News-Record.com

I'm on a panel this afternoon speaking to the 2007 Conference on Public Administration in Chapel Hill. Here's the first sentence of the description of the topic: Saber-tooth tigers, oil, polar ice caps, and newspaper control of news -- all may be gone soon, if not forgotten. So how does a government handle overwhelming demands for information and participation on the new frontier of journalism?

Well. They got the verb tense wrong. "Newspaper control of news" is long gone.TV saw to that years ago. And you can make a strong argument that it never was. But that's another post.

Here is the list of questions the moderator is going to use to spark discussion, although I have no expectation that we'll need more than No. 2 to do that.

1. We have recently seen high profile conflicts between media and politicians/bureaucrats here in North Carolina. Many of these conflicts center around interpretations of the Public Records Laws. Where do you see these laws and their interpretations going in the future?

2. The blogging world has been referred to as the "fifth estate." This implies a certain level of importance in the balance of government branches and citizens. Do you think blogging has such a substantial role, and if so, is it a healthy or unhealthy influence?

3. Bloggers are sometimes accused of being less subject to laws and ethical restrictions than mainstream media, primarily because they do not have assets at risk. Please comment on this perception.

4. What suggestions would you offer government officials for dealing with inaccurate blog postings?

5. There is some pressure for professional government employees to create and maintain blogs. It may be hoped that this would shorten the time lag in government response to the people on issues. Given that the time lag is often the product of a need to review records laws, etc., what advice would you give to appointed government officials regarding this suggestion?

6. Most newspapers and television stations (according to recent reports have added blogs to their repertoire, including The News & Record. How do you see this merger affecting news coverage?

7. What are the implications, professionally and ethically, of government employees posting information to blogs? Given the ability to make such postings anonymous, an option generally not available in letters to the editor, what impacts might their ability to share inside information have? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

8. How do you see the speed and anonymity of web-based news ultimately affecting the democratic process?

Most of these questions are the wrong ones, it seems to me, coming at the topic from the wrong angle. As the world of news and information moves from the one-to-many model of mass communication to the two-way model of the Web, then hand-wringing about whether that move is good is irrelevant. It simply is.

I wrote about my initial talking points here. Now that I have the questions, anything else I should add?

The need for greater transparency in government will be a key addition. What I've learned is that when people aren't given full and complete information, they often fill in the blanks on their own, creating a version of reality based on some facts, some assumptions and some biases. It has little to do with "new forms of media," which is the title of the panel. People have always done that. The difference now is that the people have a voice of their own on the Web. As with everything else, some of the voices will be cranky, mean-spirited and off-point. Others will be relevant, insightful and helpful. It is what it is.

What else?

When Greensboro police charge you with violating the law, that record is public information. When Greensboro city cites you for violating its water restriction ordinance, that record is private.

Until last night. Greensboro City Council voted to open its books on water scofflaws. But this government transparency was harder than it should have been. Releasing the names of those who violated the water restrictions passed 5-4, with opposing council member Tom Phillips wondering if public stoning was next. (Who knew he was such a molly-coddling liberal?)

The issue came up when we, Yes! Weekly and NPR independently requested the records of those cited. The city initially took the stance that the information wasn't public because it was part of the person's water bill, which was exempted from public records law some years ago. The requests then came before the council.

I was surprised when we were denied the records last month. I had assumed the city -- struggling with its worse drought in years -- would have wanted to take every step possible to discourage people from wasting water. Letting the scofflaws' names be published -- a form of public shaming, yes -- is one way. The people cited had been warned once about their water usage....and the chance of them avoiding detection several times before being caught twice (warned once, cited on the second offense) was likely.

We haven't decided if we are going to publish the list of names. But as members of the public, we certainly want to decide for ourselves.

Thanks to Mike Barber, Sandy Carmany, Sandra Anderson Groat, Keith Holliday and Yvonne Johnson for their votes for openness.

Update: We got the list. Here is a brief story. The actual list is coming here.

Margaret Banks wrote today of newly elected city council members Mike Barber, Trudy Wade and Mary Rakestraw: The three leaders -- along with Councilwoman Sandra Anderson Groat, who was re-elected Tuesday -- ran on platforms of increasing transparency in city government. They argued City Hall should bring controversial issues into the open, even if it means not portraying a unified front for the TV cameras.

