Comments on: Pentagon Officials Must Sign Budget Secrecy Pledge http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/02/budget_secrecy.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Bob G http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/02/budget_secrecy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2766 Bob G Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:18:27 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2308#comment-2766 On the one hand, preliminary budget information has always been closely held. Transparency is one thing, but disclosing all budget documents as they bounce along with a department and then to OMB is something else. Confidentiality in the budget process is reasonable, and this has always been so as far as I know. The final budget is public, of course. Steve's post did a good job of discussing some of the consequence of early disclosure of budget decisions. As far as non-disclosure agreements go, this one is pretty mild mannered. At one level, actively telling people when they are handlling non-public information that is is non-public seems perfectly reasonable. That is part of what the document seems to do. No reviews of publications, recapture of profits, and the like. Yet we all know how agencies tend to take something and run with it to the nth degree. Agencies have lots of non-public documents. It could well become the fashion to ask folks to start signing these agreements for other classes of non-public documents, Privacy Act information, and the like. Or even a more generic non-disclosure document for all non-public information. So the other hand there is a risk that this idea will get expanded, the non-disclosure document will include threats, penalties, remedies, and the like. I would feel better if the document were a simple acknowledgement of the message that the budget information is not public. Nothing beyond that is needed, and anything beyond that (including a pledge to comply) is asking for trouble. I don't know who dreamed up this agreement. There aren't that many Obama people in place, but maybe one of them should squash this effort before it gets a life of its own. On the one hand, preliminary budget information has always been closely held. Transparency is one thing, but disclosing all budget documents as they bounce along with a department and then to OMB is something else. Confidentiality in the budget process is reasonable, and this has always been so as far as I know. The final budget is public, of course. Steve’s post did a good job of discussing some of the consequence of early disclosure of budget decisions.

As far as non-disclosure agreements go, this one is pretty mild mannered. At one level, actively telling people when they are handlling non-public information that is is non-public seems perfectly reasonable. That is part of what the document seems to do. No reviews of publications, recapture of profits, and the like.

Yet we all know how agencies tend to take something and run with it to the nth degree. Agencies have lots of non-public documents. It could well become the fashion to ask folks to start signing these agreements for other classes of non-public documents, Privacy Act information, and the like. Or even a more generic non-disclosure document for all non-public information.

So the other hand there is a risk that this idea will get expanded, the non-disclosure document will include threats, penalties, remedies, and the like. I would feel better if the document were a simple acknowledgement of the message that the budget information is not public. Nothing beyond that is needed, and anything beyond that (including a pledge to comply) is asking for trouble.

I don’t know who dreamed up this agreement. There aren’t that many Obama people in place, but maybe one of them should squash this effort before it gets a life of its own.

]]> By: The Sailor http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/02/budget_secrecy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2765 The Sailor Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:18:21 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2308#comment-2765 Jeff, you're allowed to know the details, just not the intermediate process. Jeff, you’re allowed to know the details, just not the intermediate process.

]]> By: Jeff Huffman http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/02/budget_secrecy.html/comment-page-1#comment-2764 Jeff Huffman Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:56:33 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2308#comment-2764 ". . . sign a non-disclosure agreement pledging not to divulge budget-related information to unauthorized persons." I guess as a stakeholder in this (as a tax payer) I'm authorized to know details. What bullshit. You could halve the U.S. military budget and it would still be the largest in the world. Until we pare back military spending, the U.S. can not expect any kind of secure financial future. “. . . sign a non-disclosure agreement pledging not to divulge budget-related information to unauthorized persons.”

I guess as a stakeholder in this (as a tax payer) I’m authorized to know details.

What bullshit. You could halve the U.S. military budget and it would still be the largest in the world. Until we pare back military spending, the U.S. can not expect any kind of secure financial future.

]]>