Do the American taxpayers get what they give? This is a key question in my head as I am reading an article from the New York Times titled “Group Seeks Public Access to Congressional Research” American taxpayers are spending approximately $100 million dollars to fund a small division of the Library of Congress named the Congressional Research Service. But the research service, its results, and all documentation there of is solely the property of the members of Congress and their constituents. By law, only members of Congress can change that.
There is a group who is trying to force Congress to give up their precious commodity. The Center for Democracy and Technology run by Ari Schwartz, its COO are trying (and have been for many years now) their dardest to make all of these reports public records. The group has even opened a website Open CRS which places some leaked reports on the web. This group is not the only group trying to get these reports out to the mainstream. Penny Hill Press is the only source for these files. It is run by Walter Seager, his wife, and their son. There is no public source for the abstracts. After the Press spends countless hours getting the reports (about 20 a day) it then sells the results to people in the academic world, politicians, and of course lobbyists. According to the elder Seager, Penny Hill Press will continue to do so until “Congress does the right thing and makes the reports freely available to the public.”
The only known index of the reports is now on Wikileaks, which is a website that posts rare documents online for the public. So far they have posted almost 7000 of the CRS files. They would not disclose how they received the archive. A spokeswoman for the CRS states that their work is solely for the use by Congress and that the law is renewed every year by Congressional committees. A representative from the House Administration Committee compares the CRS documents to memos that are passed around the office and explains that those too are not released to the public. The head of the Senate Rules Committee is currently reviewing the rules in regards to these files.
The truth about this article is that it does not seem like anyone knows what is actually in them. Thus, I think that one of the main reasons that groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology want them released is to see just what these surveys are saying about the American people. There was also a survey that was given out on a political website asking what the people wanted released to them. The CRS surveys were the coup de grace! But I ask myself. What/who would it help? It seems that the only people with enough power to do anything within the legal system already have the access, power, and money to obtain these materials. Having such documents made public might not help it in any way. But I do not think that it matters.
I was very surprised by this article as I (and I am assuming many, many others) had no idea what was happening. What does this mean to the US taxpayer? I believe that because the money comes from the public, they should get a say what happens to these files. But on the other hand, US taxpayer money also goes to things like the military and the public definitely does not get a say. In Ranganathan’s text that the class is reading there was a quote in it that said that “no personal preference shall have undue influence”. Is not the opinion and values of individual Congress people affecting what kinds of documents the public can read? If this happened in a library, a librarian not wanting a small child to read something mature, the librarian should still give that child the CHOICE to read it. The FREEDOM to see results of surveys. Congress is there to fight for our small freedoms, and they should start with the documents on their desks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I have conflicting feelings after reading Stephanie Strom’s article, “Group Seeks Public Access to Congressional Research” (NYT, May 4, 2009). My first reaction was to feel that the public should have access to these reports and know what is being researched and reported on to Congress members. Are these reports solely for the purpose of re-election? Are Congress members abusing this service to figure out how to market themselves to a particular population in a few years?
After further consideration, I am glad that such a service exists for our elected officials; I am naïve sometimes and would hope that they take full advantage of it to help shape fair and trustworthy legislature. I know that is a very idealistic view of how government officials would utilize the CRS, but I would rather that the option exists than not! The article is not arguing for or against the existence of such a service, but rather access to the results. Continuing my devil’s advocate train of thought, while wearing a librarian’s hat, I think that the users (here: Congress members) should be able to ask for whatever information they need/want and should expect that I am not going to announce it to other patrons. I would never assume such an attitude in a public library, why should I start now?
Returning to my initial reaction of wanting open access to these documents, I fully support the cause to have access to these documents; but I wonder, could there be a happy medium? I believe there is quite a lot of legislation that has been recently passed regarding closed government files (I am thinking of the presidential files on Nixon) and making them available to the public. I understand there is a huge gap between these kinds of government documents and what the CRS produces; but at the same time, if I have to choose the lesser of evil censorship practices, I would prefer to see all of the reports at a later date and have the freedom to see all of the results, as Leanna mentioned.