Regardless of what you think of Sandy Carmany's politics, she is an impressively transparent and accessible council member. She loses her council seat -- let's pray not her blogging voice -- next month.

So, now, with their vows of transparency, who among the new council will start blogging the talk?

Do you think that Sandy's blog is one reason she didn't win?

A reader asked me that, fearing that rather than helping her, the council member's openness and accessibility essentially painted a target on her back.

My answer: No.

Her blog demonstrated to that she is reasonable, kind and cares deeply about Greensboro. It says that she was trying to navigate her role as a politician responsible to the public and a city official bound by commitments to confidentiality on some matters.

You might read her opinions on public matters, decide you disagree and vote for her opponent, but that's the result of her opinions, not her blog. I believe that the blog helps people get a sense of who Sandy is and enable them to connect with her.

Her accessibility did open her to disparagement from some bloggers, who took shots at her far and away more often than the other council members. But I can't imagine it cost her many votes.

In any case, who knows how many people in her district routinely read her blog -- and the others -- and who voted? (Only slightly more than 3,500 people voted in the district.)

I think the biggest contributor to her defeat was that she didn't get the Simkins PAC endorsement.

Other thoughts: Sandy's, David Wharton's, Cara Michele's and Samuel Spagnola's.

Update: I've just read her 10 Plus interview for the Sunday paper. She addresses several of the points above and in the comments.

Could Greensboro citizens have gotten potable water from Randleman Reservoir by now to serve us during this drought? Experts say no, but newly elected City Council member Trudy Wade campaigned that city incompetence is the reason we're not drawing Randleman water from our taps.

Allen Johnson dissects her campaign talk and matches it with facts and political reality.

Defeated incumbent Sandy Carmany wishes that Allen had written his column before last week's election. (Taft Wireback did write an article last month about why water wasn't coming from Randleman Reservoir.)

But imagine this unfolding another way, a way that portends the future:

On her blog, Trudy Wade posts her position on the use of Randleman water. Sandy responds with her own position. Allen Williams of the city water department explains the technical process of getting water from a clean lake into homes. Tom Phillips, the city's elected representative on the water authority, explains the political process on getting all the government bodies to agree on the use of the water. Arnold Koonce tells us about High Point's position. Others -- regular people like you and I -- read, ask questions, offer suggestions and learn from following the discussion of experts with information.

Allen's column did some of this, but it is restrained by the one-to-many delivery form which is delivered fresh once a day. Imagine this discussion done in real time in public.

We aren't there, of course. It would require more people to be online, more people with the direct knowledge to graduate from lurkers to contributors. And finally, either fewer trolls or participants with thick skins. (I first thought that it would require candidates who were seeking the best, correct solutions, but they are the least necessary. It is enough that citizens are informed. Presumably they would see through candidates who aren't acting in their best interests.)

Aside from the information citizens would get, but they also would be able to get to know the candidates in a way they couldn't in the newspaper or in television sound bites. You could see how candidates communicate, how they express themselves, whether they deal with the facts, and how open they are to other opinions.

Coincidentally, Dan Gillmor writes a column in the Boston Globe with a similar approach to political debates.

A debate that would unfold online over the course of days, or even weeks and months. Imagine that one candidate takes a position and poses a question. The opponent would answer with a written response of some predetermined length, but with the help of staff, experts, and the general public. Then the first candidate, again with the help of anyone who wants to join the process, would dissect the response and reply with (we'd hope) a truly nuanced update. Continue this process at length -- and repeat it with many other topics.

He recommends it be moderated, and he's probably right.

I doubt enough Greensboro citizens use online this way for this to take off yet. Greensboro public decisionmakers may not be ready for this yet. We certainly missed an opportunity during this municipal election season.

Still, there's nothing preventing us, the newspaper, from taking an issue, recruiting knowledgeable participants to actively contribute, and building an informed discussion that would help make good public policy.

What do you think? You must believe that this, or something like it, is the future. Let's get ahead of the curve.

At the end of the Greensboro City Council meeting last night, City Manager Mitch Johnson announced that all public information requests of the city will be posted online so that the public will be aware of the city's efforts to fulfill them.

The precipitating cause was a request -- an alarming request, Mayor Holliday called it -- that will fill "boxes and boxes" of documents. It's apparently such a large request that it requires the city to move some one from the library staff part-time to help fill it.

