The Obama transition team announced last week that it would provide unrestricted online access to information and documents submitted by outside groups and individuals.
“Every day, we meet with organizations who present ideas for the Transition and the Administration, both orally and in writing,” wrote transition co-chair John Podesta in a December 5 memo (pdf). “We want to ensure that we give the American people a ‘seat at the table’ and that we receive the benefit of their feedback.”
One might think that the disclosure of advice and recommendations contributed by outside parties is a small, easy step to take. But remarkably, such outside advice has often been kept secret. Most famously, Vice President Cheney fought to preserve the secrecy of his 2001 Energy Task Force.
Even non-zealots like the members of the CIA Historical Review Panel (HRP) have surrendered to secrecy. “Because the HRP’s advice to the DCIA must be completely frank and candid, we are not reporting Panel recommendations,” wrote panel chair Prof. Robert Jervis of Columbia University in the Panel’s latest statement, implying strangely that his panel is unable to express its views on CIA classification policy candidly in public. There is no indication so far that would-be Obama advisors feel any similar constraint.
The broader significance of the new Obama transition team policy was assessed by John Wonderlich of the Sunlight Foundation in “Obama and Affirmative Disclosure.”
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.