On his first day in office as president, Barack Obama issued a statement intended to further protect the Freedom of Information Act.
“The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails,” Obama’s statement said.
Obama’s statement, many have noted, is in stark contrast with the Bush administration’s policies.
In October 2001, former President George W. Bush appointed Attorney General John Ashcroft, who issued a memo to public agencies telling them that if they were sued for retaining information under FOIA, the Justice Department would defend them in court, providing their decision to withhold information had “sound legal basis.”
Ashcroft reinforced the memo in 2002, urging agencies to protect information that could be considered “sensitive.”
At the Massachusetts Statehouse Friday, state legislators and journalists discussed Obama’s more transparent stance on FOIA.
“I don’t know that there is a huge problem,” Alan Cote, the state’s Supervisor of Public Records, said about the current statutes of FOIA.
Currently, FOIA allows any person to write to a government agency to request records. However, agencies can withhold any information they deem to be sensitive.
Exempted records are, by definition, exempt from disclosure and may be withheld from public inspection.
“The custodian of the records is not required to give up the documents,” Cote said, “It’s at the discretion of the custodian. However, he or she could choose to give the individual the information.”
Rep. Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford) said it was a subjective process.
A custodian may choose to disclose a record which falls within the exemptions. The custodian also has the power to redact, or edit, from a public record, any information falling within an exemption.
“It really is a strange system,” Cote said.
Cabral, a sponsor of public law legislation, was concerned about the companies that received bailout money and were not held accountable when the money went to mysterious sources, he said.
“How they get and how they spend the money isn’t public. And in some cases, we’re talking millions of dollars,” Cabral said.
Attendee Sarah Cox, 28, said she agreed with Cabral.
“I personally don’t think that it’s fair,” Cox said. “[The taxpayers] are paying for the mistakes and poor business practices of others. We should be able to see where all this money is going to because it’s essentially our money.”
Boston Globe correspondent Bill Dedman said reporting a story about police traffic stops was anything but easy.
He went through a lot of negotiating to get the public records, he said.
Fellow journalist Debra Hernandez said it was important for people to push for public information to be made available.
“Every time officials try to close off public information, it’s important for people, not just media, but all people, not only to push back, but also to talk about it,” Hernandez said.
Walter Robinson, a former investigative reporter for the Globe and current Northeastern University professor, said the government has the right to protect sensitive information that could harm others or place people in danger if names, places, or other specifics are disclosed.
“Why can’t we reform the system?” Robinson said. “Not eliminate –– reform."
Obama: ‘openness prevails’
Published: Monday, February 2, 2009
Updated: Monday, February 2, 2009 07:02
 "Photo: Glenn Boozan")
Glenn Boozan
Globe reporter Walter Robinson speaks in favor of Obama’s transparent stance on the Freedom of Information Act while Alan Cote and Antonio Cabral look on.
2 comments
Currently, FOIA allows any person to write to a government agency to request records. However, agencies can withhold any information they deem to be sensitive. Exempted records are, by definition, exempt from disclosure and may be withheld from public inspection.