The actual request wasn't mentioned at the meeting, but I'm guessing it was Samuel's.

Welcome to the world of citizen publishing. Anyone can request most of the paperwork and computer work produced by local government. The request doesn't have to be pretty or organized or narrow. It doesn't need to be brought by an attorney or a traditional news organization. And, actually, the person making the request doesn't need to be a citizen publisher. They only need to be a citizen, but I believe that as more citizens use the Web for their own purposes, the number of such oversight requests will multiply.

Consequently, staffing up to respond to more inquiries from the public is a good idea.

Mayor Holliday said the city is trying to be transparent. "The public needs to hear where we are these days. I want to make sure there is no doubt in anyone's mind of our intention to cooperate based on the law, but understanding the task at hand, the monumental task...."

I admit to the cynical thought that this isn't transparency so much as it is an attempt to discourage such requests, but I will take the city's action at face value.

But the action doesn't go far enough, if you ask me. Don't stop at the request. Put all the documentation online, too, so everyone can see it. That's transparency.

Listen to the council meeting here. The mayor begins the discussion at about the 6:18 mark.

I've written often about A&T's seeming institutional inability to be forthcoming about some of its decisions that spark controversy.

Here we go again.

The chancellor releases a vague announcement. The football coach refers questions to a vice chancellor who doesn't return calls. Eventually they will take aim at the messenger.

Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for tax-supported agencies to think that they are private businesses. When you use public funds, you have a responsibility to be open. When you have a large constituency of students, alumni, employees and citizens interested in the health of the institution, you have an obligation to explain your actions.

Update: More good discussion brewing at Debatables.

Less than 24 hours ago, WFU Coach Jim Grobe was on the Two Guys Named Chris radio show. Chris Kelly asked him about offers he may have gotten to coach elsewhere.

"So far nothing's hit me over the head and told me I should be leaving," Grobe told them.

Twelve hours later, reports came out that Grobe had agreed to coach at the University of Arkansas.

Was he telling the truth Wednesday morning -- he apparently interviewed in Fayetteville, Ark., Tuesday -- or is it possible that sometime in those 12 hours he had suddenly gotten so interested in the Razorbacks that they produced a contract, notified everyone who needed to be told, and signed him?

We've gotten used to and even accepted politicians, entertainers and, I guess, coaches shading, spinning and neglecting the truth. I have written about Bob Dylan and his wonderfully open statement: "The press? I figured you lie to it."

The problem is that they aren't only lying to the press; they're lying to everyone who reads or views the report. I can't understand the upside. I can understand someone changing his mind; I do it with some regularity as I'm presented with more information or have the chance to think through an issue.

Perhaps all the speculation will be wrong, and Grobe will announce he's staying today. The spin will be interesting. But I am always surprised that there isn't more negative reaction to the outright falsehoods coming from the mouths of public figures.

Update: We're now hearing he is not going.

Related: Rob Daniels speculated yesterday morning about Grobe rumors at SportsExtra, as did the guys at Radio Free Sports.

Here we go again, again. Official doesn't want to answer question -- answer he apparently knows or certainly should know -- so he defers to someone else, who doesn't return calls.

With the turmoil in the schools -- big fights at Page, Grimsley and Southern this year; teacher breakdowns at others -- you might think that openness and transparency would be the rule, especially to help parents and citizens concerned about the learning environment and what is being done to address the problems.

If you were the city of Greensboro and you were conducting a criminal investigation of some police officers, which would you fear more:
* Making the mistakes of the Duke lacrosse case in which students were falsely accused in a rush to judgment?
* Making the mistakes of the Wray resignation in which information was tightly protected and decisions were made behind closed doors?

Neither strategy was successful. In the Duke case, the university, the DA, the police and the media were splattered with shame and embarrassment. Lawsuits are pending. In the Wray case, new council members won after campaigning on platforms of transparency because of the previous council's secrecy. Lawsuits are pending.

The city seems more afraid of Duke model. But the Duke case and the current assault investigation are not similar. The accused officers are public employees; the Duke students were not. Releasing the information called for by state law -- time, location and nature of the incident -- will not bring the city remotely close to what happened in Durham. It would, however, put the city on par with what it provides in other criminal investigations.