I also wonder if there could be a distinction between sensitive material and non-sensitive material that the CRS produces in order to have the reports released. There are numerous problems with that idea, such as who gets to decide and along which criteria, but it’s just a thought. I would assume that if the reports/surveys/etc. are for educational purposes only that ALL of them should be available.
The conclusion I draw from reading this article is that the whole situation is less about the actual utilization of the materials by individuals and more about the principle of whether or not we should be offered a service that we fund as American tax-payers. Basically, groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology want Congress to make the records readily available to the public whether or not anyone at all has an interest in using them. Adhering to the Five Laws, the reports should be readily available to any person who wishes to access them because if they exist as a resource for some, as they do for Congress, than they should exist as a resource of all. Even if only one person ever benefited from them, then it would be a worthwhile endeavor. That issue has me torn because it implies a certain air of entitlement. I feel that we do not have the right to use something simply because it exists. Tax payer dollars pay for a great many things I’m not entitled to use. But I also feel like potentially important information could benefit a larger scale of people. If these reports are being used, as Kyle Anderson states in the article, “for the education of member s of Congress,” then why can they not be used as an educational tool by the masses as well? If the reports have the potential to aid Congressional leaders in governing, then maybe voters (along with non-voters and the public in general) having access to that same information would help them better understand the decisions and choices the government makes.
And, as Leanna said, no one really knows what these reports contain so maybe the curiosity to know would drive people to partake in the service and, after that initial perusal, possibly continue use it. The informal survey mentioned in the article showed that the reports are what interested parties want to see and companies such as Penny Hill Press and sites like Wikileaks would not exist if there wasn’t an interest in the reports. It might be lofty to think that if the reports were easier to access that people might not be so in the dark about the service, but it is not implausible.
To begin, we should all be outraged that our tax dollars are going toward producing information that we are not privy to. The most obvious example of this is the military, and many, if not most, Americans rarely think to question how the government obtains the information they need to utilize our military in the best way possible. It’s simply a fact of life that many, many jobs require some level of confidentiality. If we can allow our children’s school principal some leeway and confidentiality in the decision-making process, why should we not allow Congress the same freedom? After all, they are both funded by public tax dollars.
On the other hand, I am also a student of library and information science, and on this level, and as Beth implies, not allowing the public to access these documents by way of an easily navigable system, there is a library out there, and a pretty lofty one at that, that is blatantly violating Ranganathan’s laws. From a library science perspective, this is outright blasphemy.
Having said that, based on this single article, it does not necessarily appear to be too difficult to get Congressional Research Service (C.R.S.) reports released. Time-consuming and tedious, yes; difficult, no, not tremendously. Strom freely states in her article that “members of Congress may make the reports public, and their constituents can write to ask for copies of reports they know exist,” so thus, the public does have access to these documents. I realize the operative words here are “they know exist,” but honestly, how can people want something they don’t even know exists?
Furthermore, after actually visiting the C.R.S. website at http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html, I see that its mission clearly states it is “committed to an informed legislature” by “responding to specific requests from legislators in a timely manner.” Additionally, “confidentiality” is the C.R.S.’s number one value. Therefore, it seems to me, that me asking for C.R.S. document is a bit like asking my children’s school secretary to photocopy my personal documents. Such a request is simply not his or her job, and such requests to the C.R.S. are simply not its job. As the C.R.S. spokesperson, Janine D’Addario, states in Strom’s article, doing so “could put C.R.S. in an intermediate position,” thereby, in my opinion, hindering Congress’ ability to function to its fullest extent and potentially preventing a sound bill being introduced and made into law.
I have mixed views on this topic and I think it's because I'm a Canadian living in the U.S. The Canadian side of me is telling me to leave it alone. Let this Congress have what seems to be a research arm. Most companies have research divisions, so one could see this organization as providing this service for the members of Congress. The American side of me, however, feels entitled to this information. I pay my taxes, I deserve access to this information!
