NWA EDITORIAL: Publishing Washington County ordinances online is a great idea, no matter who came up with it

Online publication idea a good one


From the outside looking in -- which is where editorial writers and the public often find themselves when it comes to government affairs -- one could get the idea the Washington County Quorum Court's perspective on transparency is based on personality and partisanship. It should be based on good public policy.

Being tied to no party, we also have the luxury of evaluating ideas based on merit more so than on political considerations.

These thoughts arise from a recent proposal by Justice of the Peace Beth Coger to ensure that all ordinances and resolutions approved by the Quorum Court appear online.

In this day and age, this idea isn't rocket science. Washington County has somewhere around 250,000 people in living within 941 square miles. The notion that a resident of, say, Summers or Cincinnati should have to drive to Fayetteville just to find a copy of an ordinance recently passed is so 20th century. If it wasn't for the invention of the automobile, we'd say it was so 19th century.

The trend in government is making it easy for citizens to access information about the business done in their name. Why that's ever controversial is beyond us -- except for the concern that some people simply don't like the idea of the public's business being all that accessible.

Now, it might be relevant to this situation that Coger is a rookie on the Quorum Court, having taken office this past January. She's hardly a rookie to county business, though. She's been a constant voice for years on the question of criminal justice reform and a staunch opponent of jail expansion. She knows a bit about how challenging it can be to access documents even when they're clearly considered public.

Let's just say poking her nose in the county's business hasn't always been met with the acceptance of the Quorum Court or the county judge.

It might also be relevant that Coger is a Democrat, which puts her in the clear minority on the Quorum Court.

None of that should matter in evaluating whether her idea is a good one. But it's sure hard not to conclude, or at least suspect, that an idea as direct and simple as expanding online access to ordinances justices of the peace expect people to comply with would meet with opposition. And yet it has.

Some justices of the peace say there's no need to legislate the matter. Sean Simons called it "silly, partisan politics," especially because Coger's conversations with County Clerk Becky Lewallen prompted Lewallen to begin posting approved ordinances and resolution online monthly. Simons suggested Coger was in search of public "pat on the back" by pursuing the matter with the Quorum Court.

Here's the problem with that line of thought: Publication of these documents ought not be the whim of a single public official. It ought to be a matter of county policy. And if justice of the peace can't concern themselves with transparency as a matter of county policy, we'd suggest the blinders they're wearing are strapped on just a little too tight.

To her credit, Lewallen stepped up and began publishing a list or ordinances and resolutions passed each month by the Quorum Court. That listing includes the ordinances and resolutions themselves, too, which makes perfect sense if its presence online is to have any substance for interested citizens.

We'd suggest going even further by developing a system that's searchable by words, phrases or topics. If someone is searching for any ordinances affecting septic tanks, for example, it would be virtually impossible to know the month in which such an ordinance was approved. Lewallen sounds like she's entirely ready and willing to take on such a project, provided the Quorum Court provides the resources. The costs of that are unlikely to be exorbitant, especially compared to the benefit to the public in the name of access and transparency.

The county clerk's approach is a terrific start because it makes the documents available online, but without searchability, its effectiveness will be limited. Still, having responded to the idea, give Lewallen credit for recognizing a way to better service the needs of the public.

Let's get rid of one silly notion: At least one justice of the peace, Butch Pond, has shied away from Coger's proposal because he doesn't think the Quorum Court can or should tell elected officials how to run their offices.

Legislative bodies -- like the state Legislature and city councils and Congress -- pass laws and budgets all the time that establish rules and expectations for executive branch offices. It's because of laws passed by the the state Legislature that the Arkansas State Police execute a concealed carry license for handguns, for example. If the Quorum Court authorizes $750,000 for specific bridge project, isn't that telling the Road Department what to do? The City Council in Fayetteville is considering new rules for campgrounds as a response to a homeless encampment. Isn't that telling the Planning Department, which falls under the mayor's authority, how to do its job?

The Arkansas Legislature just approved construction of a monument to the "unborn" on the state Capitol grounds. In passing that law, it requires the state treasurer, an elected official, to maintain a trust fund to help pay for the monument and collect donations. It requires the secretary of state, an elected official, to permit, hire a contractor for and arrange placement of the monument on the Capitol grounds. It mandates the Capital Arts and Grounds Commission to select an artist and design of the monument. It specifically requires that commission to take input from "pro-life groups in Arkansas.

[linespace]

[dropcap] And yet we're to believe Washington County's Quorum Court is impotent in directing the county clerk to publish its ordinances and resolutions online? There's more handwashing going on here than with Pontius Pilot.

Legislative bodies tell citizens what they can and can't do all the time. And yet a quorum court has no control over how the county clerk organizes and handles the public laws it passes? How ludicrous. It's an excuse for shirking the quorum court's duties to oversee how the county operates.

If this isn't going to be county policy, it's because its elected leaders on the Quorum Court don't want it done, not because they're not involved or lack the authority.

The high probability is that this proposal would likely gain more support if a Republican proposed it. Or if it was an idea from almost anyone other than Beth Coger. The idea of her being able to take a victory laps likely chaps the hide of some of her colleagues. In fighting her proposal, ironically, her opponents may be making it even more politically valuable for her.

We'd simply suggest the Quorum Court should consider the idea, not who proposed it.

Who stands to benefit from this idea? The public. As always, that's who should be front and center in the minds of elected officials.

More News

None

Whats the point?

Establishing a public policy for online publishing of county ordinances and resolutions ought to be a matter for the Washington County Quorum Court.

 


Upcoming Events