I appreciate the city's desire to protect its employees. But the names of the officers have already been released. Because few other details have, the officers are under a cloud of uncertainty and suspicion. Releasing more information would help disperse some of that. If there are reasons that more information would further hurt the officers, the city hasn't provided them.

Obviously, our position is clear. As in the Wray case, the city's credibility -- and the council's credibility -- is at stake. Again.

Update: City Manager Mitch Johnson writes an OpEd piece for tomorrow's paper explaining the city's position. (Link fixed.)

Update II: More discussion here.

Update III: Meanwhile -- it's time to get a scorecard out -- another officer is suspended.

Update IV: Not making this up. Council decides to think about it for a week.

Wouldn't it be helpful if one of these Greensboro City Council members interested in transparency had an active blog? I wonder what that would be like.

Update: City Council votes to release some information. And I thank them.

We sued the city of Greensboro today seeking more information on the investigation of three police officers suspended with pay last week.*

We believe that state law considers the information public. We believe that the citizens of Greensboro deserve to know what their employees are doing. And we believe that releasing the information is a critical step to begin rebuilding public trust in City Hall and the police department.

I've said before that I appreciate the need to protect employees. I still do. But the city hasn't made the case that releasing more information will hurt the officers. Not releasing more information further forestalls the city council's oft-stated desires to put police department troubles behind it.

This will be an interesting test of the new council, which meets in a few hours to hear more about the investigation. Many of the council members campaigned on a platform of openness. Several pointedly said the city and police department had some credibility gaps. Will the council follow through with campaign promises or will it take the escape hatch of saying that it has released "all the law allows?"

Here are their most recent comments about releasing the info. Just to refresh your memory, in October, we published a Q&A with the candidates. These are some excerpts from their answers on how to heal rifts in the community caused by the ongoing controversy surrounding former Police chief David Wray's resignation. They seem to be relevant in this case, too.

Yvonne Johnson: To rebuild trust, the city should release information so citizens can make informed judgments about the city's actions.

Mary Rakestraw: There has been a lack of full disclosure, and recent attempts at providing bits and pieces should be replaced with truthfulness. If the public has the duty to pay taxes, it should be treated with respect and be able to handle the truth, good or bad.

Trudy Wade: The dissemination of information for public scrutiny is essential in restoring the public trust.

Robbie Perkins: The lesson learned is that the city must release information in a timely manner and dramatically improve its communication with the media and its citizens. In this situation, "business as usual" is not enough to heal our city. We need extra effort and full communication -- now.

Zach Matheny: It appears that one of the biggest sources of tension over this controversy is that the public doesn't think the city is providing them with all the information it should, and this notion breeds suspicion regarding our leaders at all levels. We need to be honest and forthcoming so that every citizen can form their own opinion on the events that occurred. We may even take affirmative steps to educate citizens as to what happened (e.g., neighborhood meetings). If there were mistakes made, we do our best to rectify them and make sure they are not repeated. Otherwise, I would hope we could move forward. Either way, by offering full disclosure, we would only be discussing something that happened in the past, rather than a continuing stigma of suspicion and frustration due to our inaction.

Goldie Wells: I think the rifts in the community created by the police controversy can only be healed by having the truth revealed and having discussions that will allow the citizens to vent and then make a decision to move on. There are some citizens who will always believe what they have heard and read from the unreliable sources no matter what the true facts are. But I believe we have citizens who will accept the truth and realize that we have to focus our attention on restoring trust in the Greensboro Police Department and city government. Then we can move on to the more important issues.

Sandra Anderson Groat: The public perceives elected officials as having secrets and hiding information. They are suspicious of the elected officials and of the state of public safety in our community. Restoring trust comes with openness and availability of the elected officials.

* We waited until today because courts were closed Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Margaret Banks is continuing to pursue the City Council's reasoning behind releasing more information on the investigation of the police assault allegations. Along the way, a couple council members have offered unsolicited opinions about the status of our lawsuit.

Goldie Wells requested we drop it. Robbie Perkins suggested we pursue it and let the courts decide once and for all what is protected personnel information. (He also said we were making too big of a deal out of it and wasting people's time.)

I wouldn't suggest our lawsuit had anything to do with the council's decision. I prefer to think that the members decided to do the right thing for the right reasons.

