We just finished the discussion this evening about transparency in our government and businesses.
While I started the discussion about the public's need for transparency in a democratic system versus the politician's right to privacy, we quickly got pass the often juicy sex scandals and moved to what the public is entitled to know about politicians' discussions with business and other interest groups.
Bob is leery of politicians playing golf with business people as he sees that is where back room deals are arranged with no public record. He would not trust politicians that play golf with business and interest groups.
Dan thought that we cannot get into restricting the politicians from seeing, meeting, and discussing matters with people. We will shut down all other communications as well as the possible backroom deals.
Mano said that all discussions between politicians and interest groups needs to be recorded. It need not be disclosed right away as there are all kinds of reasons for discussions to be confidential. However, these records should be there to be available for disclosure later on either to restricted third parties such as commissions or to the general public.
Joseph is concerned that all these need for transparency is going to use up a lot of tax dollars and he can see tax dollars being better used elsewhere.
Shula did not like the "yellow press" churning out sex scandals and sleazy looking possible side interest of politicians. These are just to sell papers and create sensationalism.
However, it is precisely because it is too costly to closely monitor all politician and public servants with tax dollars that the media becomes the guerrilla warfare approach to exposing scandals under the name of protecting the public's interest.
Rafi mentioned the example of a NASA scientist using Canadian science air craft to study snow. When a reporter asked for information through the access of information act, it was found that a whole team of public servants had worked on it to make sure that proper information was disclosed without embarrassment to the government. There was way more people working on the disclosure of the information than there is the one NASA person doing the science experiment. A real example of how transparency is costing us real government money.
Bob said that the police is an example of lack of transparency in government. It is difficult to get information out of the police and he found that "complains" to the police are routinely discarded unless it is submitted as a "formal complaint" in which case they then have to handle it according to set rules.
This shows the discrepancy between what the public expect of the system and how the system can work around rules set for it.
The discussion then move to the ethics of Wiki Leaks claiming that government should have no secrets. No one is ready for that extreme position of transparency and the discussion move to the conditions for whistle blowing.
Was it ethical to leak the Pentagon Papers showing the real state of the Vietnam War? Are people bound by confidentiality agreements guilty of breaking that agreement when they see harm being done by not disclosing the confidential information?
It is certainly right to disclose confidential information that include fraud. But what if the actions are legal but will harm others? How much harm does it take to whistle blow?
Being ethically right and legally right seems to be at odds here.
Shula sees the main difference between government and business in that we need transparency in government to judge politicians whereas most business leaders have the same interest as their shareholders, namely to increase the value of the company.
In any case, publicly traded companies have their rules of information disclosure to the general public.
I tend to agree with Mano that it is not necessary for politicians to disclose everything but their discussions all needed to be recorded for transparency sake. The fact that a record exists ensures that politicians are operating on the possibility of a bright light being shone on what they have done.
The problem is that how would we know if everything is properly recorded? Politicians talk and meet people everywhere and all the time. It is still up to them to not discuss things "off the record".
We have the theory, but the practice can be a chasm away.
No comments:
Post a Comment