When one is intentionally left out of a debate, or worse, told they can’t participate at all, it’s human nature to assume what’s hidden is fraught with bad intentions. Such is the case with two recent federal land management plans that have been discussed behind closed doors – one involving Plum Creek Timber Co. and the other Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.
Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey is under fire for presumably guaranteeing Plum Creek, the largest private landowner in the nation, access across U.S. Forest Service land for, among other things, residential development. Missoula County commissioners have so far been ignored in their attempts to find out where new houses might be built and how the county would service them. Frustrated and feeling shunned, the county has threatened to sue.
In the case of BNSF, the railway company had asked permission to bomb avalanche chutes in Glacier National Park. After more than 13,000 public comments, the park concluded that the preferred option was for BNSF to build avalanche sheds. What’s worrisome to conservation groups is that the park officials and BNSF executives apparently continued at least some negotiations after the public comment period ceased. The National Parks Conservation Association filed a Freedom of Information request to find out what exactly they were up to.
Neither of these issues would have drawn such a cynical eye if they had been decided upon with absolute transparency. While opposition would, and will, certainly surface, forcing opponents to swallow a bitter pill now is far better than facing accusation of shadiness later.
What’s more, neither plan is likely as bad as their respective skeptics would have you believe. In Glacier, park service officials have stressed that the avalanche prevention plan has undergone just “minor changes.” And Plum Creek, Rey said, has promised concessions that would spare Missoula County’s coffers. The Missoulian reported that Rey said the deal burdens “future homeowners with roads costs and ‘firewise’ covenants.”
Still, few critics are satisfied and many assume the worst. They’re an example of a larger trend that has prompted a steady stream of demands for full disclosure from all sorts of government entities. From the Republicans probing the governor’s schedule at the state level to presidential candidates demanding their opponents’ tax records at the federal level – it’s increasingly common to wield the all-American right to know.
Whether warranted, or justified, the last decade has been marked as an era of increased government secrecy. And now more than ever those in power are heeding the demands of their constituents. Politicians are posting their daily schedules online. City councils are broadcasting their meetings. Montana Sen. Jon Tester even audited himself.
Plum Creek’s future development plan and BNSF’s avalanche prevention strategy won’t change much if and when they are thoroughly vetted. But as we plummet deeper into the information age, anything perceived as disenfranchisement will quickly be labeled as such. Forthrightness is recommended, even when the continuous demand for information results in several skunked fishing expeditions.