For the record, we'll make a decision later on, but I'm inclined to drop the suit. We got the information we were seeking.

My newspaper column

Related posts.

We didn't want to end 2007 sparring with the City of Greensboro in Superior Court over what we considered public information.

But we were prepared to do just that on Thursday when we filed a lawsuit against the city and Police Chief Tim Bellamy seeking more information about an alleged assault involving three on-duty police officers.

Fortunately, on Thursday night, Greensboro City Council unanimously agreed to release more information about the case, and, as a result, we expect to drop the lawsuit this week.

No newspaper editor I know enjoys suing the government. We know too well the time and resources it takes to go to court. We don't relish being a factor in the expenditure of tax money.

Inside Scooper Margaret Banks asked me to post a note about the Linda Miles letter. (I'm near a computer; she ain't.) We aren't entirely sure what it means, but as we pursue her contract, we'll figure it out. Meanwhile, here's the Yes! take. Remember: links don't imply endorsement.

With Terry Grier outta here, I remember a joke he told before a speech at a Rotary meeting: "What's the difference between a dead possum on the road and a dead school superintendent on the road?" he asked, and paused. "There are skid marks in front of the possum."

It got a lot of laughs. I went up to him after the meeting and thanked him for being in Guilford County. I said that as long as he was here, I wouldn't be the most hated man in town. He laughed. (I'm pretty sure it was no contest.)

The San Diego school board frustrated us on this end. The board met, deliberated and adjourned several times over the past few weeks without taking any action. We had no sources among board members, for obvious reasons, and apparently neither did the San Diego paper. (Its Web site has nothing about the new superintendent yet.)

Reporter Amanda Lehmert, new to the paper and filling in for our schools reporter Morgan Josey Glover while she is on maternity leave, dogged that board night after night. running down countless leads and rumors. "No, nothing yet," she told editors about 1,000 times. Sometimes more colorfully. I know she's happy he's going. It's nothing personal; she can move onto a new story that will be happening here, not 2,473 miles away.

As long as I've been here, superintendents have left with a sizable -- though I'd bet still a minority -- population of people happy to see them go. I'm not one of them. The man made news.

Sunday update: The Chalkboard is looking to help in the search for a replacement.

What kind of leader do you want at the helm of the Guilford County school system? Do we hire from within, or recruit someone new? What should the new superintendent's top priorities be?

Leave comments there.

City Manager Mitch Johnson released a statement today responding to our story this morning. It is disappointing.

Johnson's response seems to begin with blaming the newspaper.

His memo bullets nine points that he calls facts. I won't address any but the first, which is: The News and Record request did not match the document in question.

In her request, reporter Margaret Banks gave as many specifics as she could about a memo we had never seen. Had we known more, we would have included them. Specifically, the request asked for: "The two-page memo Tom Fox and Scott Sanders wrote summarizing the rationale behind the 'black book.'"

The city's initial response was: "We have researched and are not aware of the existence of the alleged two-page memo summarizing the rationale behind the black book.'

The memo itself, which the city has found but not released, provides a clear description of the rationale for creating the black book.

I will grant you that the request wasn't technically precise. But if the city staff were interested in transparency and were aware of the council's repeated interest in the black book, I would think that the legal team might have put two and two together. In fact, at least two people who aren't city employees -- Ben Holder and John Hammer -- had no trouble identifying the document we were requesting.

We ain't perfect, but this hot potato isn't ours.

Margaret Banks at Scoop articulates what I've said several times recently.

This isn't a case of the media vs. the government, which is often how civic officials attempt to portray it. We are not the story. Margaret is not the story. This is a case of the public demanding to know what its government -- and its money -- is doing. Period.

I know that there is some sentiment that contentiousness on elected boards, councils and commissions is a negative and reflects poorly on the governmental agency. Some of the recent boards of county commissioners are examples of this.

But civil disagreement that results in a deeper examination of contentious issues often results in better government.

I've got no more insight in what occurred behind these closed doors than anyone else, but I'm not displeased to see a group of council members struggling with an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved. And while we may get painted with the negative brush for writing about the disagreements, the key is that they are discussing the public's business in public.

People are suggesting that we should not have published a story about the claims of the ministers that files related to the Klan-Nazi shootings were destroyed.

