Emily O’Reilly on Proactive Disclosure

As part of the Proactive Disclosure Coalition, Emily O’Reilly, OGP Ambassador and former EU Ombudsman, gave a keynote address on May 18 exploring a simple but important shift: moving from governments sharing information only when asked, to sharing it openly by default.

First of all, I’m sure that everyone in attendance today is aware of what proactive disclosure means: the routine and systematic publication of government information without waiting for citizens to submit formal freedom of information or access to information requests.

Instead of relying on individuals to ask for records after decisions have already been made, governments publish key information automatically. This can include contracts, ministerial expenses, policy papers, datasets, meeting records, procurement information, lobbyingLobbying transparency allows the public to ensure that there is diversity of participation and contribution to public decision-making. Technical specifications: Policies and actions affecting lobbying... contacts, environmental reports, and performance statistics.

In modern democratic governance, proactive disclosure is increasingly viewed not as an optional administrative exercise, but as a core component of accountability, public trust, and institutional legitimacy. It is not just an element of open government; it goes to its core. Something that is open is visible, accessible, and capable of being engaged with.

That’s the theory. The practice, as you also know, lags a little behind which is why this push for best practice guidelines has arisen and why you are being asked to make your contribution.

In my few words today, I want to share my thoughts on my experience of how administrations deal both with freedom of information regimes and proactive disclosure, based on my time as a political journalist, Irish Ombudsman and Freedom of Information Commissioner, and European Ombudsman. But I think it’s useful to begin with a reflection on why this matters.

Why Proactive Disclosure Matters

Sometimes these discussions are very abstract. We talk about how it’s “our” information, about a citizen’s right to take part meaningfully in the life of the state through accessing the information that the state holds. We talk about accountability and transparencyAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, transparency occurs when “government-held information (including on activities and decisions) is open, comprehensive, timely, freely available to the pub... More and use other words that risk losing their potency if they are used without reference to concrete evidence of why they are important, not just to the interests of the citizen, but also to the interests of a government. It is that second part that occasionally gets forgotten.

I believe that if governments, at least those with an interest in governing well and providing good lives for their citizens to the best of their ability, were persuaded that “transparency” (whether through FOI or proactive disclosure) will actually help them to do that job better, they would be more willing to do what theoretically and legally they are supposed to do: share the information about the state with the people of the state. They need to know that in doing so it’s a win-win situation and not an exercise in shaming, or excessive interference and intrusion.

I do not say that this is easy. Neither governments nor the people they serve are perfect. Political agendas are not always pure, and neither are the agendas at times of those seeking access to the information the government holds.

Citizens fear corruption, wasteful, or inappropriate spending; governments fear projects or other delays provoked by an “interfering” civil society or other organization, or of information being misunderstood and misused to everyone’s detriment. The challenge is to find an equilibrium of trust so that outcomes are enhanced and not undermined, and that is something that must be kept in mind as these guidelines are discussed and executed.

Because reluctance toward proactive disclosure is not limited to authoritarian states. Even mature democracies often struggle with transparency. Governments of all political orientations may support openness rhetorically, while resisting disclosure in practice once transparency creates political inconvenience. This reflects an enduring tension within democratic governance: governments are expected to be both effective and accountable, but openness can sometimes complicate political management and administrative control and that is where that balance comes in.

Striking the Balance

I’d like to give you two examples that influence my own thinking about this. One has nothing to do with this topic directly but it’s useful conceptually, and has to do with what is called “the wisdom of the crowd,” an idea as I understand it that holds that aggregated data from large groups of people is often more useful than that of a single expert, or, as it might relate to our discussion, a single government or administration.

A few years ago, The New York Times ran a series of articles whereby details of an intractable medical problem afflicting an individual was put out to readers. Doctors often specialize in narrow fields, and the time constraints of modern clinical practice can make it difficult to research rare, atypical symptoms. This exercise aimed to “make the room a little bigger” by sharing unresolved medical mysteries with The New York Times global readership. The collective “crowd,” comprising doctors, psychologists, patients, scientists, and students from all over the world, were invited to submit their theories, knowledge, and potential treatment options.

It was fascinating. My recollection of the series is that several of the medical mysteries were solved. It made me think how this practice could be applied to the sort of problems that governments are daily trying to resolve, in healthcare, housing, educationAccountability within the public education system is key to improving outcomes and attainment, and accountability is nearly impossible without transparent policies and opportunities for participation ..., and transport: the public services that most impact on people’s lives. The tension arises between the value of having relevant information about these issues available to the crowd, and the practical difficulties of harnessing it in a way that is genuinely useful and innovative.

Not everyone can involve themselves in every decision. Administrations do need bureaucratic guardrails to enable them to work in a timely and coherent way. The problem, however, becomes overreach, when the guardrails are assembled not for laudable reason of efficiency and good administration, but because of a mindset, conscious or unconscious, that pits elite administration or political expertise against what that elite might consider to be the lack of expertise and insight among the non-elite, us.

And no matter how often some governments pay lip service to the value of citizen participationAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, citizen participation occurs when “governments seek to mobilize citizens to engage in public debate, provide input, and make contributions that lead to m... More, access to information, and proactive disclosure, my experience is that many at times find it all very annoying, an unwelcome interference in the work only they can understand and execute.

