The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Transparency You Can Believe In! https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2262 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:55 am ] |
Post subject: | Transparency You Can Believe In! |
PROMISES, PROMISES: Records not so open with Obama Quote: Major agencies cited the exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush's final full budget year, according to annual reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period. [Bold Mine]The government's track record under the Freedom of Information Act is widely considered a principal measurement of how transparently it makes decisions. When Obama promised last year to be more open he said doing so "encourages accountability through transparency," and said: "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government." 47,395 in 12 months for Bush (That Secretive Liar!) 70,779 in 9 months for Obama (The Champion of Transparency!) Now that I think about it, I guess there's really no surprises here. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:54 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Transparency You Can Believe In! |
Quote: Among the most frequently cited reasons for keeping records secret: one that Obama specifically told agencies to stop using so frequently. The Freedom of Information Act exception, known as the "deliberative process" exemption, lets the government withhold records that describe its decision-making behind the scenes. Obama's directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored. I'm sort of surprised to learn that Obama doesn't have control of the Executive Branch. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:01 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Transparency You Can Believe In! |
Diamondeye wrote: Quote: Among the most frequently cited reasons for keeping records secret: one that Obama specifically told agencies to stop using so frequently. The Freedom of Information Act exception, known as the "deliberative process" exemption, lets the government withhold records that describe its decision-making behind the scenes. Obama's directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored. I'm sort of surprised to learn that Obama doesn't have control of the Executive Branch. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Now that I've gotten that out of my system... I'm thinking that undoing the secret structure of the previous administration results in a flurry of paperwork that also needs to be considered secret. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:06 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Transparency You Can Believe In! |
I'm also thinking that there's a number of requests out there that are sheer douchebaggery; requests for stuff that no sane government is going to reveal in public that either Obamawankers thought they'd be able to get because "unprecedented openness" meant "no secrecy whatsoever", or that morons thought they "needed" to know for no reason other than curiosity, or that might even be spurious requests just to jack the rejection numbers up. It would be nice to see a breakdown of what's been asked for. For example, if there's a lot of requests for "how many incoming missiles can AEGIS control an engagement against at one time?" I'm going to be a lot less sympathetic to complaints about FOIA than if there's primarily requests for things like "Why'd you pick MY house to emminent domain?" |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:10 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm sure you could say the same thing happened during the last administration, DE. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: I'm sure you could say the same thing happened during the last administration, DE. Quote: The government's track record under the Freedom of Information Act is widely considered a principal measurement of how transparently it makes decisions. It seem logical to me that more decisions (secret as well as public decisions) need to be made in the first year on the job as opposed to the last.
|
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:26 am ] |
Post subject: | |
How does that have anything to do with the point DE made? |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: I'm sure you could say the same thing happened during the last administration, DE. I doubt very much that it occured to enough people to matter to spam GWBs administration with FOIA requests to drive up the apparent rejections because "openness" wasn't the major campaign issue during either election. I simply don't find the numbers all that meaningful without some idea of what sort of requests have been filed. I DO find the suggestion that the bureaucracy of the Executive Branch might find it acceptable to simply ignore Presidential directives, and I'd be interested to know what, if anything, he plans to do about that. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:32 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: Vindicarre wrote: I'm sure you could say the same thing happened during the last administration, DE. I doubt very much that it occured to enough people to matter to spam GWBs administration with FOIA requests to drive up the apparent rejections because "openness" wasn't the major campaign issue during either election. The number of requests went down from 2008 to 2009. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:36 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: How does that have anything to do with the point DE made? DE's suggestions that there are "requests for stuff that no sane government is going to reveal in public". I'm thinking more decisions = more stuff = more requests for secret stuff rejected 'cause more stuff changed. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:38 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: Diamondeye wrote: Vindicarre wrote: I'm sure you could say the same thing happened during the last administration, DE. I doubt very much that it occured to enough people to matter to spam GWBs administration with FOIA requests to drive up the apparent rejections because "openness" wasn't the major campaign issue during either election. The number of requests went down from 2008 to 2009. Which, again, tells us little. It's entirely possible that spurious requests have gone up while legitimate requests have gone down. If not, that again would bring up the concern that Obama cannot run his branch of government. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:41 am ] |
Post subject: | |
From the article: Quote: Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request. So, a single request often generate multiple exemptions, I'm guessing it's based on the complexity of the information being requested... which would be, in my opinion, the kind of stuff that undergoes the most change when there's a change in administration.
