Government openness is “the new normal”

Originally published in Vancouver Courier

The issue of missing emails and access to public documents has erupted into a full-fledged debate among political watchers about the commitment to “openness” in government. It is an important and complex issue that merits a thoughtful discussion even after the headlines fade from view and political rhetoric subsides.

Today, the archiving of emails and documents should be as easy and affordable to accomplish for governments as it currently is for individuals. Cloud-based systems behind popular communications tools have made many of us into veritable pack rats when it comes to data storage.

This is not to suggest Canadian governments should host public information on U.S.-based servers. Rather, if governments want state-of-the-art record keeping, then pre-millennial technology like Microsoft Outlook is not the solution.

After conducting a quick survey of my peers from the public sector on the subject of deleting emails, two points of view emerged.

The first position, somewhat predictably, is that access to email correspondence is a nuisance for people in government. Weeding through and deleting “transitory” emails of limited value to the public takes time away from more important tasks for busy bureaucrats and political staff.

If everyone else deletes his or her emails, then it becomes easier to justify the practice even when it contravenes the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

Then there is the alternative point of view — which is that governments have a duty to retain all public records, including emails. And that elected officials as well as public sector workers should hold that principal dear.

Keep in mind that there are already safeguards to prevent the release of records involving Cabinet confidences or other sensitive negotiations. When public servants are required to keep their correspondence, more care and attention goes into what will become part of the public record.

The mere thought of your words winding up on the front page of a newspaper forces a more professional approach toward what you write in an email.

It is noteworthy that in the U.S.— where the rules around keeping public records are strictly observed and the penalties for avoidance are stiff — governments are not grinding to a halt because someone has filed for a freedom of information request.

In light of privacy commissioner Elizabeth Denham’s report citing abuses of FIPPA requirements, former B.C. deputy attorney general David Loukidelis has been appointed to make recommendations to government by next month on how to define “transitory” communication.

Premier Christy Clark has made the right call by ordering a ban on the deletion of any sent emails to ministerial assistants, chiefs of staff, political staff in Clark’s office, as well as cabinet ministers. The ban does not apply to B.C.’s civil service employees, however.

Loukidelis should finish the job by recommending that all — including transitory — correspondence by an elected official, their staff or a member of the public service produced in the course of their employment should be considered a public document, and therefore kept.

The City of Vancouver is embroiled this week in its own email deletion accusations among political staff, and an investigation by Denham’s office. It is unlikely, however, that the matter will elicit the same strong reaction from those who slammed Clark’s government.

In my time as a city hall blogger, we proved conclusively through FOI that officials regularly deleted email records. A manager in charge of responses to access to information requests even resigned in frustration over political intervention in his office.

Mayor Gregor Robertson once pledged to run a government that is open and transparent. Instead it is unflinchingly opaque.

On the one hand his administration boasts of an open data initiative, while on the other it cynically blocks search engines from accessing historical records on the city’s former.vancouver.ca website.

Canadian governments today have one of two options. They can show leadership by becoming more open and transparent, or they can be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that openness is the new normal.