Spokane7
50°
March 5, 2011 in Opinion
Editorial: Public has right to see research it has paid for
While it might seem at times that congressional debate is seat-of-the-pants silliness, much of what informs legislation is the product of empirical research and in-depth analysis. Congress, in essence, has its own think tank called the Congressional Research Service that produces valuable nonpartisan reports.
However, the public does not have easy, unfettered access to this information, so it is hamstrung in trying to separate the wheat of objective analysis from the chaff of subjective spin. Under current law, CRS reports are not considered public information. Members of Congress and their staffs can access the reports and then choose to make them public – or not – if the public requests them.
Many of the reports have been leaked, and some public interest groups collect them and make them available. Some for-profit entities sell them. That’s right – taxpayers come up with the $100 million a year to finance CRS and its reports, which are then sold back to them, if leaked.
A number of public interest and library groups have signed on to an effort to make this information freely available to the public online. The current CRS administrator, Daniel Mullohan, wants to maintain the secrecy of the reports, but he is resigning soon. So the groups have sent a letter to the director of the Library of Congress, which oversees CRS, to appoint a replacement who will work with Congress on greater transparency.
Mullohan has maintained that direct public access would hamper the quality of the work. He fears that analysts might approach their work differently if they know the audience is broadened beyond members of Congress. He also lumps confidential memos with the general reports and worries that the service would become the subject of subpoenas and other legal actions.
But there is no reason that a director who sees the value in open government could not fashion a compromise that would free the reports and maintain their quality while protecting confidential correspondence. Besides, as already noted, the reports are broadly disseminated in indirect ways. CRS has yet to demonstrate that this has created a problem.
Other objections are familiar ones when it comes to efforts to shield government records.
CRS says it would not be able to control how the information is used. That is, the media might mischaracterize or misquote the information. That’s a risk with all public information. The remedy of keeping it secret is unacceptable in an open society. The status quo allows politicians to cherry-pick or spin the information without an easy way to check out their versions.
CRS fears it could get overwhelmed with requests. That’s possible, but let’s see first. If this comes to pass, Congress can find a solution without shutting off the information.
We fail to see how a broad dissemination of nonpartisan information would be a bad development for democracy. Congress ought to make nonconfidential, nonclassified CRS reports readily available to the public that has already paid for them.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
Dazzeetrader11 on March 05 at 12:49 p.m.
Tell WSU Riverpoint! They recieved $701 K in tax based grants (a fraction of your sales tax) ( from YOU in E WA) and produced nothing. When asked to see what they’re doing with all that tax money, they refuse. None of YOUR business.
Uncooperative with an audit from outside people. Waste of money. Nothing to show for the money. Administration of Health Sciences should be let go or forced to retire. They drink a lot of coffee though.
Hardly a place where a medical school should be built….incompetent to manage. It’s a common theme throughout the system in higher education but WSU Riverpoint Health Science is among the worst ever seen.. Cut cut, snip snip.
de3 on March 05 at 8:48 p.m.
Their enrollment has also dropped by about 250 students since the peak in 2009. Are their budgets and spending plans not public?
Ed Byrnes on March 05 at 11:01 p.m.
One of the defining principles of the scientific method is transparency…everything is done in the light of day and open to challenge, further examination and replication…without this transparency don’t trust it as research.
dzink on March 07 at 8:38 a.m.
If the records will be available on-line wouldn’t that help with requests. Most people would access them on-line wouldn’t they?
If analysts would approach thier work differently depending on who is reading their opinions, maybe they should think more about what they are saying in the first place.
Agencies believe the records belong to them and not to the public. That is the problem with putting records on-line, the agency loses control of the records. I think this bothers them the most. Who is looking at our records? However, I feel sure there is an app for that.
.
freegovinfo on March 07 at 11:40 a.m.
There are 38 library and open government groups who have signed on to the letter to Librarian of Congress James Billington. Here’s the text of the letter and list of signatories: http://freegovinfo.info/node/3190