Guest Editorial Regarding Open Government

The following editorial appeared in the Sunday, October 7, 2007 edition of the Tennessean. I was asked to submit comments from the local government perspective. I am reproducing my comments here for your information:

At the end of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln resolved that to honor those who died for our country, we should ensure that "...government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." Unfortunately, many no longer view government as an extension of themselves and their community, but as an outside force. The separation citizens feel from their government can be blamed on a mixture of unnecessary bureaucracy, citizen apathy and the overall complexity of our lives. But if we intend to have a thriving, effective democracy, the people must remain engaged with their government. To facilitate this, our laws require governments to make decisions in the open and allow public access to government records. The state legislature is currently considering whether those laws need revision.

Regarding records, members of the media have complained that Tennessee exempts too many records from public access. When considering proposed changes, one must remember these records relate not only to the government, but also to its people. Records involving government accountability should be open, but records that compromise the privacy of individual citizens should not. It takes education and diligence for government employees to get this balance right. Considering the current epidemic of identity theft in our nation, now is not the time to hastily remove safeguards that protect individual privacy.

Regarding open meetings, it is vital for the public to have notice of meetings and the opportunity to observe the decision-making process. The sunshine law currently exempts "chance meetings" between two members of a governing body from notice requirements. However, it provides that business must not be decided or deliberated during these informal communications. This provision was originally intended to allow officials to speak freely about public business in unofficial settings. As currently interpreted, it subjects officials to allegations of breaking the law if they merely "talk shop" with a peer. The problem is the word "deliberation." Attorneys disagree about when a simple conversation becomes deliberation. This uncertainty casts a shadow of litigation over any communication between public officials. It does not serve public interest to limit all conversation between officials to the strict confines of a public meeting. The law should be clarified to allow healthy discourse while clearly prohibiting back-room plotting. Most other states also recognize that certain specific matters are best considered in a confidential setting. Tennessee may want to follow their lead. For example, a county should be allowed to meet in a closed session to discuss a land purchase for a new school. If the seller knows from a public meeting the maximum price the government will pay for a piece of property, you can be sure the taxpayers will always pay that maximum. Also, if a supervisor is charged with misconduct, hearings may be more candid and respectful of the victim if held privately.

Whether your concern is government accountability or individual privacy, this is an excellent time to get involved, make your voice heard, and ensure your government continues making decisions that are in the people’s best interests.