Opinion: A Workable "FOIA"
A potential solution to the Senate's FOIA logjam? An Inspector General
Written by McEntire
The idea of the limited release of classified information in Europeia has a long history, but for the sake of this article I will focus on the last several months, where the idea really heated up and gained some steam due to the advocacy of Senate Speaker Olde Delaware. During the previous Senate election, candidate OD proposed a Freedom of Information Act to allow for the release of classified information from the early Republic. Now-Senator Gem also expressed some support for a mechanism to release information, although noting that the idea needed a lot more discussion.
Relatedly, in January Ervald posted this Grand Hall thread detailing conversations he'd had with Astrellan to create some kind of "ombudsman" or "public advocate" who could conduct oversight investigations when charged with specific questions by the citizenry.
The conversations in the Senate have recently stalled, with the Speaker saying he would pause the Senate's efforts and "talk to the next President" about a potential solution. The state of conversations, and the valid concerns of the idea's detractors, led me to question, is there a workable mechanism to allow for comprehensive oversight investigations, transparency, and limited declassification of records?
What is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
First of all, we need to get some clarity in terms here. The irl Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows any citizen to request documents from the government and pay to receive all documents pertaining to whatever issues they requested. Government officials are responsible for furnishing all of their own records relating to whatever topic or specific terms over a specific period of time. There are many exceptions that administrators can use to except certain records from release - including classified materials, materials that are personal or political in nature, etc.
By contrast, if we are talking about a law that allows government officials, such as Senators, to request that certain documents be declassified, that would not be a FOIA, it would just be normal government disclosure. To be clear, Europeia has neither of these processes currently set up. There is no mechanism by which citizens can request records (classified or otherwise), nor is there a method by which government officials can request things to be declassified. We have made steps with very limited disclosures directly from the Europeian Intelligence Agency to a select Senate committee, a practice started during my Speakership.
The Problem with FOIA, and a Potential Solution
As many have noted, a question with creating any method of disclosure or declassification is... who does it? After all, it is a lot of work. Typically in real life, the task of sorting through records, determining what may meet certain exceptions for release, etc. would be handled by a FOIA officer. Putting all of that work of disclosure onto, for instance, the DEIA, seems entirely inoperable. That would be half of the DEIA's job at that point. I agree with this, and it's why I am not proposing a broad FOIA that would allow any citizen to request records.
However, does that mean that we should have no method of disclosure or declassification? I don't think so. And a possible answer may lie in a recurring position that keeps popping its head up: its current iteration being the Government Accountability Office. We have had this position created by multiple presidential administrations in one form or another, typically in charge of researching, collecting data, or answering specific inquiries. It's clear that there is some utility in it, but it's never quite worked.
If we combine the idea of a GAO-like government research function with the idea of declassification, we solve several problems with both of these ideas. First of all, neither government research nor "FOIA officer" on their own would have enough work to create a new government office. Nor would they be particularly interesting. But combined, it seems like a job that could be of interest to many Europeians and be of significant help to our region.
And that is where we get to my proposal: the Office of the Inspector General.
How an Inspector General Could Work
An Inspector General would be an independently-run accountability office whose express job is compiling comprehensive reports on specific inquiries regarding the government. A few important aspects to any workable Inspector General: (i) it must operate independently from the political branches of government, (ii) it must have a scope of work that is robust enough to maintain activity, but not so robust as to be overwhelming, and (iii) it must have access to (or at least the legal authority to demand access to) classified information and private subforums.
(i) Independent operation. In order to operate independently, it must have a scheme of appointment that does not make it dependent on changing political tides - perhaps being appointed through some confluence of the Executive and the Senate. The Inspector General could operate under the Executive, but independently like the EIA, which would make sense given that my proposal would continue to vest the power of declassification with the Executive. The IG could also have a longer term, much like the EIA does, so that it can complete longer-term projects. The appointment mechanism and term length are flexible in this proposal, but the point is that the office should not operate as a Ministry, but have more independence.
