The past 72 hours has been a period where issues of openness have dominated the news. Although transparency was not the headline-grabbing point, it has found itself the bottom line theme in each of the three cases.
Dominating this week’s events has been the wikileaks.org disclosure of classified documents pertaining to the current war in Afghanistan. For the most part this story is much ado about nothing. The vast majority of military operational intelligence summaries and after action reports outside the United States involves some level of classified status. And in the case of these reports, they provide a nauseous lineup of abbreviated situation reports, after action reports, and ambiguous speculation of interviewed civilians. Fortunately, the published information was not at the Top Secret or above levels . . . this time. According to the media talking heads this is the work of an intel analyst disgruntled with the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. That’s fine, we’re all entitled to our opinion, but there are means in place to address such issues. There is a more effective route of protected disclosure better suited to handle the individual’s issues – unless, of course, you are harboring a more profitable agenda than doing the right thing.
The drama continues to evolve with BP as CEO Tony Hayward steps down and is replaced by Robert Dudley. How did this all happen? BP’s arrogance and attempt at slight-at-hand damage control proved ineffective for what will no doubt find its way into history books as the worse manmade disaster against nature. What BP didn’t count on was the ruthless accountability of the American federal, state, and local governments – not to mention the watchdog efforts of the US media. The petroleum board of directors should have taken the bull by the horns and addressed their problem immediately while simultaneously providing full assistance to the local communities – that’s just what good neighbors do. More importantly, the multinational corporation should have been upfront with the world as to what they could or could not do, and not hide behind shroud their lawyers and the “we’re here for you” media campaign they recklessly tossed out to the American people. Having recently flown over the effected area, this mess is going to impact the southern US shores for decades to come – long after BP executives have their lives back.
The 36,000 citizens of the Central California town of Bell are in an uproar over the disclosure of the out of control pay hikes for its city leaders. A civic government is supposed to be of the people, for the people. As a result, and especially in this case, there should have been a transparency of actions and accountability to the community it supports. Then again, how did the voters allow such actions to occur over several years? Were there no oversight or other checks and balances in place from the citizens or local unions that make up the government employee base? Am sure this unfortunate incident has inspired an active community involvement in all future government and local political issues.
