Commentary

Michael Hickins
 

Wacky White House Critics All Wet About Transparency

The Obama administration is being rightly held to an exacting standard. It promised a new kind of government with transparency as its hallmark, and it's being held to account.

The Obama administration is being rightly held to an exacting standard. It promised a new kind of government with transparency as its hallmark, and it's being held to account.When President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, mandating gender equality in pay, he was taken to task for failing to allow a public comment period on whitehouse.gov, as he had promised.

Critics duly reported the administration's explanation -- that it was still working out new processes -- but by labeling the gaffe "strike one," they clearly signaled that they were looking for strikes two and three.


More Government Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

Those calls were quick to come.

As promised, the public can track spending mandated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on a new Web site, Recovery.gov.

But critics immediately attacked the site for failing to allow search engines to crawl it effectively; the complaints were barely published that the carping critics had to issue retractions, as White House techies scrambled to address the issue more quickly than most enterprise IT departments.

I challenge anyone to find an instance of another administration reacting as quickly to calls for accountability.

And lest anyone forget what a government Web site usually looks like, have a gander at the site maintained by the Senate committee on science and technology.

Critics also pounced on the fact that you can't drill down past the top line spending items outlined by the new federal spending bill.

Maybe that's because the agencies charged with spending the monies haven't gotten around to allocating the cash yet -- something already addressed by White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, who issued a 60-page memo this week directing agency heads to report their spending to the Web site.

But this probably won't be enough to quiet critics, who also are likely to argue in favor of leaving everything to the private sector.

There's actually an example of this kind of thing -- funded by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation with health care efficiency as its primary goal.

Its site, WhyNotTheBest.org, tracks the performance of hospitals across the country against a specific set of benchmarks.

It's a particularly relevant example because it's addressing the same kind of issue the stimulus package is intended to achieve in the health care sector -- namely, to introduce efficiency.

While the site is remarkable for all it does -- and anyone who has dealt with the sector knows how difficult it is to collect meaningful data from health providers -- the site's usefulness is limited by the type of information that is publicly available (mainly from Medicare, according to a Commonwealth Fund spokesman).

To put things in perspective, it took the Commonwealth Fund (and its technical contractor, IPRO.org) almost a year and a half from inception to launch of its transparency site, while President Obama has been in office for a month to the day.

Transparency is not just an important goal for President Obama -- it's a paramount goal, if he is to rekindle the public's faith in government.

He also has the vast resources of the federal government at his disposal.

But anyone so quick to criticize the administration's Web-based transparency efforts should be willing to reveal his own hidden agenda. After all, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links