Officials weigh cost of transparency, with an eye on technology's role

President Obama often refers to the clear-cut benefits of striking a healthy balance between transparency and national security, such as upholding the Constitution. More ambiguous are the financial savings derived from increased transparency.

In fact, even some open government proponents say Obama's transparency agenda may initially cost taxpayers more money. Specifically, the administration's ongoing review of classified information policy to address the problem of over-classification likely will result in some short-term overhead expenses.

The cost-range is hard to assess, partly because the federal budget is not structured to provide that sort of empirical data, said Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonpartisan think tank.

But in the short term, "any change in policy is likely to result in increased costs, including changes that favor more open government, if only due to the costs of producing revised guidance and of employee training," he said.

On the other hand, the alternative -- over-classification -- is almost always expensive, say some classification specialists and transparency advocates. Information technology systems to guard classified information are particularly costly. Information security continues to be the most costly category reported by agencies, representing 56 percent of total security classification costs for fiscal 2008.

Of the four subcategories of information security, "information systems security continues to be the most costly, at $4.3 billion, or 90 percent of estimated costs for information security," according to a May 19 report to the president from the Information Security Oversight Office at the National Archives and Records Administration. That office oversees classification and declassification policies and audits classification programs.

Executive branch agencies in fiscal 2008 spent $8.64 billion on their security classification systems, not accounting for classified cost estimates from agencies such as the CIA. Of that amount, only $43 million was spent on declassification.

Some open government advocates back a "classification tax" that would require every agency to spend a fixed percentage of the money it allocates for classification on declassification.

"We hope that the administration's current review of the classification system will conclude that some amount of money should be spent on declassification in order to get the system under control," said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel at the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental institute that publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, records repositories and court testimony. "There are some upfront costs," such as setting up a central declassification center and improving classification oversight and training, "but the long term savings could be tremendous," added Fuchs.

Obama echoed that perspective when he announced a classification policy review on May 21 at the National Archives Building. "We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions. ...Their implementation will take time, but they will get done," he said.

On May 27, Obama issued an executive memo that officially directed the assistant to the president for national security affairs to conduct a 90-day review: "Recommendations and proposed revisions [to the executive order governing classified information] shall address establishment of a National Declassification Center to bring appropriate agency officials together to perform collaborative declassification review [and] effective measures to address the problem of over classification."

Ultimately, a national declassification center could trim expenses by simplifying the process of releasing records, say former and current Archives officials. Right now, a document that includes classified information from multiple agencies must be reviewed by each agency to declassify it.

The manner in which the administration spends "a not-necessarily small amount of tax dollars" on declassification is highly inefficient, said Bill Leonard, who retired in January 2008 as director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

"It's not unusual to have serial reviews of documents conducted by different agencies," Leonard added. "I would like to think that a national declassification will include empowered officials who can make that one time review and make the decision as to whether that document should be declassified."

With a few exceptions, most declassification is still done much the same way it was in 1995, when President Clinton signed an executive order ending the right for agencies to classify information indefinitely. The procedure involves "a reviewer slogging through a box trying to identify information which requires continued protection or which needs to be referred to another agency," said William Bosanko, the current head of the Information Security Oversight Office. "The American people expect and deserve better."

Bosanko said the declassification system should rely more on technology to expedite workflow and produce better and more consistent decisions. On June 29, an advisory committee launched a blog to seek public input on possible revisions to the classification executive order, including recommendations for technological changes. National Security Council officials will monitor the online conversation, which ends July 10, as they deliberate recommendations.

Unlike some critics of over-classification, Leonard doubts that decreased classification will result in significant cost savings. Expenses for safes, secure computer networks, personnel clearances and other security infrastructure will remain fairly constant, even if agencies adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, he noted. "Let's say you reduce the volume of classified information by 50 percent, you're still going to need those secure systems," Leonard said.

But Leonard and Bosanko stress that better decision-making in matters of national security may be the biggest immediate cost-savings from more openness.

Outside critics of over-classification contend it has undermined public confidence in the government's policymaking, including the decision to go to war in Iraq and the conduct of the war on terrorism.

"The cost-savings associated with declassification include increased efficiency in the classification system, empowering people with information they need to do their jobs ... and increased public confidence in the government," Bosanko said.

He referred to the words of a 1997 recommendation from the congressionally mandated Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, chaired by then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., that classification decisions should no longer be based solely on damage to national security. Rather, they should also consider "the benefit from public disclosure of the information."

"Ultimately, the cost shouldn't be the sole driver" in reviewing classification policies, Bosanko said. "The principle driver should be making good policy decisions."