Accountability and Transparency
• Lack of public information and open records
• Lack of public input on decisions affecting the public interest
• Loss of recourse if the public is harmed
Democratically elected governments are accountable to voters and their processes are open to public scrutiny. Privatization shuts the public out of decision-making that deeply affects the public interest.
Terms of privatization contracts often are decided behind closed doors, without any public input. In some cases, the public is unaware of the possibility of a privatization deal until the contract is almost finalized. A prime example is the privatization of Chicago’s parking meters, which was planned and negotiated without public knowledge, and left the public extremely unhappy with the outcomes.
Transparency also refers to the public’s ability to obtain information regarding government contracts. While government documents generally are available through open records requests, private companies can shield information from public view by claiming it has a proprietary status.
Another important aspect of accountability and transparency relates to the government’s ability to properly manage contracts. Contracts and governmental policy must contain adequate mechanisms for monitoring and oversight to ensure contract compliance and hold contractors accountable for contractual abuses and the failure to deliver on promised deliverables.
In many large complicated contracts, it is difficult to hold companies accountable partly because no one can anticipate all possible contingencies and set consequences, and partly because companies may be able to shield important information from the government. Furthermore, governments that have sunk a lot of time and money into a contractual relationship may choose not to hold the contractor accountable for fear of losing that initial investment or the transaction costs associated with contract cancellation.
As the Blackwater Nisoor Square case shows, it can be difficult for the government to hold a private company accountable for even the most heinous actions. A New York Times editorial titled "Privatized War and Its Price" (January 2010) noted that in dismissing charges against Blackwater agents for killing civilians in Iraq, a federal judge "highlighted the government’s inability to hold mercenaries accountable for crimes they commit."
Following the Money 2014: How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data
In March, Detroit’s unelected emergency manager Kevyn Orr asked private companies for proposals to manage and operate the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in what would be the country’s largest water privatization deal. This deal would take one of the most basic utilities for survival out of public control.Read more »
Overlooking Oversight: A Lack of Oversight in the Garden State is Placing New Jersey Residents and Assets at Risk
The State of Georgia is considering outsourcing "some or all of the state's foster-care system," according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. AJC opinion columnist Jay Bookman rightfully points out Georgia's previous failure in privatizing probation services and the problems with accountability associated with privatization. Georgia's taxpayers should also look to examples in Los Angeles and Nebraska.Read more »
In July of 2010, three inmates from the privately owned, for-profit Kingman Arizona State Prison received bolt cutters and lineman's pliers over a fence from an outside accomplice. The three prisoners, with four murders or attempted murders between them, cut the chain-link fence and made their getaway leading to a nationwide manhunt that lasted for weeks.Read more »