Put an End to Secret Government

By Larry Smith

A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.
James Madison, fourth president of the United States.

The American Embassy flew in a Kent State University professor on Saturday for a seminar on newsgathering with local reporters at the British Colonial Hilton.

Topping the agenda was a panel discussion by Tribune columnist Sir Arthur Foulkes, Bahama Journal co-founder Mike Smith and Freeport News editor Oswald Brown.

Predictably, the biggest issue on everyone’s mind was public accountability and access to information.

As Sir Arthur noted, “it is impossible to have democracy without a free and competent press. But governments tend to promote a culture of secrecy.”

Judging by his resume, he should know. Sir Arthur trained at the Tribune and was founding editor of the (now defunct) Bahamian Times. He has also held senior positions in both PLP and FNM administrations. And for the past 15 years has been a diplomat.

The top issue raised by the panel was the controversy over non-Bahamian births at the Princess Margaret Hospital.

This was the subject of a recent Tribune story that has yet to be fully clarified. The original article was based on information supplied by a “concerned doctor” who claimed more than 90 per cent of births at the PMH were to non-Bahamians, mostly Haitians:

"There have been many times when foreign doctors have come to me and asked me what's going on here, why are there so many Haitians having children here?" the source was quoted as saying.

This story referred to an earlier one about primary school teachers learning creole. As many as 40 per cent of the children at one school were said to be of Haitian descent. A related story reported claimed that many Family Island clinics were being “overwhelmed by Haitians”.

Health Minister Dr Marcus Bethel reacted swiftly and angrily to these claims, denouncing the PMH story as “inaccurate, unfounded, irresponsible, alarmist and dangerous.” He presented year-to-date statistics showing that “on average approximately 80 per cent of the births were to Bahamian mothers and less than 15 per cent to mothers of Haitian nationality.”

This data was not available to the Tribune prior to publication, however, despite efforts to verify the doctor’s information with the health ministry and other agencies. But in such cases, particularly where the information supplied is sensitive and the timing is not critical, corroboration by third parties is a vital test.

But the Tribune considered its medical source “impeccable”. And later stories pointed out that Haitian women often register as Bahamians at the hospital, and were also crowding Bahamians out of the post-natal ward. It was suggested that the government come to terms with reality in order to deal with the implications of Haitian immigration.

This single episode touches on all of the issues of ethics and accountability discussed at the media seminar on Saturday.

First there is the question of unnamed sources. This is often unavoidable in a small society like ours, but it requires judgement. Sir Arthur recalled that as a young reporter his editor - Sir Etienne Dupuch - would always demand names and form his editorial judgement accordingly.

The judgement may be that the information supplied is of such value to the public or to the newspaper’s circulation that anonymous sources can be used. And of course, the identity and character of the source together with his or her access to the information are important factors in making this judgement. There is always the possibility that reporters will manufacture sources for an easy story, the panellists agreed.

Second, there is the question of corroboration. Obviously, it would be better to verify information given by sources who wish to remain anonymous – particularly in the case of cold facts like live births. No-one wants to publish egregious errors. But this brings us quickly to the third question, which is access to information.

Clearly, the number of live births in our tax-supported health system should be a matter of public record and not an issue on which to play bureaucratic games with young reporters trying to do their job. And most journalists at the seminar were very bitter about the hassles they encountered seeking basic information from both the public and private sectors.

Despite the Christie administration’s vow to maintain transparency, it is more and more difficult to prise even the simplest facts from our self-important officials, who, as a rule, do not return phone calls or emails. One reporter at the meeting complained of being asked to write to a minister for permission to find out a civil servant’s job description.

And Bahama Journal news editor Candia Dames confirmed that it was far easier working in Washington DC as a green intern than trying to function as a seasoned journalist in the Bahamas: “We had access to everything in DC, but getting it here is a very difficult problem.”

This reminded us of an article Tough Call wrote years ago on the right of access: “Recent experience in requesting public information includes the following odd refusals...the quantity of beer imported during the second and third quarters (Dept of Statistics), the estimated number of Haitian nationals living here (Ministry of Home Affairs), the number of high school graduates in June (Ministry of Education).”

This piece appeared in a newsletter we produced for the now-defunct Bahamas Press Club, which was founded in 1977. And for the benefit of the young reporter who asked about local press associations at the seminar, that was not the first such organisation in the Bahamas, and nor was it the last.

There is no doubt that Bahamian politicians and officials are programmed to deny access and information except on their own very special terms. And it is just as certain that without such access we cannot have a free press or a free society. Secret government leads inexorably to abuse of power, policy mistakes, and corruption.

That’s why we agree strongly with the panellists on the need for a Bahamian Freedom of Information Act: “Politicians react to pressure,” explained former newscaster and member of parliament Mike Smith. “If there’s no pressure, things get put on the back burner. We need to agitate and lobby hard for such a law.”