(ii) Scope of work. The scope of work must maintain the office itself without being overwhelming. So, a key component of my proposal would be that the IG answers specific inquiries. Who can lodge an inquiry? In my view, an inquiry should be launched either by an act of the Senate, by the President, or by petition of citizens similar to a referendum process. Inquiries would be limited to particular topics or incidents, specific government officials, time-bound, and contain specific search terms for which officials would be required to furnish records. For instance:
- Let's say that a President has gotten a lot of flak on their work in citizen integration. They could petition the IG to launch an inquiry of the effectiveness of citizen integration and an analysis of different initiatives over the last X number of terms.
- Or, let's say that the Senate has questions over how the Executive handled a specific incident regarding a citizen, they could ask "What were the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Citizen XYZ during the previous term, and were proper legal protocols followed?"
The IG would then go to all government officials involved in whatever issue is being inquired and obtain all relevant records - including forum and Discord records. The government officials would be responsible for furnishing all records, including classified information, to the IG. They would additionally be responsible for lodging objections to the release of certain information, whether on the grounds that it should continue to be classified, or that it is of a personal or politically harmful nature. The IG would make determinations on these questions of what is cleared for release, and once all relevant records were assembled and objections were settled, the IG could start to write a report.
In my view, the Office of the IG would have deputies that would help with writing the report once all of the information was compiled. These deputies would only come into play once the information had already been cleared for public release. So any concern about the creeping broadening of declassification would be restricted to a single new official with access to classified information - a single official who is cleared both by the Senate and Executive for this express purpose. The deputies would help write the report, ensuring that the work of the office doesn't just fall on one person.
(iii) Universal access. The Inspector General must be given access to basically everything, so that they can sift through information and determine what meets the parameters of a specific inquiry. Alternatively, the officials themselves could be given the unilateral power to withhold records that they believe are not suitable for public release, but then we would need to pair it with robust whistleblower protections. For example, if an official withheld certain information, but then in the public report their deputy (or successor) noticed that relevant information was held back that did not meet valid objections, that individual should be protected to bring that information to the IG, who could then amend their report. Either of these schemes could work, either the IG given basically universal access, or individuals being responsible for their own disclosures, but subject to whistleblower protections.
An Archivist, Public Accountability Officer, Unbiased Critic Rolled into One
But the beauty of this proposal is that it's broader than simply someone dealing with classified information. This isn't a "gotcha" for the DEIA, or a backdoor to declassification. It's actually an office that has broad application. When Europeian citizens have a question that they deserve the real answers to, the IG could sort it out. When the Executive has a difficult problem that they're getting undue blame for, the IG could help provide deeply researched solutions. And with each inquiry or report, we build a stronger archive of Europeian history.
One important question when creating a new government office is, is it something someone would actually want to do? This is, after all, a game, and if a role isn't fun or interesting, it's unlikely to be filled. In my view, an Inspector General could operate more like a Senate clerk, with a longer time horizon and a specific charge to present just the facts. I can imagine many members of Europeia who would fill this archivist-type role well, and in fact this role would be akin to projects that the Europeian Research Institute has pursued, and also similar to the current GAO. We have precedent for this type of role, and I think that the public could benefit from getting the full story behind certain policy dilemmas or incidents.
Of course, we wouldn't want government officials having to watch every single word they said or hiding certain conversations away, so there would have to be a level of protection from disclosure for conversations that could be damaging. But if those protections are strong enough I think that this idea has real merit.
As the Senate resumes its discussions, I hope it will broaden the conversation beyond pro- or anti-FOIA to recognize that what's most important is that we establish some disclosure mechanism. And if we can pair this disclosure mechanism with strengthening our long-bemoaned government oversight, we create a policy win-win situation and a pioneering new form of accountability. Progress on transparency has been long and slow, but the regional discussion has evolved to the point where we are ready for more. And the creation of the Office of the Inspector General is a conversation worth having.