By Paula Mabry
We try to make the time you spend with Our Town like a visit with a good friend or welcome neighbor; on the whole newsy, day brightening. Most of the time we feel comfortable and happy in our niche.
But we don’t take the press’s institutional role for public service lightly. We’re blessed with veteran journalists who believe both in the importance of community journalism and our readers’ right to public process and information.
Most of the time our stories focus on community and the flow of everyday life. We are, however, also interested in keeping the public’s business public. If you pay for it, if it impacts your streets, schools, water, safety or tax dollars for instance, we think you have a right to know about it. We bear some share of the responsibility to make sure you have access to it.
There were those in Mt. Angel who were somewhat taken back recently when we filed official requests for access to councilors’ electronic files. Our intent isn’t to create a burden, it is to protect a process.
The way ideas are exchanged has changed over the last decade. Think text messaging, email, video conferencing and 24/7 access to your family, friends and business associates. Don’t blink; you’ll miss something. It’s wildly different from the days when the written word moved only at the speed of the postal carrier or private courier and spoken word was limited to face to face, the telephone, or an audio or video clip at the news hour.
While immediacy can be a great boon, it comes with some jeopardy. There’s a vast difference between an instantaneous text message announcing news or an email spelling out business information you need immediately, and elected representatives using electronic group discussion on official business. We make no assumption that this has happened. Rather, we have a “watchdog” duty to guard against it. If electronic consensus is hashed out in the privacy of homes or offices rather than in the public forum of an officially noticed meeting – even inadvertently – there’s a problem.
Transparency in government is highly touted for good reason. What do you think of when someone says “backroom deal”? Does it give you a sense of confidence in the legitimacy of the decision? If you don’t think an accessible and defined process is in place, do you believe decisions are in the best interest of you or your community?
As an example, how do you feel about the allocation of the first half of the 2008-approved TARP fund? You remember, the billions that disappeared into the coffers of banks and insurance companies in the name of economic recovery. A little transparency about the terms and rules – before the Wall Street bonuses – would have been nice. It might have helped shape a different outcome.
If that old school term “backroom” raises doubt, then let’s bring it into the electronic information age. How do you feel about emails circulating in a group if you are not in the group? Is the laptop or home computer the new “backroom”? It has the potential to be.
It builds confidence when decisions are made in a public way for defined reasons. You may disagree with the decision, you may disagree with the reasons, but that’s part of our governing process, too. Honoring process is a foundation of trust and accountability.
The Oregon Public Meetings Law was put into place to assure that the public has access to the governing process. In this time of technological transition, it is important for public officials to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of the law. We applaud the council for taking the time last week to take part in League of Oregon Cities training on a variety of aspects of public process.
We have a new president who talks about public policy transparency and touts ways of using electronic communication to improve it. We think that is a responsible goal for all public officials.