In the meantime, Kent State Professor Karl Idsvoog advised reporters to “document the inefficiencies that this lack of access creates. Put a name and a face to it, and make it an ongoing public campaign.”

The fourth question is whether to publish supposedly “dangerous” information that may incite hate crimes. Minister Bethel was clearly of the opinion that the Tribune story on PMH births was alarmist. But Tough Call has had similar experiences with the Ministry of Health recently and this question is not as open and shut as it seems.

When writing recently on tuberculosis – a highly contagious disease - based on some alarming information provided by both a businessman and a doctor, we could neither obtain relevant statistics nor discuss the matter with health authorities:

“In spite of the seriousness of this subject,” we wrote at the time, “we were unable to get the perspective of local health officials despite numerous attempts over the course of more than a week. Dr Baldwin Carey, the director of public health, did not respond to phone calls or to faxed questions. Dr Gomez and others were said to be travelling.”

An article on healthcare regulation earlier this year explored the circumstances surrounding pending malpractice complaints to the Medical Council. This august body is supposed to investigate complaints from the public, but chooses instead to ignore them:

“Since the council was created,” we wrote, “it is believed that only one Bahamian doctor has ever been suspended - and that was for drug abuse - although formal complaints have been lodged over the years (one as recently as last December).

“Dr Baldwin Carey, the council chairman, would not respond to calls or faxes on this matter. Why is there so little accountability, or rule of law, among practitioners of three of the nation’s most prestigious and rewarding professions - the law, medicine and politics.”

This brings us to the fifth question, the accountability of elected and appointed officials with public responsibilities. The issue of illegal immigration is a matter that concerns every Bahamian citizen. Experts agree that it will very likely change our society beyond recognition within a few short years.

Is it not the responsibility of the news media to report on this critical issue and to facilitate debate on how it can be addressed? To do this effectively, we need access to information. After all, it is OUR information. We pay for it with OUR taxes, we ELECT the officials who manage it, and the consequences of whatever action is taken as a result of that information will affect US.

In the United States, federal agencies are required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to disclose records requested in writing by any person, subject to a few specific exemptions. And every federal agency maintains a FOIA web page.

Enacted in 1966 against the wishes of then president Lynden Johnson, this was the first law that gave Americans the right to access federal records. It was the result of a 10-year crusade by a California Congressman and consumer advocate named John Moss.

But it was the Watergate scandal that led Congress to strengthen the act in 1974 and force greater accountability, against the wishes of then president Gerald Ford, who had taken over from the disgraced Richard Nixon. There have been almost two million requests processed under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

In Britain the attitude towards freedom of information was rather different. The Official Secrets Act of 1911 made the unauthorised disclosure of any information on any subject an offence. And this is what shaped the behaviour of our Bahamian officials, who were happy to imitate their colonial masters.

In fact, as late as 1985 a British civil servant was prosecuted under the Secrets Act for leaking information showing that ministers had misled parliament. The judge ruled that the defence of acting in the public interest had no basis in law. But the jury disregarded his ruling and acquitted the official.

In 1997 the Labour government published a White Paper on “Your Right to Know” and a Freedom of Information Act was finally passed in 2000. However, the right of access only came into effect last year. According to an article in the UK Press Gazette, it “provides journalists with a valuable tool for looking behind the gloss and spin at the actual documents in authorities’ files,”

The new British law covers some 100,000 public authorities, including government departments and agencies, local councils, National Health bodies, the police, armed forces, schools and universities, regulators, advisory bodies, publicly owned companies, the BBC and even parliament. Only the courts and security services are excluded.

And when you think about it, governments are hurting themselves by not being more open. As one anti-secrecy campaigner put it: “To the public, secrecy means there is something to hide - that officials can't justify their decisions, are concealing their errors or have ignored legitimate concerns. They will be sceptical about what the authority tells them, and less likely to follow its advice or believe its successes.

“But an open approach encourages the opposite response. An authority that does not attempt to conceal information, and explains rather than hides uncomfortable facts, is more likely to be trusted. And if people can see for themselves the complexities of an issue, they are more likely to understand why progress can be slow.”

A Bahamian Freedom of Information Act would be a chance to strengthen public confidence in government, not destroy it.

Comments

[nicob]

A view from the inside: it's important to realize that the access to information is not difficult for outsiders to obtain, but also for civil servants themselves. There are a couple of main reasons for this, and some of them you've touched on here. One of them, and the most alarming, is that government files are more often than not in disarray, especially when it comes to dead files. Registries are required to keep documents for a specified period of time (I haven't yet been able to ascertain the exact amount), after which time the files should properly be sent to the Archives. But every time a ministry moves, or a department is relocated, there's some attrition of files. The Ministry of Health has just moved. I don't know whether its old files were taken, or whether they were sent to the Archives. The Ministry of Education is in a similar situation. Of course, as the Archives is functioning as a national library, it has little time or resources to spare on the maintenance of dead government files. And so information disappears, disintegrates, dissolves.