A Prologue to a Farce
By Ellen Smith, Editor
Mine Safety and Health News
February 26, 2007

As Mine Safety and Health News readers know, I like “open doors.” I am a strong advocate for freedom of information. I believe in true transparency in decision-making.

So this latest story in Mine Safety and Health News on private meetings held with the Office of Management and Budget on the new civil penalties rule-making after the close of the record has me once again on my soapbox for freedom of information.

For those of you who have not read the story, MSHA submitted the final rule on civil penalties for OMB approval. The rule-making record was closed. There were no more comments that could be submitted. There were no more public hearings. It was now MSHA’s job to fulfill a congressional mandate to revise the civil penalty system, and OMB’s job to review it.

However, several mine operators and industry groups asked for a meeting with OMB, MSHA, the Solicitor’s Office and the Small Business Administration to discuss the civil penalties rule after the record was closed. I asked MSHA for information about the meetings, and if the meetings violated the Administrative Procedures Act. MSHA would not comment. I was told by government officials that information from those meetings would not be released to the public. MSHA assured me that the information in those meetings would not be considered or affect the final rule.

Legal? Yes, so I’m told.
Ethical? I think not.

First, if you cannot or will not consider the information, then why have the meeting?

Second, let’s turn the tables and suppose this was a Democratic Administration and it was the UMWA or Steelworkers or Chemical Workers unions having closed door meetings with OMB, MSHA and hte Solicitor’s Office on a rule after the close of the record.

Third, and most importantly, I do not believe that decisions that affect mine operators and miners should be made without the public understanding exactly how decisions were reached by those in the government who work for us. I believe the decision making and deliberative processes should be public, with government employees openly debating and defending decisions that are made.

No closed doors.
No back-room deals.
Freedom of information.
True transparency.

Let me reiterate that I understand these meetings are legal. I understand that the unions or whomever, could have also asked for meetings with OMB. But regardless of who is asking for a closed door meeting, where there is no record made or available, when it is after the close of a record, I am against this policy.

Readers never know if I am approaching this argument as a Democrat or as a Republican. During the Clinton Administration, readers were sure I was a staunch Republican when I was fighting the Review Commission to keep the FMSHRC meetings open. During this administration, readers are sure I am a staunch Democrat. However, I stand on this issue with conservatives like Phyllis Shafly and the Heritage Foundation. I stand on this issue with liberals like the late Paul Wellstone or OMB Watch. For this is neither a Democrat or a Republican issue. This is an issue that goes to the very core of what we need to believe in, and fight for, to retain a true, always growing democracy in our young Republic.

We should be continuing to strive for “a government of the people, by the people, for the people...” But somehow this concept has gotten lost since the Gettysburg Address of Nov. 19, 1863.

As a citizen, and as a journalist, I believe that I must do my part to hold our government accountable. The backbone of this nation – the diversity of people that have been brought together to make this nation – can only be held together if we can trust each other despite our differences. This includes trust in the government.

But in order to trust the government, and each other, we must have access to all records and true transparency. Because it is this transparency that will prevent backroom deals that benefit no one but a few and at a cost to many.

Policy makers are always trying to protect themselves from scrutiny and criticism, which is why they do not want us to see meeting notes, or records of what they do, or how they make decisions. This is human nature. But you know the saying: “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Have the guts to explain your decision. Have the honesty to say “I looked at the evidence that you now see before you and made the decision I thought was best.” You will always be second-guessed. We always are, even if we only second-guess ourselves.

Somehow, those “in power” have forgotten that they in fact work for “us” and that “we” have every right to know how decisions are made on any issue. We have a right to know what was discussed in those closed-door government meetings whether it was a meeting on civil penalties, an energy task force or health care issues. If you work for the government, you work for “us,” and “we” have a right to know.

James Madison wrote in 1822 "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and the people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power, which knowledge gives."

An open and democratic society isn’t easy. An open and democratic society isn’t pretty. An open and democratic society is time-consuming. But an open government and freedom of information is what we must have if our democracy is to survive. An open government and freedom of information is what we must demand if we are to have faith and trust in our government no matter what our political affiliation might be.