water wells, but the Department of Defense withheld them.
These stories illustrate the consequences of government withholding public health and environmental information. Denied such information, concerned citizens must rely on government to identify and address problems of public exposure to toxic pollution or hazardous materials, with no recourse if the problems are not solved.
In Aldous Huxley's science-fiction classic "Brave New World," the government is "Big Brother," watching citizensí every move. On environmental health and safety, the Bush administration is more like "Big Buddy" -- implying we should trust our government like we trust our best buddy. But do you trust government to protect your health without public accountability and oversight?
Soon after 9/11, government agencies removed more than 6,000 public documents from their Web sites, according to the Center for American Progress. None of the information removed was classified. Agencies removed data that helped communities plan for and protect against chemical hazards, pipeline dangers and nuclear power plant accidents. Environmental information stored in government filing cabinets, such as emergency evacuation plans, is also harder to access.
The Freedom of Information Act provides public access to government-held information unless certain exemptions apply (such as privacy, trade secrets or national security). However, in October 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft specifically discouraged agencies from releasing information to citizens under the act as long as there are technical grounds for withholding it. New rules, directives and legislation now authorize government officials to protect information that was never classified. Bureaucrats can simply label information as sensitive security information, critical infrastructure information, or sensitive but unclassified, taking it out of the public domain.
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking new authority to clear-cut forests or drain wetlands without public review and comment as required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Under the proposal, appropriate security and environmental officials will ensure that the consideration of environmental effects will be consistent with the letter and intent of the act. In other words, the public would have to trust the governmentís word that the projects are environmentally sound.
However, Bush administration secrecy is not going unnoticed. The Congress Government Reform Committee released a report in September 2004 titled "Secrecy in the Bush Administration," which concludes, "The administrationís actions represent an unparalleled assault on the principle of open government and accountability."
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., introduced the Restore Open Government Act to reverse the rising tide of Bush administration secrecy. Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Patrick Leahy of Vermont have introduced the Restoration of Freedom of Information Act to repeal new secrecy provisions. In addition, citizen coalitions like OpenTheGovernment.org have formed to advocate for less secrecy and more democracy. People in communities working to make their neighborhoods safer feel the brunt of this secrecy. To them the retort, "Don't worry, trust Big Buddy," is unsatisfactory.
------
ABOUT THE WRITERS
George Sorvalis is outreach coordinator and Paul Orum is director of the working group on Community Right-to-Know in Washington. Readers may write to them at: Working Group on Community Right-to-Know, 218 D Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003; Web site: www.crtk.org.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service
subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this
column; the opinions are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent
the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
------
© 2004, Community Right-to-Know
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services