'The Woo has a self-cleaning ability for the board'

News item | 12-05-2023 | 10:50
“What we gained in terms of disclosure after the benefits affair, we lost again with the Woo.” Looking back on the first year of the Open Government Act, WOO specialist and investigative journalist Bas van Beek sees few improvements.
<img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-3467" src="https://kindertoeslagaffaire.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Afbeelding28-300x176.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="176" />
Just under 15 years ago, at the age of 22, he submitted his first WOB requests. “Those were small local things.” From Platform Authentic Journalism, he has now been fighting with the government for 4 years over the disclosure of all documents from 2005 that come from, are addressed to, or about Shell. Since 2021, he has been a Woo specialist at the platform for investigative journalism Follow the Money. How does he look back on the first year of the Open Government Act?
'I just called around before this interview to see if I couldn't name more positive things, but really I can't say anything but: nothing much has improved. ' In front of him is a white A4 sheet with two handwritten lines on it: 'The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science is relatively quick to process WOO requests'. According to the Matglas report by the Open State Foundation (OSF) and the Institute of Social Innovation (IMI), ministries need an average of 161 days to process a request. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) can do it within an average of 70 days. And “background documents from the DG Nitrogen Consultation and the meeting documents of the UWV Board of Directors have been made public”. He explains one of the few examples that an administrative body has independently made active disclosure.
After studying Conflict Studies and Human Rights at Utrecht University, Bas and a number of fellow students set up the Platform Authentic Journalism. From that collective, he made his first WOB requests. “We started at a time when it was becoming increasingly difficult to get answers to requests. We noticed that we were increasingly being opposed, that decision deadlines were not being met. As a result, we felt the need to specialize in the Wob. In order to still get the information we wanted, to get procedures up and running and not to paint too much. '
Wob as a lay law
Bizarre actually, he thinks. “Surely the Wob is a kind of lay law. Everyone should be able to do it. If you want to know something, submit a request and 42 days later, under the Wob 56 days, an envelope pops up on your doormat. That's how it's delivered. ' The reality is different. He knows now, with 250 Wob/Woo requests on the counter.
At Follow the Money, he first worked as an investigative journalist, but writing doesn't make much sense anymore. He now spends his days filing WOO requests, monitoring procedures, talking to lawyers and officials, and so on. 'I have 50 to 60 requests running at the same time. You don't want to know what my excel sheet looks like. '
Not that he makes a request inappropriately and inappropriately. “We first take a good look at whether a WOO request is of added value. And whether we can't get the information any other way. A WOO request is intensive and time-consuming, for the journalist, but also for officials and lawyers who need to work with it. We are well aware of that. '
“In addition, a WOO request is also not a magic tool, although it is sometimes thought so. With a request, you don't have all the information for your story at once. It's just one of the tools on the journalist's pocket knife. You should also do your interviews and literature review. '
How policy is created
A WOO request is particularly good for policy reconstructions, Bas explains. “So how a policy came about. Government documents are the basis for this. Only official documents, such as notes, are not enough in all cases. These are actually end products. As an investigative journalist, you want to know exactly why certain considerations were made, what other considerations could have been made and why some were decisive. You only get that information if you get all the communication around a topic. So reconciliations, concepts, minutes, WhatsApp messages, etc. '
Also read the interview with Jacomijn Kuiper, WOO coordinator at Defence
The original Woo bill required governing bodies to keep a register of documents. This would have made it clear which documents can be requested. “This was ultimately killed by a strong VNG lobby. The result is that applicants have no idea what is going on and therefore ask more often about all documents related to a certain topic. '
You used to get documents that were completely painted black. After the benefits affair, you saw that that decrease.
“We'll stay in the Wob's old way of working, now Woo. One that focuses too much on limiting the information, without making it clear which documents were found. I am often asked if, for example, e-mails can be excluded. Impossible. For example, a journalist runs the risk of missing crucial information for a policy reconstruction. '
He understands that it is difficult to get e-mails out of the table, but he believes it should not be a reason to disregard them. After all, a government is legally obliged to keep its information management in good, organized and accessible condition. “Emails are government documents and they belong to the citizen. The government must ensure accessibility. '
Although this does not mean that Bas always wants to receive all documents. Where necessary, he is always willing to limit a request, but based on content. An inventory list offers a solution. “Administrative bodies will then make an overview of all the documents found. On the basis of this list, the applicant can then decide whether documents can be dropped. '
Art. 5.1.2i: The proper functioning of the State is at risk
He also sees no improvement in the information that is actually made public after a decision, although that seemed to be going in the right direction for a while. “You used to get documents that were completely black, because they would be about personal policy views. After the Allowance Affair, you saw that that decrease. But now article 5.1.2i is being used everywhere: we do not disclose because it impairs the proper functioning of the State. What we won before, we've now lost again with the Woo. '
Nevertheless, de Woo has also brought good things, says Bas. Such as confidential access (article 5.7). This allows a professional applicant, such as a scientist or journalist, to view all available documents unvarnished. Then he states what he wants and doesn't want to have. The condition is that the applicant may not use the information he has seen until it has been reviewed and made public.
Transparency and disclosure is something you have to constantly fight for, just like democracy. It is never finished.
The method is not new; some Woo coordinators have already used it under the Wob. Now that it is laid down in the law, more ministries are making use of it. “It works well, especially with large files. I see reductions of 90 percent. ' But some of his colleagues are reluctant to sign a nondisclosure agreement. This is mainly because some government bodies are making increasingly stringent requirements for this inspection. “For example, a ministry made it a condition that the journalist had to submit his draft article to the minister. We then announced that this is contrary to the freedom of the press, enshrined in the Constitution. The agreement was then amended again. '
The arrival of the Advisory Board for Government Information is also bearing fruit. “They have now come up with two good advice. I am deeply impressed with their work and hope that their advice will be taken up in the same way as those of the Ombudsman. ' As an example, he mentions the advice they issued to the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) after a journalist's complaint. Here, the college recommended that the ministry should be more generous and effective in providing information about decision-making regarding the corona pandemic. The Board also spoke out about the use of the ground for refusal 5.1.2.i. According to the advice, the ministry uses this ground for refusal far too extensively and generically and also almost unmotivated.
The fact that disclosure of government information takes a lot of energy and time sometimes frustrates him. “But transparency and disclosure is something you have to constantly fight for, just like democracy. It's never finished,” Bas concludes. “Just imagine if there wasn't such a thing as a Woo. Then there would be much less control. In this sense, De Woo has a self-cleaning ability, it ensures that certain things come to light and are therefore addressed. It keeps the government focused. '

&nbsp;