Yesterday, I had a once-in-a-career opportunity – to discuss transparency in the Oval Office with the President of the United States.

In the 28 years that I've advocated for open government at OMB Watch, this is the first time I've heard of such a meeting. The same goes for my companions at the meeting: Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org.

The purpose of the meeting was to present President Obama with an award recognizing his deep commitment to transparency. This is not a claim we make lightly. Between us, we have decades of experience advocating for government openness over the span of several administrations, often as critics. At the midpoint of President Obama's term, we can say that his commitment to open government is truly extraordinary.

That's not to say we're happy with every action taken under the Obama administration; we're not. We've got a long way to go to reach the point where government is consistently delivering the openness that the American people deserve. However, it's important to remember how far we've come in a little more than two years – and to acknowledge it.

The first statement posted on the Obama White House blog was a commitment to making this the most open and transparent administration in history. Since then, the administration has taken several ambitious steps towards that goal. The highlights include the Open Government Directive, disclosing White House visitor logs, reforming the systems of classified and controlled unclassified information, restoring the presumption of openness to the Freedom of Information Act process and emphasizing affirmative disclosure, and supporting the rights of journalists and whistleblowers.

And those are just the highlights. As we describe in our assessment released during Sunshine Week, the administration has begun to tackle a formidable number of the open government community's top concerns. To be sure, there have been some stumbles. The state secrets privilege remains a heavily used and unaccountable tool of secrecy. There have been an unprecedented number of investigations and prosecutions of leaks. And, despite efforts from the administration, whistleblower protections stalled in Congress last year. Moreover, implementation of some of the ambitious policy objectives still have a ways to go.

But all in all, this administration has changed the debate about government openness. The question is no longer whether to be open, but how.

Although we've seen that commitment for the past two years, it was great to hear President Obama reiterate it face-to-face – and for him to tell us that he still wants to do more to be the most open and transparent president ever. We'll need that resolve as we move forward to further address critical transparency issues such as modernizing FOIA, narrowing state secrets claims, and ensuring fair treatment of those who expose wrongdoing. After our meeting with the president, we met with top White House staff to discuss those and other issues, and we're hopeful that more progress will be made.

I left the meeting energized. With your support, we'll continue to work with the administration – through criticism as well as cooperation – to ensure its commitment to transparency is fully realized.

James Madison’s birthday is an exciting time for open-government wonks.  Madison, the father of our Constitution and fourth president, was an outspoken advocate of open government.  This is why we dedicate an entire week to heightened public advocacy of transparency issues through public events, legislative initiatives, and op-eds.  This year offers several opportunities for public participation.

This week, our blog will be highlighting some basic ways to access government information such as how to use the Freedom of Information Act, how to access government data, and to know what information is already available to you as a citizen.

The week kicks off nationally today, March 15, with the 2010 National Freedom of Information Day Conference at the First Amendment Center.  The theme of this year’s conference is to assess the current state of government openness and then to look forward to what we can expect in the near future.  Concluding the week’s events will be a tri-panel webcast on March 19 sponsored by OpenTheGovernment.org and hosted by the Center for American Progress.  For more events during the week, see the Sunshine Week calendar here.

There are a number of activities going on at the regional, state, and local levels as well.  For more information about these events you can look up your local coordinator here and contact them.

Today, the Justice Department released a pivotal policy statement on the way the Obama administration will govern use of the state secrets privilege.  The new policy will be implemented on Oct. 1.  This is a welcome step toward President Obama’s promise of an unprecedented level of openness and away from the former administration’s “just trust us” approach when using the privilege to withhold evidence in lawsuits against the government.  While it seems highly likely that previous administrations have used the unfettered privilege to avoid embarrassment or corruption charges, the Obama administration has limited its use to national security purposes.

