Transparency matters at every level of government
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came under fire for conducting government business on her personal email account, on a private device, via a private server. She later deleted thousands of emails without an independent review as to whether the deleted emails pertained to the public’s business.
Even though President Trump made these transgressions a primary focus of his campaign against Clinton, his White House staff members are reportedly conducting government business via an app called “Confide” that immediately deletes messages.
The concern in both of these cases is that the public’s business is being conducted in the shadows, in breach of the ethical obligation that all public servants have to be transparent and accountable.
Both Clinton and White House staff may have violated federal public records laws if they deleted electronic documents required to be preserved. However, because they deleted communications on their own accord we can’t know.
This is not just a problem on the national stage. San Francisco supervisors have been criticized for using a messaging app called “Telegram” that also deletes messages immediately.
After San Jose City Council members conducted public business on private email, the city of San Jose was taken to court for refusal to turn over those private communications in a response to a Public Records Act request.
The city’s stance is that it would be too burdensome on city resources to monitor the private emails of public officials—not to mention the invasion of privacy that would result. The San Jose case is currently before the California Supreme Court.
Transparency in government is an ethical virtue. For the public to retain its trust in government, it must have confidence that those in public service are at all times acting in the best interest of the public. As stewards of the public trust, government leaders and employees have a fiduciary responsibility to act in a manner that is accountable to the public.
The California Constitution actually mandates that the public’s ability to know what government is doing is a fundamental right. The preamble to the Brown Act — California’s open meeting law — makes a clear case as to why:
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
Open government policies such as public record regulations and open meeting laws ensure that those in government are acting for the common good, and they help keep a check on corruption.
All these noble concepts are for naught, however, if we do not stand up for our rights and require that the people’s business be conducted in the open. There are obvious exceptions for national security and personnel matters, but for the most part those in government have a responsibility to govern in a transparent manner.
The president should sign an executive order requiring that digital communications between executive branch employees be transmitted in such a way as to allow retention for the public record. Likewise, the state of California should update its open government laws to prohibit the use of private email accounts and devices to conduct public business.
To quote President Ronald Reagan, “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, as Jefferson cautioned, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.” It is up to us to assert our right to government in the light, not the shadows.