Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia: Commentary: Everybody's Business: Freedom of information

Commentary: Everybody's Business: Freedom of information

Published on Friday, November 23, 2007

Do we really need a Freedom of Information Law?

If our rulers want to keep us informed of what government is doing and has done, why can't they just tell us?

There is no law that forbids them. Transparency is public policy, right?

Hah.

But if they want to keep secrets from us, why are they going through the motions of drafting a Law that pretends to force them to tell us?

Dear me, are they having a problem with some government employees who won't obey orders?

Must be.

Surely the same effect would be served by tweaking what are called "General Orders" — the rules governing the terms and conditions of Civil Servants' employment and behaviour. They can be changed at a moment's notice, as long as the Governor gives his consent.

This proposed new Freedom of Information Law looks like an excuse for empire-building — plenty of new jobs for political friends and family. Diverting the Complaints Commissioner from delving into Cayman Airways' problems will be a bonus.

One thing the Law will not do is provide us with an iota more information than the politicians want us to have. It is as full of loopholes as you can possibly imagine.

Secrecy is the core principle on which Cayman's governance-model is based. Secrecy protects our rulers from accountability; that is why we have it.

The general concept of a Freedom of Information Law is sound enough. Nine years ago the Vision-2008 exercise's Open Government Committee recommended such a Law — as one element in a comprehensive package of reforms. We certainly didn't mean it to be a stand-alone item, like a lone lighthouse in the middle of a stormy sea.

"Climate of censorship"

Here is an extract from the Minutes of the very first meeting of the Committee, in October 1998.

We agreed with the principle of "government in the sunshine", whereby all government activities are open to public view by default - i.e. unless secrecy is legislated for in each specific case... We agreed that open government is a basic right, not a privilege to be granted or withheld by ExCo. [Exco was the forerunner of today's Cabinet.]

Here is another.

We decided that all "public documents should be available for inspection by the public without unreasonable delay, including minutes/notes of all government meetings relating to public affairs, and all government contracts and bids for contracts... We noted the possibility that the wholesale publication of government records might inhibit the participants in the relevant meetings, but we concluded that the principle of openness is too precious and beneficial to be lightly discarded."

And finally,

We deplored Cayman's "climate of censorship", which we believe works against the whole concept of open government. We will insist that the general public be allowed to debate the subject ... in whatever forums are available, beginning with the publication of these Minutes."

Unfortunately, our optimism was dashed when the Vision-2008 Planning Team (I think it was called) forbade us to circulate our Minutes beyond our little band and the Team itself. Thanks to political censorship from that day to this, the extracts above are the first ever to be published in any public forum.

The reason why I have quoted directly from the Minutes is to illustrate the gulf between our ideal of a secrecy-free system of governance and the shabby reality. We on the Committee genuinely believed in open and accountable government. The government of Cayman didn't then, and doesn't now.

Behind closed doors

We all acknowledged, in our meetings, that the integrity of the Work Permit procedures was irredeemably compromised by the secrecy of the decision-making process. So we recommended that all Work Permits be issued by some Civil Service unit, in the hope that an Ombudsman (also recommended) would limit corruption there.

The recent decision to give Immigration Department clerks the power to issue Permits is in line with our Committee's report. We must hope Cayman is not jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

The Immigration Department's reputation for integrity fell away disastrously in the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan. There have been some reports of recovery, but the Department's culture of secrecy is as strong as ever. The proposed Freedom of Information Law may in practice, therefore, actually provide less information than we get now, instead of more.

The Immigration authorities have an anti-social tradition of flashing their "not in the public interest" badge, in response to legitimate requests for information. If it sticks to that tradition, it will wreck all hopes of transparency in government.

It's hard to see either the Department or any of the crony-Boards suddenly finding religion, and committing to transparency. I wouldn't bet ten cents on it happening voluntarily, and a law full of loopholes is not going to make any difference.

A few years ago a US judge rebuked the then US Attorney General for conducting secret deportation hearings against certain immigrants. Writing the judgment of an Appeals Court, he criticised the uprooting of people's lives by decisions made in secret sessions. His words have become famous. "Democracies die behind closed doors", he wrote.

Ain't it the truth?

Pasted from <http://www.caymannetnews.com/news/newspublish/home.print.php?news_id=3656>