Does a Pillar on its Side Still Exist?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Adam Kuczynski
May 30, 2020
Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 crisis has demanded the attention of public administrators—but at what cost?
As if the virus itself was not enough, the various debates arising from the virus, like the obvious nursing home policy failures in several states, reopening strategies and looming budget shortfalls all clamor for the remaining bits of time and energy of these same overworked individuals.
In the midst of all this, though, lies a pillar of government on its side: transparency.
Transparency advocates and reporters from various states, from California to New Jersey, are raising concerns that governments are being less-than-forthcoming with information during the COVID-19 crisis.
Governments, in response (and fairly logically), point to several reasons, but generally all fall under the umbrella of the COVID-19 response efforts: there is a lack of manpower and unstaffed offices. This would be more understandable, if at this very moment, individuals are seeking information about an issue that was postponed because of the COVID-19 crisis—like say, a government contract to build a now-delayed project. However, what if the information sought is about the contemporaneous COVID-19 government response?
While it can be argued that disasters of this sort allow for some wiggle room when it comes to transparency—like during a hurricane or blizzard—a purist may argue it is during times of disaster (read: when governments can expand its powers) that transparency is most needed. Some examples of concern throughout the nation:
- According to media reports, agencies in Governor Phil Murphy’s New Jersey, for example, cited a “little-known” 2005 law, entitled the, “Emergency Health Powers Act,” as the reason to reject requests from media outlets seeking records related to the government’s response to the outbreak. These requests included information related to state contracts with labs and consultants; nursing home supplies; and protective gear issues.
- The League of California Cities, which represents nearly 500 cities in the Golden State, requested Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration to delay the mandated 10-day requirement to respond to information requests under the California Public Records Act, according to news reports.
- Transparency advocates in Pennsylvania claim that executive agencies in Governor Tom Wolf’s administration are seemingly delaying requests indefinitely. According to Pennsylvania Capital-Star, Wolf said that public record requests have been, “Put off, to certain extent,” and that it may remain that way as long as the Commonwealth is dealing with the pandemic. However, the PA Attorney General, Auditor General, and Treasurer (who are all independently elected officials) have responded to public record requests—as has the legislature.
- Likewise, two of Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds’ agencies have denied Des Moines Register requests about the pandemic response citing a, “Broad confidentiality exemption” in public records law. The information sought was an emergency-response plan; reports about day-to-day actions regarding the state of the virus by the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Management; and information regarding requests for COVID-19 testing.
There may be legitimate reasons for these denials, and others not listed here—but denials should be the exception, not the rule for blanket responses. In any other situation, these delays may cause an uproar. These issues are dealing with life-and-death (especially considering nursing home policies in New York, Michigan, and other states) and millions of dollars in contracts for projects that arguably were not needed (such as the field hospital in Brooklyn that cost New York City (a federally-reimbursed) $21 million to build—yet saw no patients).
Government officials may make mistakes, and most certainly do. This is especially true during trying and unprecedented events. However, it is incumbent on these same officials to make information available to citizens (or at the very least, journalists) to give a glimpse into the decisionmaking process. During a disaster, the same tenants of democracies still hold true.
A suggestion may be for governments to prepare an emergency-transparency plan. This plan needs to include a way for information to be dispersed to the public. This may include a prioritized version of an information request—or a limitation of requests to the disaster (or business) at hand during a declaration of emergency.
In an encouraging sign, many of the state governments (some in a bipartisan fashion) have undertaken legislative fixes and support for forcing transparency efforts amongst their respective executive branches. Also, many state advocacy groups are also making very concerted efforts to ensure transparency is upheld according to the letter, and spirit, of the law.
After all, if transparency is a pillar that holds up democracy, participants within democracies should take the added effort to reinforce it—especially, and most importantly, during the storms.
Author: Adam Kuczynski, MPA, is currently completing his Ph.D. in Public Administration at Rutgers University-Newark’s School of Public Affairs and Administration. Adam has served in local government, and worked as a journalist and director of communications at a nonprofit. He focuses primarily on volunteerism and philanthropy, but also on transparency, administration, and law. He may be reached at [email protected].
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
Does a Pillar on its Side Still Exist?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Adam Kuczynski
May 30, 2020
Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 crisis has demanded the attention of public administrators—but at what cost?
As if the virus itself was not enough, the various debates arising from the virus, like the obvious nursing home policy failures in several states, reopening strategies and looming budget shortfalls all clamor for the remaining bits of time and energy of these same overworked individuals.
In the midst of all this, though, lies a pillar of government on its side: transparency.
Transparency advocates and reporters from various states, from California to New Jersey, are raising concerns that governments are being less-than-forthcoming with information during the COVID-19 crisis.
Governments, in response (and fairly logically), point to several reasons, but generally all fall under the umbrella of the COVID-19 response efforts: there is a lack of manpower and unstaffed offices. This would be more understandable, if at this very moment, individuals are seeking information about an issue that was postponed because of the COVID-19 crisis—like say, a government contract to build a now-delayed project. However, what if the information sought is about the contemporaneous COVID-19 government response?
While it can be argued that disasters of this sort allow for some wiggle room when it comes to transparency—like during a hurricane or blizzard—a purist may argue it is during times of disaster (read: when governments can expand its powers) that transparency is most needed. Some examples of concern throughout the nation:
There may be legitimate reasons for these denials, and others not listed here—but denials should be the exception, not the rule for blanket responses. In any other situation, these delays may cause an uproar. These issues are dealing with life-and-death (especially considering nursing home policies in New York, Michigan, and other states) and millions of dollars in contracts for projects that arguably were not needed (such as the field hospital in Brooklyn that cost New York City (a federally-reimbursed) $21 million to build—yet saw no patients).
Government officials may make mistakes, and most certainly do. This is especially true during trying and unprecedented events. However, it is incumbent on these same officials to make information available to citizens (or at the very least, journalists) to give a glimpse into the decisionmaking process. During a disaster, the same tenants of democracies still hold true.
A suggestion may be for governments to prepare an emergency-transparency plan. This plan needs to include a way for information to be dispersed to the public. This may include a prioritized version of an information request—or a limitation of requests to the disaster (or business) at hand during a declaration of emergency.
In an encouraging sign, many of the state governments (some in a bipartisan fashion) have undertaken legislative fixes and support for forcing transparency efforts amongst their respective executive branches. Also, many state advocacy groups are also making very concerted efforts to ensure transparency is upheld according to the letter, and spirit, of the law.
After all, if transparency is a pillar that holds up democracy, participants within democracies should take the added effort to reinforce it—especially, and most importantly, during the storms.
Author: Adam Kuczynski, MPA, is currently completing his Ph.D. in Public Administration at Rutgers University-Newark’s School of Public Affairs and Administration. Adam has served in local government, and worked as a journalist and director of communications at a nonprofit. He focuses primarily on volunteerism and philanthropy, but also on transparency, administration, and law. He may be reached at [email protected].
Follow Us!