As European Ombudsman I called this “citizen washing,” a pretence of inclusionOGP participating governments are working to create governments that truly serve all people. Commitments in this area may address persons with disabilities, women and girls, lesbian, gay, bisexual, tr... More through various fora and access points, while continuing, either through delays or other bureaucratic procedures, to keep the guardrails up. I saw it through the European Citizens Initiative, a means to involve EU citizens in proposing new regulations, where the process proved so exhausting for the millions who participated that the outcomes were far from what was anticipated at the start. I saw it through the Conference on the Future of Europe, intended to give citizens a say in the shaping of a future EU, but where again the outcomes were at best opaque.

Examples from Ireland

But, reflecting on the “wisdom of the crowds” scenario I outlined earlier, I started to think about it in relation to something that is happening in my own country, Ireland. That is the very long-awaited and very over-budget project to build a national children’s hospital, replacing a fragmented system that no longer caters to the needs of today’s Irish children.

Originally, the hospital was expected to cost roughly €650 million and open around 2022. It is still not open and there is still no definite date for it to open. The projected cost has since risen to approximately €2.2 to €2.24 billion, making it (claimed by some) one of the most expensive children’s hospitals ever built, in the world, on a per-bed basis.

As you can imagine, major issues around procurement, contracts, planning etc. have emerged, laced with inter-hospital rivalries, arguments over the site, and the name. Nothing has gone smoothly. A proposal to call it The Phoenix Hospital for example, was objected to by a US hospital called Phoenix, while our health minister has taken to visiting the site to count the number of people at work on a given day and demand that everybody please hurry up.

I’m not sure that the “wisdom” of the crowd would have sorted out the clashes, rivalries, and jealousies of the medical professional and managers involved, but one could reasonably imagine that had the initial plans and contracts been sent out to the crowd, had there had been a genuine desire to harness as much intelligence, insight, and wisdom as possible about everything from the procurement details to the allocation of responsibilities, to penalties for missed deadlines, then some at least of the problems may not have emerged.

Another issue that arises out of this is accountability. In the last year, Irish parliamentary committees have forensically interrogated certain payments made to staff and contract workers at the state’s public broadcasting service, RTE. In total, the sums involved barely amount to a few million euro but heads have rolled, individuals shamed, while the €2.5 billion hospital project fiasco is left free floating in the ether, with few if any individuals called to account for it. This is possibly because while the RTE issue involves small amounts of money, known personalities, and is easy to understand, the hospital project demands access to large volumes of complex, forensic detail and the means to analyze it.

I’m sure many of you can point to similar instances in your own countries and it makes me wonder if one of the principles that needs to be advanced through this exercise is that governments conduct a “wisdom of the crowd” exercise of critical public services or other projects before they set off on a trajectory that may not end well.

It cannot be a passive exercise. Making contracts and other material available is one thing; it is another to alert people to the fact that they are available, to make them easily accessible and comprehensible, and to actively seek out ideas to improve the ultimate outcome of whatever the project or process is.

But to achieve this, it is vital to change the mindset of an administration that instinctively avoids too much public engagement and sees FOI and proactive disclosure as a nuisance that needs to be managed and tamed, rather than as a gift to allow them to achieve what they constantly tell us they wish to achieve, including better public services across all sectors.

Making the Argument for Proactive Disclosure

As European Ombudsman, securing records for citizens who had requested them was the toughest job my colleagues and I had to do. Anything that touched on the tiniest bit of political sensitivity was destined to be delayed, refused, or heavily redacted, irrespective of the legal grounds for release.

On two occasions, the European Court of JusticeTo address barriers that prevent citizens from having their justice needs met, OGP participating governments are working to expand transparency, accountability, and inclusion into all systems of justi... agreed with my interpretation of the access law in relation to requests of significant public interest, but by the time the complaint had made it all the way up to the highest court in the union, the relevanceAccording to the OGP Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should include a clear open government lens. Specifically, they should advance at least one of the OGP values: transparency, citizen partic... and usefulness of the records had been erased or significantly diluted.

My point is that, despite the laws, the codes, and the principles of good administration and open government, politics can still dictate much of what does or doesn’t get disclosed. And that is a problem. Producing new principles, as we are trying to do, is an excellent idea and will give guidance to governments as to the best way to go about proactive disclosure. But that needs to be done in tandem with a move to convince governments and administrations that such disclosure is in their own interests, and not just those of civil society and other organisations or businesses. Self-interest is a powerful motivator.

The quality of proactive disclosure also varies significantly, a fact that often dilutes the impact of laws and codes that may look good on paper. Some governments publish large quantities of information that are technically available but are difficult to search, incomplete, heavily redacted, or released too late to be meaningful. Genuine transparency requires more than document dumping. Information must be accessible, timely, understandable, and usable.

A transparent government is not necessarily a perfect government. Mistakes, disagreements, and policy failures will still occur. However, proactive disclosure makes it more difficult for institutions to conceal those failures indefinitely. In doing so, it supports democratic accountability, strengthens public trust, reduces corruption risks, and empowers citizens to participate more meaningfully in public life. The latter point is crucial, but will be transformative only if governments are persuaded of the benefits.

Before I finish, I want to say a word about AI and its capacity to access and analyse unimaginably large amounts of information. The New York Times “wisdom of the crowds” exercise in relation to medical diagnoses that I spoke of earlier took place before the new AI large language models were made available to the public. Might the same or better results have been found if they had been used? Where will AI figure in this work on access and proactive disclosure? Already it is giving access to information and analysis in volumes unimaginable just a few years ago. What impact will that have on administrations, and what impact will it have on the capacity of civil society and of citizens to influence?

As you go forward with this work, it is something I suggest that very much needs to be factored into your thinking.