|
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:42 am ] |
Post subject: | |
DE: It's entirely possible that legitimate requests have gone up while spurious requests have gone down, but hey I can only go on what I've seen. Taskiss wrote: From the article: Quote: Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request. And? Oh wait, Obama's agencies must be citing more exemptions for each request than Bush's did; yup, got it. He really is running a transparent administration. Silly me. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: DE: It's entirely possible that legitimate requests have gone up while spurious requests have gone down, but hey I can only go on what I've seen. Taskiss wrote: From the article: Quote: Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request. And? Obama's agencies must be citing more exemptions than Bush's did; yup, got it. I don't see why citing more exemptions per request (on average) would really be that big an issue; apparently one exemption is enough to deny it. I'm more concerned that bureaucrats feel that they don't need to follow Presidential directives. I suppose it's possible that Obama's directive is just boilerplate to make it look like he's trying for openness, but if so all he's doing is making himself look incompetant. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:49 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I guess I just find it hard to believe that the Obama administration has gotten ~67% more spurious requests and/or chose to cite the exemptions that differently than the previous administration, all while receiving ~50,000 less requests. /shrug |
Author: | Taskiss [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:54 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: DE: Executive Order 13233, for instance, limited access to the records of former United States Presidents.It's entirely possible that legitimate requests have gone up while spurious requests have gone down, but hey I can only go on what I've seen. Taskiss wrote: From the article: Quote: Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request. And? Executive Order 13489 (January 21, 2009) completely revoked Order 13233. Now, instead of a single exemption, requests for information can conceivably require multiple exemptions because the blanket exemption isn't in effect. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:58 am ] |
Post subject: | |
...and they could conceivably require fewer exemptions. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:59 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Transparency You Can Believe In! |
Conceivably. However, I'm A) Suspicious of the press anyhow and B) Quite willing to credit things like this to incompetance before malfeasence. |
Author: | Taskiss [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:08 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: ...and they could conceivably require fewer exemptions. I suppose so, but I could hypothesize many more examples of it requiring more exemptions than fewer. Obviously, mileage will vary. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:12 am ] |
Post subject: | |
DE: I wouldn't go so far as to call it malfeasance, it's just another example of empty promises. This seems pretty hypocritical to me, though: Quote: The administration has stalled even over records about its own efforts to be more transparent. The AP is still waiting — after nearly three months — for records it requested about the White House's "Open Government Directive," rules it issued in December directing every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public.
|
Author: | RangerDave [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:37 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Transparency You Can Believe In! |
Gotta agree with Vind on this. Given Obama's rhetoric his supporters' zeal about increasing transparency, his record so far has been disappointing to say the least. And this isn't the only data point regarding Obama's view of the appropriate checks on his power as President. His defense of indefinite detention and limited due process for detainees, warrantless wiretapping, etc. also contribute to the impression that he supports a much less constrained Presidency than his rhetoric suggests. It's a big disappointment for many of his supporters, myself included. |
Author: | Aizle [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:39 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I also am disappointed by this as well. Perhaps there are good reasons for it, I don't know nor likely ever will. But it's definately not what I had hoped for. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
One party two faces. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
The thing that gets me, is that after he was elected, I remembered the things about him/his campaign that I was in favor of, and his transparency promises were in the top three, along with his stance on lobbyists and pork. It really pisses me off that the things I was against that he favored, he's going full bore on, while the things I liked, he's letting fall by the wayside. I can't get over the feeling of being the fool for believing (part of) the hype. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: I can't get over the feeling of being the fool for believing (part of) the hype. You didn't. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |