Posted on: Sunday, March 13, 2005

EDITORIAL
Information is key to protecting democracy

During the early days of World War II, as some in Hawai'i will remember, the Islands were placed under secretive martial law, the newspapers were subject to military censorship and black curtains were drawn, literally, over windows so the enemy would not see the light.

After the trauma of the attack on Pearl Harbor, many saw these restrictions as difficult but necessary.

Today, in the wake of the attacks of 9/11 and general fear of terrorist attacks on the "homeland," we are once again seeing suggestions that our liberties be restricted in service of security.

Some temporary changes may be necessary. But it is equally important to be vigilant against the erosion of basic rights that would dismantle the very freedoms we are fighting for.

One such freedom, which is the topic of detailed discussion in today's Advertiser and in newspapers and other media across the nation in the first-ever national "Sunshine Week," is the right to access information held by the government.

It's easy to see freedom-of-information fights as nothing more than squabbles between bureaucrats anxious to keep order and news media eager to air dirty laundry.

But it means so much more. Access to government information is the key to maintaining an open and vibrant democracy. The first thing any repressive regime seeks to do is clamp down on access to information.

Sunshine, the metaphor for openness in government, is the disinfectant that keeps government clean.

In the wake of Watergate, both the federal and state governments — including Hawai'i — enacted broad new open-meeting and access-to-information ("Freedom of Information") laws.

As reported elsewhere in today's paper, these laws have had a strong impact on the ability of citizens to gain access to information their government has collected.

Where are my tax dollars being spent? Who is doing government work and for how much? Who has been arrested and what are the police and courts doing about the matter?

All this and more is available, in part because legislators and the public have demanded it.

But as with any law, the years offer opportunities for loopholes to get around the requirements.

At the federal level, an impressive effort to bring national open-government laws into the 21st Century is being led by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

Dubbed the OPEN Government Act of 2005, the proposal would strengthen and modernize federal open-government and freedom-of-information laws.

A key element is recognition of the importance of the Internet. This technology offers the chance to make vast amounts of information more widely available in a format average citizens can use.

This legislation deserves strong support from our congressional delegation.

At home, the landscape of access to information, government records and meetings looks better than it did a decade ago. But citizens still face struggles to get the information they are entitled to, and that means there's still work to be done.

One example is in law enforcement, which has a legitimate right to some levels of secrecy as they pertain to investigations and unconfirmed allegations of criminal activity.

Most people would agree that the police activities should not be a completely open book, and it's understandable that some level of secrecy would be needed in conducting investigations.

But this legitimate interest too often translates into a culture of secrecy that inappropriately creeps into other areas, such as police disciplinary records and access to records on cases long completed.

Another area that makes no sense is the state Legislature's decision to exempt itself from the very open records and open-meeting laws it has imposed on others.

How can lawmakers expect others to respect a law they deem unworkable or unnecessary for themselves? It's true that the Legislature has its own set of "sunshine" rules, but those are subject to the whims of leadership.

Openness is good for everyone — including those who help write the laws in the first place.