JeffreyWKramer
03-23-2007, 07:11 AM
1. Government exists to serve the needs of the citizens. This is the sole reason for, and legitimate purpose of, government. As such, the government is ultimately answerable to, and should be held accountable by, the people.
2. Those who serve in the government, whether elected, appointed or hired to assist or work under some officeholder, ultimately are the employees of the citizens. An aide to a Senator, a Supreme Court legal clerk or a White House advisor is not answerable only to the person he worked directly for – at most, those individuals should be regarded as immediate department heads. Ultimately, all such individuals work for the citizens.
3. Generally speaking, there is no legitimate reason for individuals working for the government to keep their work-related activities from the people, any more than there is legitimate reason for an employee to keep his work-related activities secret from his employer. The citizenry has a right to know what the government is up to, and a responsibility to oversee the activities of the government. No general right to privacyshould be considered to exist in regard to the conduct of government, including the conduct of government employees in the performance of their job duties.
4. The only way the citizenry can know what the government is up to is for the government to be reasonably transparent, at all levels. There are obviously certain exceptions to this principle. A certain degree of secrecy is necessary in regard to ongoing military, intelligence and law enforcement matters and operations, and in regard to information which, if widely known, could be used to harm the nation and its citizens. This applies to things such as military strategy, assets and research, and to the identities and nature of the work being done by intelligence operatives and undercover law enforcement officers. As such, oversight of those sorts of matters, and information about same, should be available to those elected by the people, so that they may keep the citizenry informed to the degree necessary while maintaining appropriate security, and so they may provide direct oversight as part of the discharge of the duties for which they were elected.
Does this mean citizens should have immediate access to all information, or that they should have unrestricted, total access to all government officials and employees? Of course not. But if they have questions, citizens should be able to receive accurate answers to those questions in a timely manner.
5. There is no legitimate reason why any person in the employ of the government should refuse to provide information to the public or its elected representatives, or to offer such information under oath. In the case of sensitive and vital security matters, such information should be disseminated in only a limited manner (closed sessions, private briefings, etc.), to elected officials rather than to the public at large, and such confidence should be respected by those granted access. Other than such matters of security, there is no reason information about government activities should not be delivered in a manner accessible to the public, in concordance with the citizenry’s right to know.
6. Unwillingness of any individual working in government to comply with these principles constitutes rightful grounds for termination of that individual’s employment within the government, just as refusal of an individual to provide information about his work-related activities to an employer would rightly constitute grounds for termination from private-sector employment.
Those are some of my thoughts. What are some of your thoughts about government, or about my thoughts detailed above?
2. Those who serve in the government, whether elected, appointed or hired to assist or work under some officeholder, ultimately are the employees of the citizens. An aide to a Senator, a Supreme Court legal clerk or a White House advisor is not answerable only to the person he worked directly for – at most, those individuals should be regarded as immediate department heads. Ultimately, all such individuals work for the citizens.
3. Generally speaking, there is no legitimate reason for individuals working for the government to keep their work-related activities from the people, any more than there is legitimate reason for an employee to keep his work-related activities secret from his employer. The citizenry has a right to know what the government is up to, and a responsibility to oversee the activities of the government. No general right to privacyshould be considered to exist in regard to the conduct of government, including the conduct of government employees in the performance of their job duties.
4. The only way the citizenry can know what the government is up to is for the government to be reasonably transparent, at all levels. There are obviously certain exceptions to this principle. A certain degree of secrecy is necessary in regard to ongoing military, intelligence and law enforcement matters and operations, and in regard to information which, if widely known, could be used to harm the nation and its citizens. This applies to things such as military strategy, assets and research, and to the identities and nature of the work being done by intelligence operatives and undercover law enforcement officers. As such, oversight of those sorts of matters, and information about same, should be available to those elected by the people, so that they may keep the citizenry informed to the degree necessary while maintaining appropriate security, and so they may provide direct oversight as part of the discharge of the duties for which they were elected.
Does this mean citizens should have immediate access to all information, or that they should have unrestricted, total access to all government officials and employees? Of course not. But if they have questions, citizens should be able to receive accurate answers to those questions in a timely manner.
5. There is no legitimate reason why any person in the employ of the government should refuse to provide information to the public or its elected representatives, or to offer such information under oath. In the case of sensitive and vital security matters, such information should be disseminated in only a limited manner (closed sessions, private briefings, etc.), to elected officials rather than to the public at large, and such confidence should be respected by those granted access. Other than such matters of security, there is no reason information about government activities should not be delivered in a manner accessible to the public, in concordance with the citizenry’s right to know.
6. Unwillingness of any individual working in government to comply with these principles constitutes rightful grounds for termination of that individual’s employment within the government, just as refusal of an individual to provide information about his work-related activities to an employer would rightly constitute grounds for termination from private-sector employment.
Those are some of my thoughts. What are some of your thoughts about government, or about my thoughts detailed above?