Over 100 countries around the world have implemented some form of freedom of information legislation empowering the public’s ability to monitor its government. While extroverted Ben Franklin was preoccupied in Great Britain in 1766—confronting King George III and the English Parliament on the topic of personal freedoms—some 1,435 miles to the northeast, the shy, conflict-avoiding Swedes were introducing their Freedom of the Press Act—recognized as the oldest in the world; beating us to the concept by some 200 years.
Almost all open records laws mandate openness in government and access to government information. Such legislation usually contains a foundation statement, like the one found in Arkansas’ code—one of the strongest Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA) in the nation: “It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public policy.”
None of this transparency in government would have been possible, however, without John E. Moss, a backbench Democratic congressman from California. The former appliance salesman who grew up dirt poor in the Depression, labored for 12 years— often against his own party—to get the FOIA legislation passed.
Reporter C.J. Ciaramella’s magazine article, “The Freedom of Information Act—and the Hero Who Pioneered It” which appeared in the Pacific Standard a few days before the 50th anniversary of the FOIA (July 2016) wrote, “With the ongoing stress on both constitutional and inherent rights of American citizens and the added assertion of government subservience to the individual, Representative John Moss firmly believed it was necessary for government information to be available to the public.”
Ciaramella elaborates, “Like many great American contributions to democracy, it was the project of a lone crusader, opposed by the leading politicians of the day until it finally became law, then fully embraced on paper but never more than half-realized in reality.
The same year that Moss entered Congress, the American Society of Newspaper Editors published Harold Cross’ groundbreaking study on government secrecy. In the midst of the Cold War, the government’s classification system had exploded in size, and there was neither a clear right to access government records nor judicial remedy for anyone denied access. Under Cross’ guidance, those two principles would become the foundation of the FOIA.
“The right to speak and the right to print, without the right to know, are pretty empty,” Cross once said.
By the mid-1960s, [during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency] Moss had been holding hearings for more than a decade about government opacity. All told, 27 federal agencies testified on his proposed transparency legislation, all of them in opposition (Surprise! Surprise!).
“Yet by 1966, Moss had acquired a critical mass of support for the FOIA among liberal Democrats and Republicans, despite Johnson’s opposition behind closed doors.
Congress forced Johnson’s hand, however, on June 20, 1966, when the House passed the Freedom of Information Act by a vote of 307–0.”
Ciaramella concludes, “Despite his profanity-laced private opinions about the FOIA, Johnson’s signing statement was quite eloquent: ‘This legislation springs from one of our most essential principles: A democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the Nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest.’”
Let me transition from the FOIA, which should not be confused with the different and varying Freedom of Information Acts passed by the individual states, such as Minnesota. While many of the state acts may be similar in concept to the FOIA, they should not be viewed as identical.
The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA)–adopted by the Minnesota Legislature on April 11, 1974—eight years after passage of the federal FOIA—applies to all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any Minnesota government entity.
Former Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Margaret Westin, writing in a 1996 William Mitchell Law Review suggests, “The federal government and the various states have several ways of dealing with the inherent conflict among these important public goals of openness in government, protection of privacy interests, and the orderly and efficient operation of government. The MGDPA established a system in which every type of information maintained by any state or local governmental entity is broadly categorized.”
Westin maintains, “This precise line drawing by the legislature leaves no room for agency officials to determine if information should be released to the public and very little room to construe [interpret in a particular way] statute.”
Whether it’s the “good ol’ boy’s” desire for backroom dealings—keeping the public in the dark—or elected officials, special interest groups or economic development boards that like keeping things hush-hush until their deals are finalized, the principle of public access to information ensures the general public is guaranteed insight into activities pursued by such government agencies.
In the perceptive words of one of the most influential, radical advocates of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry:
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
The Cook County Minnesota Data Practices Policy, for members of the public, was approved and enacted by action of the Cook County Board of Commissioners November 15, 2016. The county policies on Data Practices is available on the county website: co.cook.mn.us/2016site/index.php/home/2016-01-13-17-47-09/policies.
Former Cook County Commissioner Garry Gamble is writing this ongoing column about the various ways government works.
Leave a Reply