From the Lewiston Tribune
By Ivar Nelson
The recent briefing of public information about the large and ongoing fires in Nez Perce County is a prime example of how immediate, known information about an event benefits our community. The Idaho Department of Lands, in charge of the containment of the fires, did an amazing job of communicating to those impacted by the fire and the public at large all they knew about fire dangers and fire damages. Their immediate information about the Gwen and Texas fires used all media, digital and print, and was understandable and useful. We received multiple presentations from officials during the week, with the latest information contained in understandable graphics and maps.
Providing knowledge about an event such as a horrific fire helps individuals know whether their homes are threatened and what are their choices, helps responders know the overall picture and assures the public that their government is taking responsible action in face of the danger. Unfounded fears are allayed, rumors are confirmed or proven false and public panic is soothed or averted.
This is public officials being, well, public.
Contrast that with what happens when public officials forget that they work for the public.
That happens not because the officials are corrupt or dishonest, but usually for reasons of expediency or the difficulty in dealing with a skeptical public. It is so much easier to ask for forgiveness than to get approval. But this adds to challenges when the lack of information leads to a public backlash.
This happened to the University of Idaho’s proposal to take the University of Phoenix under its wing. Because the proposal was kept under wraps until it was finalized, the very act of secrecy of the acquisition caused a negative public and political response. There also were aspects of the deal that were debatable, including the history of malfeasance at Phoenix, lack of UI experience with a Phoenix’s student body, the involvement of private equity firms and the financial exposure of UI. The important point is that a more public involvement of stakeholders, including the taxpaying people of Idaho, would have either developed support for the proposal or clarified the problems.
The given reason for the secrecy was that the private businesses involved, including the private equity firm that was selling Phoenix, demanded it; that private business transactions such as this need to be done in, well, in private.
Is agreeing to nondisclosure on the private business side inimical to public decision making? What is the line between the disclosure of information for the good of the public as in firefighting and a lack of disclosure of information for the good of private business as in the Phoenix proposal?
We entrust the public business to people we elect, with their assurance that they will act in the public good. We elect the Idaho governor who appoints the Idaho Board of Education who appoints the president of the University of Idaho who makes the deal with Apollo Management, the owner of Phoenix University. When deals are made behind closed doors, speculation swells. When public money is involved, there is intense interest in what is happening. When it is the flagship university of the state, that interest is magnified.
And who knows the truth? Which is exactly the point when public business is conducted in private. Does the aggravation of having everyone involved at the table, especially the taxpayers, outweigh the possibility of having the arrangement blow up later when it becomes public?
Public involvement is messy. Making decisions in secrecy or in “smoke-filled” rooms is faster and more manageable, but is it as effective in the long run? Or does that just stimulate the public to react, as in the Open Primary Initiative, to protect its sovereignty?
The tendency toward secrecy is also seen in the increased use of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). Once used by private business to protect trade secrets, negotiations and client information, they have increasingly been used in official public business, as in the Phoenix agreement. This is not about the use of NDAs for classified state information that is protected from disclosure by government statue or the Privacy Act protection of personal information.
Succinctly, “NDAs cannot be used to prevent the disclosure of information that is in the public interest,” according to the contract management platform Ironcladapp.com.
Private business and governmental entities do a lot of business together. But the burden should be on private business if they want to work with the government and with taxpayer money. The state of Washington’s Silenced No More Act from 2022 makes it illegal to require, or even request, that workers sign NDAs.
Idaho should think about doing the same.
Is the necessity of openness in public information as important in public institutional decision making as it is in public calamities such as wildfires? The principle is the same: the public’s right to know. I would maintain that the potential negative impact of secret decisions about public institutions or funds is much greater than that of natural crises. The benefit of open decisions, openly arrived at, is that they bring the largest input from all the stakeholders into the mix and the final decisions provide the greater good for the greater number.
Many people decide, enabling one person to act. It’s slower, it’s messier and it’s more effective.
Nelson lives in Moscow where he volunteers for the Kenworthy Performing Arts Centre and supports libraries. He is the former director of the University of Idaho Press and founded the Moscow book store BookPeople.
From the Lewiston Tribune