So, is the controversy now centered on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton another email scandal or just Benghazi politics?
A long time ago, as Alaska's Egan administration approached its end, members of his office staff examined files and notes for personal use or review for indiscretions as records otherwise headed for the archives. One man, Alex Miller, a close friend and adviser to the governor, sat with his arms clasped behind his head as he leaned back in his chair. "Where are your records?" a colleague asked. "What records?" he replied.
Alex Miller had worked liaisons with legislators, business and union leaders, key representatives of the Alaska Native community, Seattle and national operators, just about anybody that had a strong interest, usually economic, in government activities. He conducted his business for the governor through conversation. His conversation was either face-to-face or by unrecorded phone calls. Key points moved through one-on-one conversations usually enveloped in cigar smoke. Miller wasn't necessarily doing anything dishonest. Still, the guidelines for sharing were his own. What do they say? Politics, including legislation, is like making sausage.
Policy governing the public or private nature of communication depends upon a balance of variable, conflicting interests including: 1) personal privacy, 2) confidentiality in negotiation and deliberation, 3) healthy intra- and interagency communication, 4) national security secrecy, 5) historical responsibility and 6) public oversight of government operations, or transparency. The addition of email to the mix caught officialdom off guard. Standards and rules were slow in coming, raising a number of issues.
1. Every person has a profound personal interest in privacy in her personal affairs. Sharing guidelines, on most margins, are a matter of personal judgment. It can be hard to get used to the difference when a person becomes an official.
2. Communications in a negotiation process need confidentiality. In Juneau, for example, confidentiality is the rule when representatives discuss possible revenue measures. Who wants to be quoted on who said what? A final, polished and confirmed agreement is sufficient. Publicity destroys the process. An amusing example came up in the unintentional sharing of opinion between the president and a European official on what a "pain in the ass" Netanyahu was. We are amused but private remarks are not intended to be shared and can be damaging to governmental interest.
3. The worst recent example of failure of intra-governmental communication was the "chimney effect." In the prelude to the 9/11 attacks, several agencies had fractional knowledge that something was up, but communication went up the chain of command and was not shared on an interagency basis in the field. Sharing would likely have caught the conspiracy in advance.
4. The importance of national security privacy in balance with citizens' oversight has been fiercely debated since Edward Snowden's disclosures of purloined electronic security files.
5. Virtually all of Clinton's communications are of historical interest. Many were recorded, but held in a private store. Many but not all official-to-official conversations should be in government records for both history and their potential assistance to successor officials. President Richard Nixon made the mistake of taking his role in history so seriously that he recorded Oval Office conversations. A hurried erasure almost, but not quite, saved him from the threat of impeachment.
6. The public's right to know is expressed in legislation requiring governments to provide copies of documents to a person filing a request. The response is governed by reservations reflecting the five interests cited above and perhaps a few more of your choice.
Moving forward 35 years, the same issues that faced Alex Miller faced Clinton but in an entirely new communication picture with advanced electronic communication and storage. Clinton made mistakes: one of security, another a failure to use dual systems. The first was unintentional, the second, at the time, consistent with government policy. Possibly of greater concern: Why didn't an aide tell her? Fear of telling truth to power is a chronic disease of governance.
Mrs. Clinton could have done it all Miller-style without email. Should she be penalized for its use? Whatever is made politically of her faults in managing communications, similar "errors" are made by government officials every day, by the thousand. They do not disqualify a presidential candidate.
John Havelock was Alaska Gov. Bill Egan's attorney general and, as special assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, communicated with a top security clearance on and off record.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.