These complaints come up every time we write about the tragic 1979 event. The idea is that we're continuing to open up a wound in the city's history that would heal and be consigned to the archives if we would just leave it alone. But if you read some of the comments you might conclude that people actually enjoy examining it in detail.

In any case, three prominent activist ministers hold a news conference to claim that police trashed boxes and boxes of files pertaining to an event that got worldwide attention when it occurred. They had already met with the mayor (at the time) and the city manager to ask the city to look into it. The police department is now talking with the DA's office to determine if any laws were broken.

By any definition, this is news. (Best I can tell, the four local television news teams agreed.) If it turns out that the ministers were wrong and that the files are safely gathering dust in a secure location, we'll report that, too.

It isn't part of a journalist's wiring to think "let's ignore this news because we don't like the messengers or because it's upsetting." Some commenters suggest that no one cares about it. But given the number of comments here, here, here, here and here, it seems as if there is a great deal of interest in it.

A frequent correspondent sent me an e-mail this morning:

I had an epiphany whilst reading John Blust's letter on your editorial page this morning: The coverage you provide about the actions and antics of Greensboro and our county governments is worth far more than cost of my subscription. Too, I also have something in which to wrap fish when needed!

Thanks for all you do to make my life in Guilford County so entertaining.

You have to hand it to a city council member who knows how to mix sarcasm, humor and imagery all in one quote. Thank you, Mike Barber.

As the keeper of the Debatables blog, I had run out of ideas to generate discussion about the Klan-Nazi files story. I closed comments on the story yesterday because of unsupported accusations being tossed around about police officers. (Don't go looking; I deleted them as they were posted.) Today's story about the city council welcoming the FBI was promising, but would the conversation go straight into the libel gutter, too?

Mike Barber's intergalactic legal network rides to the rescue. Colleague Mike Fuchs suggested that we see if any commenters have a sense of humor and pose the question: Should the intergalactic legal network investigate the police department, too?

The discussion began with promise, but then reverted back to the same old, same old. When a council member riffs with more humor and bite than commenters out here, that's, that's, well, that's unheard of.

Is the city handling the Klan-Nazi shooting records "case" in the way that best serves the public?

It has taken on the typical drip-drip-drip cadence that stories like this take:
* denial
* hmmm, we'll investigate
* give us time to investigate

Meanwhile, bits and pieces of information leak out nearly every day. Some of them are disputed.

And the public -- divided on the import of the story -- is left to wait and wonder. Again. Some, of course, come to their own conclusions based on the little verifiable information out there.

My unsolicited counsel: There is still time to get in front of this story, show you're in charge and interested in rooting out the truth.

Here's what I'm thinking:

1) Someone from the city administration goes to the police chief and demands some answers by midday.
2) The chief goes to Officer Fulmore and Lt. McMinn and asks the sort of impertinent yes and no questions that police officers know how to ask...at least they do on Law and Order.
3) The chief reports back to his boss, the city manager, and to the mayor what he has discovered.
4) The city goes public and explains what did or did not happen by the end of the day.

I'm thinking it would move the story arc close to its conclusion and it would serve the public. What am I missing?

Everyone seems to be interested in open government...unless it is information you think shouldn't be made public.

Here's a chance to learn what's what with open government. On March 20, the Sunshine Center of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition is holding a seminar at Elon College that will feature information on where state candidates stand on open government; a preview a new publication by the Attorney General’s office and the N.C. Press Association on open government; and an overview of the successes and failures of open government during the last year.

Here's who they say should attend: Citizens, journalists, government employees, librarians, lawyers, historians, public officials, anyone and everyone. Notice who they listed first?

Here's the registration form.

A Greensboro City Council member is irritated that the city manager released a copy of his 10-page plan to fix some issues in the city operation to the public at the same time he gave it to the council. It is understandable; business people are used to conducting their business in private.

But the city isn't a private business. Far from it.

At a time when transparency in city operations is critical, strictly adhering to the requirements of state public records law is vital, to say nothing of politically astute.

I've always been interested in the inherent conflict between politics and good government. Allen Johnson's interview with political handler Bill Burckley is the latest illustration that good politics doesn't beget good government. Burckley says about blogs:

I enjoy reading them but my advice to any potential candidate is don't ever blog.... People get sloppy when they blog.

