HOW WE SEE IT: Right To Know Still Needs Vigilance

Arkansans out earning their pay and living their lives have little time to think about how the work of government gets done.

Indeed, most of us - at least we’re pretty sure this is true - want as little entanglement with government as possible. But when those entanglements happen, isn’t it nice to know predecessors have fought a good fight to establish the expectation in Arkansas that government mustopen

That expectation is defined and protected by a law called the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Regular readers know this newspaper and many others across the state wholeheartedlysupport this law, which was signed in 1967 by then-Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller. That same group also vehemently guards against behaviors or legislative tampering that weaken residents’ ability to monitor what government is doing and why.

Frequent readers can be forgiven if they are tempted to bypass yet another Freedom of Information editorial about the need for residents to be able to access the decision-making process and the records of the governments supposedly working on their behalf.

But a recent exchange at the Bentonville School Board meeting demonstrates why secrecy in government needs constant resistance.

It came in a discussion about hiring an architect and construction manager for the district’s next junior high or high school. The board approved hiring two firms by a 6-0 vote. Member Grant Lightle abstained, saying the selection process the board used didn’t provide enough information. The district used a team of unelected staff to interview candidate companies. Only one board member was included in each round, a number that does not trigger a requirement for open meetings under Arkansas law.

Lightle was joined in his concern by board member Wendi Cheatham, who said the process limited the information available to board members charged with making the decision.

Board President Travis Riggs suggested board members with questions funnel them all to the district’s superintendent but noted “we don’t want to send an email to every board member because of FOI reasons.”

The very simple translation: We don’t want the public involved until we decide they need to be involved.

It’s one example of how public oft cials devote a good deal of their time looking for ways to avoid revealing information to the public. This was is a prime example because Riggs has generally appeared to seek transparency in school district business.

The law has its limitations, and some in government do their best to emphasize methods that avoid, rather than embrace, public scrutiny.

We’ve seen otherwise reasonable folks get into government and suddenly their recollection of being outsiders disappears. They start playing games to keep information shielded and convince themselves it’s the best thing for the community.

Public oftcials should ask the questions the public expects them to ask, and probably more. They shouldn’t be strategizing about ways to avoid the open meeting and open records provisions of the state’s invaluable Freedom of Information Act.

Such maneuvering in a school board setting often means the superintendent is the real mover and shaker and the board serves a rubber stamp function. Secrecy typically empowers the unelected.

Keeping an eye on public decision-making requires vigilance to prevent otherwise respectable people from getting caught up in secrecy they either naively or cynically believe is the right thing to do.

Opinion, Pages 7 on 11/29/2012

Upcoming Events