Electronic Communications as Government Property
There has been a controversy (which I missed when it originally
arose a few months ago) regarding what Mitt Romney and his aides did
with their government computer hard drives when Romney left office
as governor of Massachusetts. According to <a href="http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/11/romney-purch…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Boston <i>Globe</a>, Romney and his aides purchased 17
hard drives, for $65 each, and "wiped the server for the governor’s
office and replaced the remaining computers in the office." The
result was that all of the governor's office's electronic
communications disappeared.<br>
<br>
Romney did what nearly every elected official does when an ethics
issue arises: he said, “They all followed the law exactly as
it’s written.” Let's assume that's true. Let's assume that
government officials in Massachusetts passed a law or regulation
that allows a governor and his aides to take all their electronic
communications with them when they leave office.<br>
<br>
This conduct may arguably be legal, but is it arguably ethical? The first and most
important question is, Are these communications government property
or personal property? They are government property, and public
information to boot. Therefore, they must be equally accessible to
every citizen of Massachusetts, and they must be purchasable at the
same price by every citizen of Massachusetts.<br>
<br>
By allowing only the office holder to have access to them and to
purchase them, the law Romney says he followed seriously compromised the state's own freedom of
information laws (abruptly ending public access to public information)
and allowed a former official to have an exclusive right to purchase
and use government property (legalized preferential treatment).<br>
<br>
The second question is, Did this harm the public? The answer is,
not only did it harm the public by preventing citizens from having
access to public information, but it is also harmed the public by
preventing the new administration from having access to the
information.<br>
<br>
I've seen this happen at the local level. A new administration from
the other party comes into office, and the office is bare. Much of
the information the new administration needs to effectively manage
the community is missing. This may be intended to make life tough
for the new administration, but it is also harmful to the community. The best thing for the community is for officials to act like responsible adults and help rather than hinder the next administration.<br>
<br>
It's too late to undo the damage that was done. But it is not too
late to set an example for the thousands of local and state
governments that turn over their administrations every year. If he
wants to show what a leader he is, Romney needs to admit (1) that
what he did was wrong, (2) that government property is not in any
way the property of those who fill government positions, (3) that
following laws is not always sufficient in order to act ethically,
and (4) that every administration owes the next administration, as
well as the public, an office that is full of all the information
accumulated by the last administration, including not only what is
on government hard disks, but also any government-related
communication that is on personal computers.<br>
<br>
I will soon be leaving my position as administrator of the New Haven
Democracy Fund. I will turn over all of my paper files, computer
files, and electronic communications to my successor. Since I have
no office and no government computer, all of these files and
communications are on my personal hard disk. And yet they are
government property. They are not mine. In any way. At all. Whatever
the law may say.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959