This unparalleled policy echoes many of the recommendations made by over 350 open government advocates in the Moving Toward a 21st Century Right-to-Know Agenda from November 2008.  Among the guidelines established:

• An independent review committee made of prosecutors and the attorney general must first approve the administration’s state secrets claim before it can be invoked in court.
• Evidentiary requirement to the court for state secrets claim.
• Limiting the administration’s ability to seek dismissal of an entire case based on the application of the privilege to evidence to strict national security reasons.
• Commitment to only use the privilege for legitimate national security and not to conceal illegal activities, embarrassment, or to delay the release of information that would not reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to security.
• Regular reports on the use of the privilege from the Justice Department to Congress.  Unfortunately, there is no specified timing to the reporting.  The policy only calls for “periodic” reports.
• Inspector general oversight of for credible allegations of government wrongdoing.

While some may not see this as much different than the system that existed before, what is different is 1) the application of the policy across agencies, 2) requiring a formal process for requesting the privilege; 3) the incorporation of extensive checks and reviews within the government including the inspector general investigations.

The policy does not include everything the open government community identified as needed for reforming the use of the privilege.  For instance, the administration only reviewed current court cases in which the privilege has been asserted.  While closed cases cannot be reopened, a public review of the previous applications and whether or not the new policy would allow the same claim could greatly illustrate the extent of the policy change.  The memo is also silent on allowing judicial review of state secrets evidence in camera, but this seems to be implied.  Further, the line in the memo reading, "information that is nonpublic but not classified" is disheartening.  The new policy is still quite broad but it is now much less likely that the privilege will be abused.

In February, many open government groups and advocates were giving up hope for state secrets reform claiming that the administration’s application of the privilege in Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan was a 180 degree reversal of Obama’s campaign position.  I encouraged everyone not to panic and asserted that the administration might simply be taking time to fully assess the state secrets cases and what exact changes it wanted to put in place.  It appears that such a review was occurring and it has been completed.  Considering the importance of the privilege and its recent use in several terrorism related cases, eight months is fairly quick turnaround.

It is unclear what impact the policy will have on specific cases currently before the courts.  It will not likely alter the administration’s application of the privilege to the al-Haramain Islamic charity case.  Further, the administration has already withdrawn the government’s use of the privilege in the case of a Drug Enforcement Agency officer who is claiming that the government wiretapped his home.  The administration has also continued the Bush legal policy in a case against the National Security Agency on warrantless wiretapping and, of course, the Jeppesen extraordinary rendition case.

I am elated to see evidence that the executive branch wants to responsibly wield such potentially broad power.  Personally, I would like to see these changes, and more, permanently enshrined in statutory law.  To quote Glenn Greenwald from February, “We don't actually have a system of government (or at least we're not supposed to) where we rely on the magnanimity and inherent Goodness of specific leaders to exercise secret powers wisely.”  Fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the Jeppesen case that the administration could not dismiss an entire case based on the privilege alone.  Hopefully, future courts will follow this precedent if such an application by any administration is attempted again.

Currently, there is legislation in the House of Representatives and Senate to curtail the application of the privilege.  Primarily, this legislation directs the White House to submit information it deems to be protected by the privilege for in camera review.  It also prohibits the outright dismissal of a lawsuit without independent review of the evidence.  The bill in the House (H.R. 984), introduced by Jerry Nadler (D-NY), has not moved out of the Judiciary Committee since it was referred in June.  I also hope this policy does not prevent Congress from moving forward with their bills.

On Aug. 25, The National Security Archive published an online database of over 83,000 federal government documents related to the detention and interrogation of individuals by the United States during the “global war on terror” as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This database serves as a central point of access for documents obtained through whistleblowers, litigation, and the Freedom of Information Act.

Several organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights were responsible for pursuing litigation that resulted in the releases of hundreds of documents.  Most of this litigation surrounded Freedom of Information Act requests that were denied, often to cover up illegal government activity.

The new database is searchable by keyword, document title, date, or organization.  Many of the documents found in this database were used as part of the PBS documentary, Torturing Democracy, released earlier this year.