“We consider it illogical, impractical and contrary to express provisions of the law for public officials to withhold, in their discretion, information concerning the discharge of their public trust,” Campbell wrote.
“We are advising the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy that we are unable to properly discharge our statutory responsibility if information needed in our work is denied to our representatives in the performance of our audits.”
Representative William L. Dawson, chairman of the parent House Government Operation Committee, instructed Moss to prepare for public hearings. He wrote Campbell:
“I am sure everything possible will be done to overcome the repeated arrogance of Federal executive officials whose denial of information to the General Accounting Office flouts the clear law of the land.”
Comptroller General Campbell said that the “executive privilege” claim was being made by the Secretary of the Navy on grounds that “he believes full disclosure of rank opinions, advice and recommendations from persons at lower levels ... would not be in the public interest.
“This same reasoning is now being applied by the various bureaus and offices in the day-to-day work of their employees.
“We believe that sound management practices require that observations, opinions, and recommendations by subordinates and any other matters considered in making a decision should be a matter of record.
“All of these are matters upon which judgments are founded and subsequent decision and actions are based. Such documentation serves as a protection to the individual making the decisions or taking the action as well as furnishing a sound basis for subsequent appraisal of their timeliness, effectiveness and honesty.”
Campbell complained that under Navy procedure at that time “the individuals having custody of the materials are required to screen the material and remove from the official files any data they or their superiors feel we should not have.
“These actions provide a means by which the Department could conceal substantive evidence of waste, extravagance, improvident management, poor procurement practices, or other adverse conditions.”