The inference I draw is that constituents might be told something that is impolitic. If government is of the people, then shouldn't government and its policy makers be more transparent? Shouldn't they be proud of their actions and decisions and deliberations rather than veiled and quiet? Shouldn't they let their opinions and leanings be known so that constituents can give them feedback and vet their ideas?

Is it harder to get elected when voters know what you really think? I'm not so sure. Granted, it may be harder when political handlers twist what you say, but I'm not ready to restrict freedom of speech. But running government -- and politics -- is a rough business. You aren't going to make everyone happy, ever. So why not say openly what you are thinking?

From an important post by Jeff Jarvis: Why should we be asking for information about and from our government? The government should have to ask to keep things from us. Government information -- every act of government on our behalf -- should be free by default. We must insist on an aggressive ethic of openness. The exceptions should be rare: the personal business of citizens, national security, ongoing criminal investigations and court cases (while they are ongoing), and little else.

Imagine the possibilities.

Jarvis also writes about blogging.

Government officials and agencies should blog. This ethic of openness should go beyond official documents and files. Openness should be part of the work habit of government officials and conversation with constituents should be an ethic of government. The open blog is merely a tool and a symbol for this -- and a more efficient tool, I'll add, than individual letters and phone calls.

We had one city council member who blogged. She was defeated by a candidate handled by Burckley. Now we have no council member or city government official who actively blog. Many of us are awaiting the transparency pledged by candidates during last fall's election campaign to take root. With a few exceptions, closed meetings still seem to be the rule.

That may be good politics, but it's not good government.

Update: Ed's take.

Possibly contrary to expectations, I applaud the Greensboro Police Department's news release about the arrest of 78-year-old Alexander Kohanowich.

(Our coverage of the arrest is here and here.)

For a department that is hardly forthcoming with information about its operations and motivations, this news release is revealing and, generally speaking, helpful. It could have been more helpful by explaining what "shoving" meant to Officer Prescod, by explaining what "placed Mr. Kohanowich on the ground" meant to the officer, and by identifying the other police officer involved, but I'll take openness even if the door is not wide open.

I hope the department's motivation in releasing information is not found in this sentence from the release: In several significant respects, the published account which has led to criticism of the Greensboro Police Department -- is not supported by witness interviews. I hope the department simply wanted to be as transparent as possible to the citizens it serves and protects.

Now, how about some information on the other high profile assault case that's been pending since December?

District Attorney Doug Henderson released a statement late Friday saying he wasn't going to recommend charges against the officers accused of sexually assaulting another officer. With the ongoing Wray case, the accusation of destruction of police records, the Kohanowich case, this has been a rough patch for the department.

My thought: Is no one advising the city on how to restore eroding public confidence in the integrity of the department and how it is run? Is everyone tone-deaf to how this is all playing out among the citizens?

Imagine this scenario: Chief Bellamy and City Manager Johnson are at a podium Friday afternoon. The mayor is standing with them. The chief steps to the microphone.

Good afternoon, everyone. As you know, the District Attorney released his statement that he will not recommend criminal charges against three officers. We respect his decision, but that does not end the case. This has been an embarrassment to the city and to the department where the vast majority of our officers are hard-working, standup men and women who put their lives on the line every single day. We demand the highest standards of behavior and integrity from our officers. We must. The citizens of Greensboro expect it. I expect it. We obviously have not seen it in this case.

Mitch is passing around a document outlining everything we know about what happened in this case. It will be embarrassing to the officers involved. That's too bad, but it is a necessary step. We are not above the law. We must be squeaky clean. After that, I will talk about actions taken as it pertains to the officers in this case, and then I will outline what we are going to do moving forward to clean up the image of the department. I will answer any question you have to the best of my knowledge, but please hold them until I'm finished.

Next imagine this alternate scenario: The District Attorney releases his decision late Friday afternoon, which is the traditional time to release bad news. He is unavailable for comment. The police chief is unavailable for comment. The city manager is unavailable for comment. The mayor? MIA.

Which do you think serves the public better? Unfortunately, the second one is the one that happened.

Afternoon update: Photographer Joe Rodriguez reminds me that city officials were dealing with a crisis themselves with the aftermath of the tornado, which could address why they were unavailable for comment. We're trying again today.

Sunday update: Today's story here. Can you imagine, five months of paid suspension and an administrative investigation is still ongoing? How tough can it be to crack this case?