Nevada Press Association The best in Nevada journalism since 1924
Is government too open?
Have our records and meeting laws actually gone too far in pushing transparency, such that they interfere with the decision-making process of democracy to the detriment of our society?
My answer, of course, is no.
But I was intrigued by the question offered as a recent debate by the Reynolds Journalism Institute between Bruce Cain and Charles Lewis for Sunshine Week.
I’m always willing to listen to the other side. Unfortunately, I missed the debate. But I read their position papers afterward. (You know the definition of an investigative reporter? Missed the meeting, but read the minutes six months later.)
I was actually hoping to see a new take or a fresh look at the issue. I’ve spent many years pushing governments to be more open, and I thought there might be an argument that would challenge my assumptions.
Alas, there was not.
Here’s a quote from Cain’s paper, which takes the “too open” side:
“Do laws that force public decision making into the open strike the right balance between accountability and effective government? Often they do not. When strictly enforced, open meeting laws encourage rigid posturing rather than negotiation and compromise.
“Any final vote, decision, or action should of course be announced and explained publicly. But government officials should have enough deliberative space to permit frank exchanges, persuasion, and the airing of preliminary conclusions. Too much sunshine can have the opposite effect.”
Unfortunately, that’s the same complaint we always hear.
Most recently, it’s been applied to the Nevada statute requiring cities, counties and school districts to conduct open evaluations of their managers and superintendents.
Such reviews should take place behind closed doors, some say, because the elected officials will be more honest.
But why?
The unanswered question
That question remains unanswered in every discussion I’ve had, and in Professor Cain’s paper as well.
Elected officials have come to believe they dare not speak their minds in a public forum for fear of retribution from their political opponents.
As Cain puts it:
“They have learned how to use the system to their advantage. Opposition researchers routinely use Freedom of Information Act requests to gather information about opposing candidates.”
The horror! How demanding of us to expect they would stand by, and defend, what they’ve said.
However, I think the political-retribution argument is too course, too pessimistic. In reality, I think it comes down to human nature. People have a hard time arguing civilly with each other when people are watching.
They might say something dumb. Or they might get angry. Or they might just propose something they haven’t really thought through.
That, I think, is Cain’s better point — inefficiency and ineffectiveness of open debate on a public stage.
More from his paper:
“We need more deliberation, compromise, and consensus. We need less partisan posturing, ideological rigidity, and obstruction. A democracy that works for the people needs to be able to make effective decisions without undue special interest pressures and incentives to grandstand.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
One big problem
The problem, though, is that secrecy tends to foster exactly the opposite.
For his formula to work, one would have to assume the people behind the closed doors have all the answers and the purest of motives. They must come to the table without being bribed or threatened or promised any incentives beyond the public good.
I submit that when we don’t know what was said — or even who was in the room — that it is far, far easier to succumb to the pressures of special, or personal, interests.
More than that, there could be no consequences. There could be no accountability. There would be no responsibility.
Would it be more efficient? Oh, yes.
This nation has a long history of efficient decisions being made by wealthy, white, male leaders with nary a note of dissension from the people most affected.
Were they effective? Kind of depends on who you ask.
For a less-open government to work, its participants would need to be honest, trustworthy, forthright, civic-minded and willing to face the scrutiny of their fellow citizens. In short, they would need to be everything a more-open government ensures.
