The world has changed drastically over the last 2 decades as the internet provides an environment for people and organizations to share as much information as possible. There are also more expectations and demands from people researching the internet to help gather and make decisions. This expectation poses a problem for government who has the challenge of determining what information to (or not to) share. From government’s perspective, there are privacy concerns. From the public’s perspective, especially as a taxpayer and government’s employer, government needs to be more transparent. Below is an article that indicates how difficult it can be to have government disclose information. The Freedom of Information and Privacy Commission has been trying to acquire out-sourced contract information relating to the IBM's Workplace Services contract worth $300 million, but has been fighting to get a full un-edited contract for 6 years. Transparency promotes trust, it’s interesting reading the comments at the bottom of the article on how most citizens feel about the whole situation:
First reaction: Yes, full transparency!
ReplyDeleteBut then reading some of the comments from the "general public" changes my tune. The level of distrust and desire to contradict anything an organization does is deeply seeded amongst many. Not to say that it's entirely misplaced...but from the perspective of someone who's seen from the inside that sometimes less than popular but necessary actions had to be taken, it can be a tough position to be in.
And the adage that "a little information can be a very dangerous thing" hold very true in this case.
No amount of full disclosure can illustrate the full story of an issue to everyone. People will often tend to pick out the pieces that they want to and run with it. Dangerous judgements can be made with very little information.
No matter how good the intentions, we cannot ignore the fact that this is a political game: where the other side(s) are always waiting to tear you to pieces. The ability for them to cripple your efforts is always looming.
They hold an important function to keep shady dealings in check. But when the intentions are truly meant for best the best interest of the public, that's when this issue becomes very difficult for the organization.
How do you draw the line between transparency and making decisions with limited resources in an environment where information, public perception, and a legacy of mistrust pervade?
A good point indeed, thanks for your response! The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act is what I think helps define where lines should be drawn. There are policies within this act that ensures what information can be disclosed. FOI also helps govrenment plan out how much resources needs to be allocated for each request. For anyone to initiate an FOI request can be an expensive undertaking which will likely deter most from even thinking about embarking on one. I echo the same sentiment that full disclosure can be dangerous, but is also dependent on what is being asked of. In this case where it's about systems development (IBM contract) and government IT security, there may be parts of the contract that identifies server related design & specifications that needs to be protected from the public.
ReplyDeleteThe BC Government is taking a stance on what should be provided. There is sensitive information within the contract that will expose government's security. I agree that not everything within the contract should be shared for this reason, I suppose it all varies on who is requesting the information and what purpose the FOI request is for.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vancouversun.com/health/Updated+Government+refuses+hand+over+unedited+copy+contract/4088738/story.html