In order to really make an informed decision on this, I think we need to know more about what kinds of information this organization is gathering for the members of Congress. I don't feel we should have access to information just because we feel entitled. Do I really care about grain subsidies in North Dakota? No. Do I really care how much the army is spending on bullets? No, but I would rather that money be spent on education in the U.S.
As a parent, I've learned to pick my battles. Yes, access to information is important and Americans, whether we want the information or not, whether it's truly useful to us or not, believe we have a right to access it. However, is this really a wise move? Do we as a country have the disposable income it would cost to fund the staff it would take to manage information requests and whatever else would be involved in opening up the Congressional Research Service? Is this the wisest use of our money right now? Certainly, it's a better use of our money than some of the other waste going on right now, but do we need to add to the mess we're already in?
Another consideration is, how would the use of this service change if members of Congress could no longer be assured that the public wouldn't see this research? Would that help us or be a detriment to the members running the country? Just like in municipal governments and corporations around the world, closed meetings/private research and the like provide decision-makers with useful tools to make informed decisions. On the part of the congress men and women, we voted them into office. Isn't the idea to let them make decisions on our behalf?
Bottom line, I don't need access to something just for the sake of having access. If there is truly a need, or if it's really something the public needs to know, then by all means, fight, fight, fight for access! However, like any company with a research department, I really only care about the end product and not how they got there.
Since Lieberman, McCain and others have for years been trying to make these reports public, I’m now really curious as to what’s in them. As Jen mentioned in her devil’s advocate bit, there is a definite feeling that going after these reports is a little like making public someone’s patron record – a big no-no. On the other hand, this is our government (well…your government, I don’t get to vote), and the Obama administration’s goals of transparency and accountability would seem to be in line with this push to make the records public.
Clearly, we do expect our government to show some level of transparency. The main issue in all of this is, of course, that tax payer money is used to fund these reports. If other moneys had been used, this would not be an issue. I believe that if there are discussions of controversial issues in these records, specifically those that have a bearing on legislation, these have to be made public.
Rather than being a case of 'not-my-job-itis', it appears that the reports are required to be kept secret. In the article, D’Addario states of CRS, that “by law, its work is to be exclusive and confidential to Congress. Additionally, a provision in the appropriations bill that finances the service each year forbids it to make its work public.”
Conversely, just releasing the records would not be a big deal in this day and age, in terms of amount of work and it would go a long way towards helping support this administration’s ethos of transparency. In addition, Americans need to decide for themselves if they want to have access to this information, and as Monica pointed out, there is a definite Catch-22 situation where the public can’t make an informed choice without having access to the documents. Furthermore, anything that in puts CRS in an uncomfortable position between the voting public and the government is probably good reading. So release the reports!
Like everyone else, I am torn on this article.
On one hand (the librarian hand!) I think it is a violation of the 5 Laws that say everyone should have access to all information.
On the other hand, I think that the information in the library may be better kept just for the members of Congress. No one really seemed to be dying to see any of the info before it came out that it was private, and now I feel like its a case of 'oh mom said I can't have that piece of chocolate so now i REALLY want it.' People always want what they are not allowed. I also agree with Lynn on the costs of letting the public access the info. The amount of money it would take to employ enough people to work there if it were opened to the public would be much more than it is now, and I think we have more important issues to spend our tax dollars on.
Everyone knows the government has many, many secrets and an inconceivable amount of private documents. I know most of us think we would loooove to see what the government is hiding from it's tax payers, but I think most of that info is either boring, something we wouldn't understand or something they are hiding to protect us so everyone doesn't panic. We trusted Congress members enough to vote them into office, so I think we should trust them enough to respect their decision to keep some info private.
There occasionally arises situations in which the government is entitled to certain resources in which the general public is not and I think this is one of those occasions. Having said that, as a librarian, I would love to have access to that information for the pur notion of being able to see what Congress sees and understand a little more of the democratic process.
