News-Record.com

Well, the N&R has been, at best, a lukewarm advocate for open government. The paper hasn't had much to say when local goverment bodies do things behind closed doors.

On the other hand, the Rhino Times has actually gone to court to fight for greater public access to government meetings and records. Plus, the Rhino frequently uses its pages as a bully pulpit to expose open meetings and public records violations.

That's not to say I necessarily prefer the Rhino's news coverage, but in this county, they are unquestionably the leader in the fight for open government. The N&R would be wise to follow their lead.

Once again, I'd suggest you be as skeptical of the Rhino as you apparently are of us. We have successfully sued for records and just not crowed about it so loudly. I would also suggest to you that it declares many meetings as illegal that aren't so much.

All I know is what I see and read. The Rhino has been a champion for open government for years. The N&R? Some here and there, but not nearly at the same level or consistency.

Right. The Rhino does a lot of railing about meetings it thinks are illegal, but which probably aren't. If that makes it a champion for open government, so be it.

Mr. Robinson, unless the Rhino challenges what it believes to be illegal meetings how will you know if they're illegal or not? Your statement above tells me the N&R is willing to overlook "probably illegal" government meetings. If never challenged, the government could just label every meeting "legal" and do what they want. I thought one of the obligations of a Free Press was to keep the government honest?? The Rhino performs a vaulable service in keeping ours a free society.
A challenge requires a finding of legality, and helps define "case law" for the future to insure legal conduct by our elected officials.
Kudos to The Rhino for it's service to the public.

Voicing opinion that a meeting is "illegal" is one form of protest, but it doesn't mean the meeting is, in fact, illegal. If the Rhino truly believes the governmental bodies meet illegally as often as they say they are, they ought to be in court. I'd be interested in reading about the case law that the Rhino's legal challenges has developed.

I don't always agree with Jaycee, but he nails this one right on the head.

Even if a particular challenge proves unsuccessful, at least the Rhino is keeping government bodies honest by serving as a open meetings/public records watchdog.

It's also worth pointing out that while state open meetings laws allow certain meetings to be held in secret, they do not REQUIRE any meetings to be held in secret. A government body could, if it wished, conduct all of its business in the open.

The Rhino's stance is that as much government business as possible should be conducted in the open. The N&R's stance seems to be that it's okay for some business to take place behind closed doors, as long as it doesn't violate the letter of the law. That's fine, but it's a difference worth noting.

The logic here looks pretty airtight. If the N&R is content to accept the gov't opinion of what's "probably legal," then it's hardly pressing for open access.

The ten percent who favor closed gov't aren't nuts. Look at the U. S. House and the Supreme Court and tell me which one is more admirable. OK, it's a hard choice. But when politicians don't need to pander to the electorate, there's the possibility of getting things done.

The issue is that you guys seem to believe everything the Rhino says about the law (and everything else). We aren't taking the government's word on open meetings or open records. We have pretty good experience with open meetings law and have pretty good lawyers. Just because you want meetings to be open doesn't mean the law supports you. And just because you say a meeting is being held illegally doesn't mean that the law supports you. But it is true that you can write a story saying a government body violated this law or that based on your opinion because we do have laws that allow that.

The question you could be asking but aren't is, if the Rhino thinks the boards are meeting illegally -- and it seems to think that as often as it writes it -- why doesn't it sue them more often?

John, you may be right that the Rhino is wrong in its proclamations and lawsuits on open access. Maybe so. But that's changing the argument made by the comments above, which observe that the Rhino is pushing harder than you guys to open meetings that the govt says, rightly or wrongly, can be closed. Your position--that the N&R is pushing just the right amount, and the Rhino is pushing too hard--may be true, but it concedes that the Rhino is pushing harder.

I consider it following the argument rather than changing it. My position isn't that we're pushing just the right amount, as you suggest. It is merely that we're pushing. (The right position would probably be to sue each time there was a perceived violation, although that is arguable.)

It is also not my position that the Rhino is pushing too hard. I just think that, with many issues, they write from the position of the way they want things to be rather than the way they are.

The question you could be asking but aren't is, if the Rhino thinks the boards are meeting illegally -- and it seems to think that as often as it writes it -- why doesn't it sue them more often?

*************

Talk about loaded questions - but it's an easy one to answer.

The last time I checked, Mr. Robinson, attorneys don't work for free. If the Rhino wants to challenge over an open meetings dispute, it costs money and, like any business, the Rhino doesn't have limitless resources.

However, the Rhino has, in fact, sued for greater access - and the News & Record has been the beneficiary of their pursuit of the truth.

Of course, a big part of the problem is that the News & Record's attorney, Alan Duncan, is chairman of the Guilford County School Board.

Talk about a conflict of interest. The News & Record depends on legal advice on open government issues from a man who has a vested interest in keeping government business a secret - and a track record of doing so. This questionable relationship makes it hard for you or the N&R to have much credibility on this issue.

Be careful about those assumptions, just. Making the wrong ones hurt your credibility. We do not use Alan Duncan for business involving the school system or the city.

Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with you believing that the Rhino is the great defender of openness and we're slackers. I just don't see the evidence to support it.

I'm not assuming anything. The fact is that the N&R's attorney is a prominent local elected official. I consider that a conflict of interest in and of itself.

And you shouldn't assume that everyone who mentions the competition in a favorable light is a Rhino apologist. Sure, the Rhino sometimes stretches the facts to fit the story; it's far from perfect.

But it's also true that the Rhino has been the voice for open government - and the N&R has been willing to play second fiddle in that department.