On January 26, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice and the City of Ferguson, MO, entered into to a Consent Decree (Agreement) the purpose of which is "to ensure protection of the constitutional and other legal rights of all members of the community, improve Ferguson's ability to effectively prevent crime, enhance both officer and public safety, and increase public confidence in the Ferguson Police Department (FPD)."

The City of Ferguson is seeking public input and comment on proposed agreement, and the bill to take action on the proposed agreement will be voted on at the City Council meeting on February 9, 2016. We applaud the City of Ferguson's transparency and accountability initiatives in this regard.

We are concerned, though, that these commitments -- transparency and public accountability -- do not carry through to the agreement itself. The DOJ notes that the Agreement will (among many provisions in its 131 pages) require the Ferguson Police Department to collect the data on its own operations needed for it to continue to learn and improve upon its police and court practices. There are, indeed, excellent data-collection and analysis requirements in Section XXI. Data Collection, Reporting, and Transparency. The Agreement requires qualitative and quantitative assessments to measure whether implementing it is resulting in constitutional and otherwise lawful law enforcement.

These outcome assessments will include analyzing, at least annually, "bias-free policing measurements", including regression analyses sufficient in type and scope to determine whether any police or court program, initiative, activity, or service has a disparate impact on the basis of protected characteristics. Such analyses will control for factors other than protected characteristics, including but not limited to crime rates, income level, and ability to pay.

Examples of the regression analyses that will be conducted are analyses of measurements (spelled out in specific detail) of: voluntary contact, stop, search, citation, and arrest; First Amendment violations; use-of-force; response to individuals in crisis; policing in schools; and Court practices. Each of these are critical elements of "bias-free policing."

We enthusiastically support the collection and analysis of this broad scope of information. It would permit the public, oversight bodies, and the media to really understand what is happening and how the situation is -- or is not -- improving. We say "would" because neither the data nor the analyses will be made public at any time.

We are particularly dismayed that the DOJ has authorized this comprehensive withholding of information from the public, and even more so in light of its own failure to adequately collect and make regularly available data this is required by law. ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/30/how-little-we-know-police-violence-deaths-police-custody-column/73939354/)

The people of Ferguson have a short window to demand transparency from the City and the Ferguson Police Data. The Agreement, posted by the City on its website, is the chance to have the government's accountability to them enshrined in a court-enforceable Decree.

McDermott is executive director of OpenTheGovernment.org, and author of "Who Needs to Know? The State of Public Access to Federal Government Informatio."n