A library, however, is entitled to a patron's right to privacy. Is this just another case of a public group seeking to a watchdog of government? As the CRS states on the opening page of their website "CRS provides Congress with the vital, analytical support it needs to address the most complex public policy issues facing the nation." It then goes on to listing what resources it uses. As I look over what the CRS uses, I find that some of what is available can also be found on other government websites and that the CRS is essentially an academic library to which members of Congress go for help in research.
Do we ever ask our professors for their research notes? Do we ask that they provide us with every scrap of research that they used? No because we know that it is available through other means. Can we not make use of the Freedom of Information Act to see some of what is being researched and discussed? Or can we not, through our individual senators and representatives ask for documents? There are ways of getting to the CRS if that is what is desired. But I think Congress should be entitled to its privacy when it uses "the library" at its disposal. Should we feel the need to find what resources it uses, there are other options available, including Congress's own webiste, in which one can get much of the data used by the CRS.
I think this article seems to be a tempest in a teapot. Yes, it is a lot of money, but it takes a lot of money to do research. Anyone who has ever hired a lawyer should know this! The hours and hours of slogging through documents all billed hourly adds up quickly to astronomical totals. If you have ever seen the totals for what Congress spends on pencils, for example, you would be appalled. I work in a small public school, and it is amazing how much glue we go through! Glue doesn't seem expensive, but multiply that times 450 students eating it in unison and it really adds up.
Things cost money. Research costs money. Have you ever added up what you spend on Starbucks in a year? If you'd saved that instead of spending it, you'd be driving a Volvo not a Kia.
I am glad that here in America there is a retired gentleman who has made it his crusade to index what is contained in these research documents. I doubt there is anything contained therein that any of us would truly be interested, but it is wonderful in a free land that we can take such actions and not be arrested.
I guess my final take is that the truth will come out. It always does. It may take time, it may take effort, but it will eventually see the light of day. Those research documents will someday surface for the curious amongst us to peruse.
In the meantime, I am just struggling to keep up with reading the important stuff. Like, what Edward will be wearing in the next TWILIGHT movie. Check it out!!!
Money is spent left and right in Washington DC. In the article “Group Seeks Public Access to Congressional Research”, Stephanie Strom says that more than $100 million a year is spent on the CRS’s service. I think that while this may seem like a lot of money to an individual, when our national budget is reaching trillions of dollars the amount of money spent does not seem so consequential. It hasn’t been that long since we were all watching the Presidential debates and learning about government “earmarks” and all of the ridiculous items they were spent on. I’m remembering the “Road to Nowhere” in Alaska specifically.
Anyways, if the research is truly helping our congress create good and useful legislation, I think the money spent is well worth it. I agree with Jackie that there are more important issues out there and in the end the truth will eventually come out. Information that is important to the public will eventually be released. I choose to believe that the government has a reason for keeping the reports private. Maybe this is because I am young and naive, but I think that the government is trying to watch out for the public. When the time is right, I believe the research will be released as some of the reports already have been.
Is this really a can of worms we want to open? As others in our class have mentioned our tax dollars are spent in many ways that we as Americans never question.
Our first lecture covered Power, Knowledge, Freedom and Curiosity which ties right into how i feel about Storm's article. However, the order in which these words are used is a little different.
In America we have the freedom to do just about whatever we choose. As Jackie mentioned it is wonderful to live in a society where the Seager family can have a business based on the release of confidential government documents without facing legal consequences. Let's face it, in most countries the entire family would be locked away.
Curiosity, can be a wonderful thing if you know what to do with it. One's curiosity may result in wonderful medical findings through research or do more harm than good by revealing information never meant for the public to see. Now that we know the C.R.S. is keeping secrets our curiosity is piqued.
What happens if we actually get our hands on all of these confidential documents? Will knowing what is in them serve the greater good?
Believing that "knowledge is power," adds to the dilemma this article presents. If we as taxpayers gain access to the C.R.S. reports to become knowledgeable about how Congress spends our money will this be beneficial? Some people fail to realize that once these documents become public what was once used as a governmental aide could be used against the US government. Thus shifting the power the C.R.S. reports hold.
Post a Comment