Gyeonggi information disclosure committee criticized for procedural formality

A civic group has raised concerns that the Gyeonggi Provincial Information Disclosure Deliberation Committee is operating primarily through written reviews, effectively becoming a mere formality that prioritizes administrative convenience over substantive deliberation. The Seongnam Citizens' Union for Change analyzed meeting minutes from January 2024 to July 2026, revealing a stark imbalance in meeting formats.

Over the past three years, the committee convened 69 times. However, only two of these meetings (approximately 3%) were held in person. The remaining 43 meetings, covering 2025 and the first seven months of 2026, were conducted entirely through written submissions. This practice deviates from the Gyeonggi Provincial Ordinance on Information Disclosure, which stipulates that committee meetings should be convened by the chairperson, with written deliberation permitted only under unavoidable circumstances.

The Seongnam Citizens' Union for Change pointed out that written deliberations significantly restrict opportunities for committee members to engage in discussions and ask questions of the relevant departments. This often reduces the process to a simple affirmation or rejection of the department's submitted review proposals, undermining the committee's role in re-examining decisions on information disclosure.

“

Written deliberation easily becomes a formal procedure of simply marking yes or no to the review proposal of the relevant department, as it limits discussion among committee members and questioning of the relevant department.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency in the deliberation process is a significant issue. When the civic group requested access to deliberation materials, Gyeonggi Province denied the request, citing that the documents were internal review materials and their disclosure could hinder the fair execution of duties. This opacity prevents external parties from understanding the basis of the committee members' decisions.

The union emphasized that as the committee's function is to review an administrative agency's non-disclosure decisions, it requires more than just fulfilling formal requirements like maintaining a certain ratio of external members. It needs guaranteed independence and transparency to ensure committee members can conduct substantive discussions based on adequate information.

“

As the information disclosure deliberation committee is a system that re-examines the non-disclosure decisions of administrative agencies, independence and transparency must be secured so that deliberation committee members can conduct substantive discussions based on sufficient materials, beyond simply fulfilling formal requirements such as the proportion of external members.