Debating Transparency and Confidentiality in Arabic: C2 Conversation

Nabil — public official: This is the record of a fictional neighbourhood fund that received eight applications and approved three. The amount is twenty invented units: nine for a garden, seven for a sewing corner and four for a reading shelf. The amounts have not been disbursed.

Salma — journalist: You replied: We protect applicants’ privacy. I did not ask about their lives, but why these projects were chosen over the other five. If privacy takes the place of an answer, the decision will have no reason that can be examined.

Lamis — oversight representative: Protection has a place here. The record contains names, addresses, working hours and family arrangements. But removing these particulars does not require removing the reasons for allocation; we should examine what is concealed, rather than submit to the label of confidentiality.

Nabil — public official: I proposed publishing the total amount and number of accepted applications with a description of the projects. The reader would know where the money goes, and we would avoid exposing a rejected applicant who did not choose to have their circumstances become public news.

Salma — journalist: That shows the destination, not the comparison. I know they allocated nine to the garden, but not why it had priority over a rejected workshop. I ask for your criteria, the evidence you linked to them and the reason for excluding competing alternatives.

Lamis — oversight representative: The summary must include all eight applications, using codes instead of names. Showing only accepted applications makes each choice seem reasonable on its own and removes the comparison that gave it priority. We will explain the amount, not just the acceptance.

Nabil — public official: Our published criteria are shared use and the possibility of starting this season. The amounts for the three projects were approved as requested. As for the rejected workshop, the initial summary described it as not ready to start.

Salma — journalist: The applicant voluntarily showed me their document, and it contains a starting date. That does not establish their entitlement to acceptance, but it means your explanation needs clarification. Was the date unsuitable, or was the objection something else?

Lamis — oversight representative: I will read the original wording without identifying particulars: The space is private, and therefore we do not see shared use. That is a different explanation from lack of readiness. Adding the applicant’s name to the report does not solve this problem.

Nabil — public official: Correct: we shortened the explanation until its meaning changed. The document proposes opening the workshop to neighbours by booking, and we questioned the extent of use. But the published criterion did not require shared ownership of the space. I must show that distinction.

Salma — journalist: Then replacing “not ready” with “private space” is insufficient. We should see how you weighed the offer to open it to neighbours. If disagreement remains over the interpretation of shared use, do not present it as a settled fact.

Lamis — oversight representative: We will record the original reasoning and the offer that challenges it, and identify the disagreement about interpreting the criterion. Transparency here does not mean adopting the applicant’s account, but allowing the reader to understand the point of their objection without knowing their identity.

Nabil — public official: I fear the codes will reveal identity. If we mention the rare craft, the street and opening time, neighbours will recognise the applicant even if we remove their name. Removing the name would then be a formal procedure that does not actually conceal the particulars.

Salma — journalist: I am not asking for the street or craft. But do not remove booking and the nature of the space, because they are part of the objection. We could write: A workshop in a privately managed space, proposed to open to neighbours by booking; then explain the rejection.

Lamis — oversight representative: That wording retains what is needed to understand the reason and removes what easily identifies its owner. I cannot guarantee that no one will recognise them, but a code is not sufficient. We will examine each summary for both meaning and identity.

Nabil — public official: Who will see the full record? If no one outside my team sees it, a polished summary may remain a selection that serves us. I accept independent examination, but not publishing family circumstances because the decision is in doubt.

Salma — journalist: I want the ability to question the summary, not authority to expose every identity. But if you choose the two examiners alone, I will ask who examines your choice of them. Independence does not appear by writing the word “independent”.

Lamis — oversight representative: I propose that the oversight body name two examiners with no connection to the applications. These are internal rules we are proposing for our case. They inspect the full record and explain in a public report what they examined and what they could not settle.

Nabil — public official: I will hand them the full minutes and attachments, not the passages I select. But I want every withholding in the public version to be explained: a personal address or family detail. We will not settle for the phrase “confidential information” without specifying further.

Salma — journalist: The reader needs to know whether withholding concealed a reason for allocation. I do not ask to publish everything withheld, but for a bounded confirmation that the examiners saw it and compared it with the summary. I should also be able to request a reasoned correction.

Lamis — oversight representative: The report will state whether withholding changes understanding of the reasoning and mention any incompleteness in the record. Examination of an incomplete version will not certify a complete record. We will open a route for requesting corrections without exposing applicants’ names.

Nabil — public official: I accept this arrangement and will halt disbursement until we review the reasoning for rejecting the workshop. That does not mean it will be accepted or that the three projects have lost eligibility. But the different explanation prevents me from treating the summary as complete.

Salma — journalist: I will write that disbursement is on hold and the rejection reasoning is under review. I will not turn that into a report of established favouritism; the record does not establish it. I will keep the question about the reason for the comparison open, because it is not yet settled.

Lamis — oversight representative: We will publish the corrected summary with its date and a statement of what changed, instead of erasing the first version from the record. If we replace one explanation with another without a trace, the reader cannot follow the decision. The correction itself is part of the event.

Nabil — public official: We will publish what enables questioning of the decision and withhold personal particulars with reasons for doing so. Salma will not see every attachment, but she will see the points under review and their limits. My team will not be the only body reading the full record.

Salma — journalist: I will retain my right to criticise the outcome after examination; accepting this arrangement is not advance endorsement of it. But I now see a route to accountability that does not make exposing applicants’ names the necessary price of understanding the allocation of funds.

Lamis — oversight representative: I will assess it by the examination it enables, not the quantity of published documents. Many pages may be published while the decisive reason is absent. We need traceable reasoning, a record examined by someone other than the decision-maker, and withholding that does not swallow the answer.