The Empty Vessel of Transparency

Nextgov reported on Friday that the Office of Management and Budget updated its Visualization for Understanding Expenditures in Information Technology, which monitors federal information technology investments. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said he was disappointed that "OMB still won't provide the American taxpayers with all the information necessary to determine whether their money is being spent wisely." He added that he's "starting to think OMB isn't properly collecting this information."

In response, Karen Evans, administrator of electronic government and information technology at OMB, said the office has the information and that it's trying to decide what to make public. Her reasoning:

It's not that we don't want transparency. We want to release information that's meaningful and can be used toward a solution, not as a 'gotcha' to be used at a hearing on why [the agency] is off the projections."

For the past couple of years, we've heard about transparency and the need to pursue it. President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on the promise to make government more open. But this is one of those concepts that is an empty vessel that, depending on your worldview, you fill with your own definition of what it means. It's a good bet that the American public's idea of transparency is not what the Bush administration, and maybe the Obama administration, thinks is transparent. Be ready for the inevitable debates over this one.

One last note: Evans' says OMB believes in transparency but feels it necessary to hold back information from the public because of fear that Congress may use it to beat u0 agencies. Not sure how those two concepts follow.

What's your definition of transparency in government? Is your agency willing to, as they say, open its Kimono to the public?