WASHINGTON, D.C. – Agencies responsible for ensuring government transparency have extended the use of closed door discussions, raising questions about how much decision-making is actually public. The Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (BEGA) sits at the center of this issue, further implicating executive sessions that limit public access to key government deliberations.
While laws like the Open Meetings Act (OMA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are designed to restore public trust and government accountability, recent changes and added exemptions have increased confidentiality. As agencies like the Office of Open Government (OOG) work with limited enforcement authority, some advocates argue transparency & accountability has weakened.
Robert Becker, an attorney for the D.C. Open Government Coalition, said the current application of these laws have strayed from their original purpose.
“The goal is to have not only the votes happen in public, but have the debate in public,” Becker explained.
Issues in Structure
The District’s transparency laws were established to restore public trust following longstanding concerns over government corruption and secrecy. Across the country, open government laws developed in response to officials conducting public business in private.
Through the OMA,. residents are able see entire voting, discussions, and decision-making processes. The OOG, a subagency within BEGA, was created to support these efforts by providing oversight and guidance for both the OMA and the FOIA.
The FOIA compliments the OMA by giving the public access to government records, creating an additional layer of transparency. Together, these laws are to ensure accountability in government operations.
However, Robert Becker, a member of the D.C. Open Government Coalition, said the original intent of these policies have been diminished over time.
“They are abusing the latitude they’ve been given by holding just about any meeting,” said Becker, “any meeting with the mayor…can be closed.”
The current practice of D.C. transparency laws has evolved over time to meet their balance for openness and confidentiality. The most recent changes to the OMA have changed the definition of “meetings” to clearly define what discussions are appropriate for private meetings – particularly between the Mayor and the Council.
Executive sessions are legally permitted to hold discussions for specific purposes such as ongoing investigations, legal advice, and personnel detailing, as long as no official decision is reached. Although it is lawfully acceptable, executive session have become a tool for limiting public viewership of government decision-making processes.
Few elected officials share those same concerns. D. Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, who voted against recent changes to the Open Meetings Act alongside D. Councilmember Charles Allen, said in a statement from her office that an increase of private discussions may reduce public access.
“The latest changes permit more secrecy than is necessary, allowing decisions to be made outside of public view,” the statement said.
Under law, agencies must provide advanced notification with planned agenda and reasoning prior to entering an executive session – typically at least 2 days before. The
The OOG guides how these laws are applied by advising other agencies and reviewing complaints without direct discipline. Their office’s roles is about guidance rather than actual enforcement.
“As far as our enforcement authority, we don’t have any,” said Niquelle Allen, director to the OOG. “We’re kind of the angel on the shoulder for the government.”
Relation to the FY27 Budget Plan
The structure of transparency rules are also reflected in the proposed FY2027 budget. The mayor’s operating plan remains relatively flat for BEGA, while shifting funds within their Special Purpose Revenue – comprised of fees and fines from ethical lobbying violations, and the Ethics and Accountability program – tasked with educating and training officials across multiple organizations..
While BEGA’s FY2026 budget previously increased spending on salary and fringe benefits, the mayor’s FY2027 proposed budget shifts funding priorities to increase nonpersonnel and contractual services by decreasing personnel costs. Although the adjustments fit the agency’s needs, it is not enough to strengthen enforcement or staffing.
Structure Solutions
Despite the rules in place, Becker described a structural gap in transparency enforcement with no objective authority. Many advocates describe several structural solutions that strengthen accountability.
“The council has always had the ability to conduct closed sessions… but now they have created this gaping loophole,” Becker said. “It is no longer modern, and it has been circumvented in a lot of different ways.”
Let's tell a story together! 
Leave a comment