My response was that I would be comfortable with my thoughts in a presentation, so long as they are accurate and in context, and I stressed that I wasn’t opposed to transparency but rather focused on the processes. I was still trying to digest the latest email from Supervisor Jamieson replying to my perspective on the Legal Services Transparency and Review Policy.

Email

Good afternoon Cheryl,

Yes, that would be fine — thank you for asking first.

I’m still digesting Rich’s most recent response and considering whether his examples demonstrate a need for a separate policy layered on top of FOIA, or whether the same goals could be achieved through a more precise application of existing law and improved practice. I’m approaching that question with an open mind and trying to square it with both the text and the spirit of FOIA.

If you reference my perspective, the main point I’d want to preserve is that my concern isn’t opposition to transparency, but whether codifying additional process requirements is the best way to achieve it, rather than strengthening transparency through consistent, practical improvements in how public materials and deliberations are already handled.

I’m happy for you to reference my earlier written comments directly so my views are represented accurately and in context.

I look forward to seeing you on January 8.

Best regards,
Lewis