Saturday essay: The real power
Once said esteemed Revolutionary Era pamphleteer Patrick Henry: “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
How ironic it is that in this day and age of ever more electronic records and state and federal government transparency laws, our “rulers” seem to work overtime to shield the record of the public's business from public view.
Think of the local municipality that lags in its response to information requests (sometimes even openly deriding them); think of others attempting to charge excessive rates for copies of records.
Think of the local county that hides the public business behind the rubric of “executive sessions,” sometimes even deciding issues behind closed doors, then play-acting with “official votes” in public.
Think of the state agency that might comply with a request for public information, even in a timely fashion, but egregiously and nonsensically employs the black marker of redaction, laughably hiding even public information readily available elsewhere.
And think of the federal government that repeatedly defends its ad hoc rewriting of open-records laws, never mind that the illegality is so obvious, it resembles an ancient palimpsest.
The public cannot consider what it cannot see. But as Mr. Henry also reminded, it is the people who truly do have the power to force transparency and accountability: “(T)he battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”
— Colin McNickle
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Western Psych grand jury report: Do the right thing
- The China question
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda