In the Dark and Out of Luck

Julie Doll's columns have recently begun to appear occasionally in our local newspaper, The Hutchinson News.  She is apparently a retired journalist who is originally from Kansas and now lives again in Kansas (Garden City/Wichita).  In the intervening years she has worked in states ranging from California to New York, as well as many areas of Kansas.  This post will highlight a column which appeared on September 13 of this year.  "Keeping the Public in the Dark" is the title of the column.

First, a quote from the beginning of the column:

" Much of the public's business is conducted in secret.

That's no surprise to anyone who has served in government or tried to cover government as a journalist.

I don't mean to be cynical about the lack of transparency and accountability.  Nor do I intend to demonize government officials and employees who would rather conduct business outside the glare of public scrutiny.

It is admittedly easier to get things done when reporters and critics aren't second-guessing decisions--decisions that have not even been made but are being contemplated.  And most of us prefer the easy way when we set upon a task.

But as in so many things in life, the easy way is often not the best way."

Doll goes on to elaborate on three incidents in government that highlight the  topic of the column.

One was the matter of Hillary Clinton's private email server on which she apparently conducted official business as Secretary of State, thus putting the correspondence out of reach of the public sphere.  The Associated Press sued for access to those records in 2010, based on the Freedom of Information Act.  When the records were not produced at all until late in 2014 and then not in their entirety, in March of this year the AP sued the federal government for access, based on its failure to comply with the federal open records law.   Doll notes that the public's past experience with the Clintons warrants skepticism about what was deleted before the records were turned over in 2014.

The second incident involves a business department building on the University of Kansas campus.  It was built with donations from the Koch  Foundation and is named the Center for Applied Economics.  The director of the Center, Arthur Hall, worked in the past for the Public Sector Group of Koch Industries, Inc.  Doll didn't say it in her column, but people all over the country (thanks partly to media coverage from Time, for example) know that the Koch brothers--Charles and David--of Koch Industries are a powerhouse of funding for conservative causes, including support of conservative candidates for public office.  Forbes lists Charles as #4 among the richest people in America.  Back to the story.  The leader of a KU student group asked for records of Hall's email correspondence with Koch Industries, in order to determine whether influence from the Koch Brothers was affecting the operation of the Center they founded.  After the student group paid the requested $1800 to cover the costs of collecting the material (it must have been a surprise that they were able to pay), Hall sued the group in order to stop the process of releasing the emails.  His defense was based on two conflicting contentions:  1.  His salary was paid by private donations, so he wasn't really part of the public university.  2.  Because he worked for the university, he was entitled to academic freedom (which protected him from "intrusive" inquiries such as the one he didn't wish to comply with).  In a private settlement, Hall released a few innocuous emails--the ones he deemed to be public records.  Doll notes here that people often look for loopholes in open records laws and when they fail to find one, they make one up.

The third incident involves the Kansas governor's dissemination of budget decisions to lobbyists via private email.  When the Wichita Eagle's reporting challenged the legality of this action, the state attorney general weighed in, essentially saying disingenuously that "state officials' emails about state business aren't public if they're sent using personal email accounts."  (Doll)  He justified this by using a convoluted and dictionary-discredited definition of "entity," arguing that a person can't be an entity. Nonsense.  

In a sense, all this hoopla about what happens in government is old hat and hardly worth commenting on.  Emails are a small slice of open records law, so why make a big deal of them? That's just how it is, and we might as well acknowledge that it's largely beyond our control and move on with our lives.  Or maybe not.  Maybe we ought also to recognize that openness in matters (even emails) that involve "the public" is not merely a legal matter; it is also an ethical matter.  As such, it applies to activities other than government activities.  Perhaps the very minimum of what is expected sensibly in government matters should also apply to other situations (e. g. board and committee deliberations) that involve "the public."

Several decades ago, when many far-reaching decisions were being made regarding our church's involvement in Christian education, Hiromi inquired of chairman Melvin H. N. whether school board meetings were open meetings.  Hiromi and I were grateful for Melvin's response.  He assured Hiromi that "yes," the meetings were open and Hiromi was welcome to attend.  When he did so, Melvin asked if he wanted to say something.  Hiromi declined.  I think he attended several meetings and then quit going.

More recently, in a time of upheaval regarding the administration of the local farmer's market, one of the changes that occurred is that board meetings became open meetings.  In this case also, I assume that meetings have become less widely attended, although information is still announced ahead of the meetings about where and when they will take place.  They are still open meetings, and that is reassuring.

My sense is that all committees and boards that serve a group ought to operate their business in full view of the group they serve.  At a minimum, beyond publicly distributed minutes of past meetings, I believe that includes being willing to conduct open meetings.  Some closed sessions within those meetings may need to be conducted, especially when they involve sensitive personnel matters, but the general modus operandi ought to be open rather than closed.

Other ways to conduct business openly involve gathering public input by various  means.  Private conversations, organizing public meetings where people are invited to speak, receiving and considering written communication, and hearing input from individuals who attend meetings are among those other means.  Lack of openness on the part of any small group serving a larger group is a recipe for creating rifts, some of which would never happen if relevant information were freely shared in a timely manner.   No one likes to feel shut out, especially when the matters being considered have significant long-term consequences that affect everyone.

For the smaller group itself, some pitfalls could be avoided at the outset if public input were received in the course of deliberations.  Waiting to consider alternatives till a board decision is announced and "hits the fan" can result in lots of wasted time and energy--in laborious communication, backtracking, altering course, and making necessary explanations and/or apologies.   Openness is almost always a wise preemptive measure for building understanding, support, and consensus as opposed to acting preemptively by simply announcing and forging ahead with small-group decisions.

Julie Doll summarizes one of the government examples she cites by saying "The case is one of many examples of how the public is shut out of business that is supposed to be conducted on their behalf."  The same should never be true of any Christian organization, where ethical standards should supersede expectations for government entities.   As Doll says  ". . . the easy way is often not the best way."

*************

Julie Doll's entire article can be read here.