Prying information loose from government has always been a key project in the development of this nation's democratic traditions. What James Madison wrote in 1822 remains just as true today: "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and the people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power, which knowledge gives."
Open The Government.Org
Democracy
October, 2006
We got a real kick out of this morning's Standard-Examiner guest commentary, wherein "somebody", ostensibly speaking on behalf of the Emerald City council, attempts to rationalize the council's most recent demonstration of tight government secrecy policy, in re the recent council seat "A" appointment matter.
In a nutshell, the author of today's overly-legalistic commentary regally informs the lumpencitizenry that the council already exceeded the bare legal minimum requirements for this process. It allowed us to look over its shoulder after all, as it selected its new council colleague. There was no legal obligation for the council to include the taxpayers in the process, somebody reminds us. "We could have lawfully conducted the whole process entirely behind closed doors," the commentary author hints. "We already went overboard to cater to you overly-nosey folks. Don't push your luck" is the message that we get from today's commentary.
And when it comes to matters of personal privacy, the council seemingly stands fast with its brand-new "seige mentality" attitude. From now on, privacy (and vague "security issues") will apparently trump the public's right to know important details about those who would write our laws and spend out taxpayer funds, presumably in every upcoming instance. Somewhere in a very warm corner of the universe we are sure that old Joe Stalin's ghost is wearing a little smile over this development. The Emerald City council has clearly jumped aboard the new-fangled anti-democratic neoCON-style government secrecy bandwagon.
We'll remind those public servants that the Fourth-amendment-derived "right of privacy," which the council has suddenly and vigorously invoked, is legally-dependent upon a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the instant case, none of the council applicants enjoyed the reasonable expectation of broad privacy protection. These folks weren't applying to drive a lawn-mower on the Mt. Ogden Golf course. It was an elected seat on our city legislature that was at stake. Additionally, all of the information which was summarily suppressed by the council had been voluntarily and publicly disclosed, in circumstances wherein each applicant was on notice that such information would be made part of the public record, subject to public scrutiny.
Despite the council's protestations to the contrary, we believe the taxpayers have been fundamentally cut out of the selection process.
It's plain that at least some on the council don't trust the taxpayers with arguably crucial information, information that's essential to citizen oversight. And we'll also remind the council of this:
Trust is a two-way street in American democracy. Unless the council acts to correct this policy blunder, they can reasonably expect the citizen-electors to reciprocate, and demonstrate their own failure of trust, in November 2007.
We believe that the Emerald city council needs to be called out on this plainly bone-headed public posture; and we hope that the Standard-Examiner will follow through in aggressively pursuing its legal GRAMA remedies in this connection.
We'd also be interested in knowing whether the entire council agreed to the statement included in today's citizen unfriendly proclamation. Did the council vote unanimously, or is this just another example of council leadership being led along by the nose, and bowing to the agenda of council "mentor" Bill Cook?
Maybe a few of our gentle readers can help us out with these questions.
There's lot's of fodder for discussion of today's of Std-Ex guest commentary, we think.
Let's hear it from our gentle readers.
Democracy
October, 2006
We got a real kick out of this morning's Standard-Examiner guest commentary, wherein "somebody", ostensibly speaking on behalf of the Emerald City council, attempts to rationalize the council's most recent demonstration of tight government secrecy policy, in re the recent council seat "A" appointment matter.
In a nutshell, the author of today's overly-legalistic commentary regally informs the lumpencitizenry that the council already exceeded the bare legal minimum requirements for this process. It allowed us to look over its shoulder after all, as it selected its new council colleague. There was no legal obligation for the council to include the taxpayers in the process, somebody reminds us. "We could have lawfully conducted the whole process entirely behind closed doors," the commentary author hints. "We already went overboard to cater to you overly-nosey folks. Don't push your luck" is the message that we get from today's commentary.
And when it comes to matters of personal privacy, the council seemingly stands fast with its brand-new "seige mentality" attitude. From now on, privacy (and vague "security issues") will apparently trump the public's right to know important details about those who would write our laws and spend out taxpayer funds, presumably in every upcoming instance. Somewhere in a very warm corner of the universe we are sure that old Joe Stalin's ghost is wearing a little smile over this development. The Emerald City council has clearly jumped aboard the new-fangled anti-democratic neoCON-style government secrecy bandwagon.
We'll remind those public servants that the Fourth-amendment-derived "right of privacy," which the council has suddenly and vigorously invoked, is legally-dependent upon a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the instant case, none of the council applicants enjoyed the reasonable expectation of broad privacy protection. These folks weren't applying to drive a lawn-mower on the Mt. Ogden Golf course. It was an elected seat on our city legislature that was at stake. Additionally, all of the information which was summarily suppressed by the council had been voluntarily and publicly disclosed, in circumstances wherein each applicant was on notice that such information would be made part of the public record, subject to public scrutiny.
Despite the council's protestations to the contrary, we believe the taxpayers have been fundamentally cut out of the selection process.
It's plain that at least some on the council don't trust the taxpayers with arguably crucial information, information that's essential to citizen oversight. And we'll also remind the council of this:
Trust is a two-way street in American democracy. Unless the council acts to correct this policy blunder, they can reasonably expect the citizen-electors to reciprocate, and demonstrate their own failure of trust, in November 2007.
We believe that the Emerald city council needs to be called out on this plainly bone-headed public posture; and we hope that the Standard-Examiner will follow through in aggressively pursuing its legal GRAMA remedies in this connection.
We'd also be interested in knowing whether the entire council agreed to the statement included in today's citizen unfriendly proclamation. Did the council vote unanimously, or is this just another example of council leadership being led along by the nose, and bowing to the agenda of council "mentor" Bill Cook?
Maybe a few of our gentle readers can help us out with these questions.
There's lot's of fodder for discussion of today's of Std-Ex guest commentary, we think.
Let's hear it from our gentle readers.
