Government could use a few more mavericks

Many public officials – particularly during the election cycle, if they face opposition – tend to proclaim that they work for "the people."

Some do.

Many others do not.

If they did, in fact, "work for the people," they would likely be more inclined to comply with the (reasonable) requests from their supposed "bosses."

Instead of bristling at questions from citizens and taxpayers, they would provide honest answers with a measure of courtesy and respect. They would refrain from insults and excessive sarcasm. (Maybe they've grown weary from the "unreasonable" requests.)

Instead of seeking more secrecy in government, these public officials would champion more public access and more openness.

In other words, they would have the same respect for their employers (or at least do a better job of faking it) as employees in the private sector.

Consider: The recently passed Republican state budget (and, yes, it is a Republican budget, make no mistake about that) includes a measure that adds "economic development" to the current list of reasons that local government bodies can meet in an executive session.

After some pushback from the Ohio Newspaper Association, a revision was added to require a unanimous vote of the public body to enter into the executive session for economic development discussions.

Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, told Toledo Blade Columbus Bureau chief Jim Provance (see www.toledoblade.com), “The open meetings law has become the bogeyman for the inability of some local governments to attack because they don’t have as much economic development as they’d like. We don’t see any evidence from anyone showing a correlation between greater secrecy and greater economic development."

In a recent editorial opposing the additional justification for an executive session, The Canton Repository (www.cantonrep.com) wrote: (The economic development exemption to meeting in public) "could encourage local governments to do more to lure companies and jobs away from neighboring communities, for no net regional gain or economic benefit.

"To its credit, Canton City Council wants no part of this change in the public meetings law. Earlier this month, council voted unanimously to oppose it. … (this) exemption would weaken both the spirit and the letter of the law that proves Ohio’s commitment to open government."

Good for the Canton City Council!

In a July 7 commentary in The Columbus Dispatch (www.dispatch.com) headlined "Once a model of openness, Ohio weaves veil of secrecy," Benjamin J. Marrison writes:

• "A proposed law cloaks in secrecy meetings regarding complaints of misconduct by fiscal officers – from county auditors and treasurers to school and local-government money managers. Not only would the public not be able to witness the discussion, taxpayers would not be able to access any documents related to the meeting unless specifically made public by the state attorney general.

• "Additionally, public officials could make a referral to an investigatory body from these secret meetings. This is a de facto vote in executive session, violating a core principle of any good open meetings law: Officials cannot vote in secret even if they are allowed to deliberate in private. Given the nature of the public trust that public officials hold, allegations involving them should be as public as possible. If the charges turn out to be unfounded, that is part of the story."

Mr. Marrison adds: "Ohio once had outstanding laws on public records and open meetings. They were a national model. Today, there are so many exceptions and poor court rulings that the public’s right to know has been severely diminished."

That's something worth remembering the next time a public official states that he or she works for the public. (Some, perhaps to their credit, do not even bother with the charade of working for the public. A recently indicted state GOP lawmaker comes to mind.)

Meanwhile, Gov. John Kasich – with the predictable support of the Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly – was able to keep all records of JobsOhio out of public view and off-limits to Ohio Auditor of State Dave Yost. After all, who needs such trivial checks and balances in their government?

Shoot, these one-party rulers are from the government AND THEY'RE HERE TO HELP!

(Sure hope I didn't misplace a comma in that previous sentence!)

And then there's this from the July 15 Cincinnati Enquirer (www.enquirer.com): "A lawsuit challenging a township's longstanding practice of holding informal gatherings before official public meetings is headed back to a southwest Ohio court.

"An Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals judge ruled that the lawsuit was dismissed prematurely by a Warren County court. He sent it back to resolve conflicting testimony on whether Clearcreek Township trustees are violating state open meetings law."

According to Judge Robert Ringland, there "were too many unanswered questions, including whether the 'pre-meeting meetings' were pre-arranged, what the purpose of the meetings was and whether deliberations took place therein."

The Enquirer noted that the lawsuit was filed by a township resident who ran unsuccessfully for trustee in 2011. His lawyer claims the three trustees have taken pre-meeting polls on local issues.

"They pull things off the agenda if they think there will be disputes," the lawyer told the Enquirer. "They want to have a uniform public face."

Ah, yes. The proverbial "uniform public face," also known as going into executive session in a 4-3 split and coming out in 7-0 solidarity.

From having attended my share of executive sessions – and without sharing any specifics – I'll offer this: On significant matters of human resources, otherwise known as the "personnel" exemption, it's certainly more conducive to longterm harmony and an improved working atmosphere if the respective body displays unanimous support for a new hire or promotion.

However, that is not to say that the public is best served when each and every vote by any public body is unanimous. It's OK to disagree once in a while. Really.

Hell, if nothing else, as Bill Horne used to say, at least the occasional "no" vote gives the appearance that not all issues have a predetermined outcome. (For full disclosure, the late Dr. Ben Houser and I did our best to provide the occasional dissenting vote, as the public record will attest.)

Perhaps too often, and I suspect this is more prevalent in the smaller counties and smaller communities, public bodies do their best to avoid any appearance of dissension. It's the old "go along to get along" syndrome – and it's even more apparent when all members of a particular board are of the same political persuasion. (Some call it feeding at the same trough.)

Every once in a while, though, a maverick comes along and bucks the system. I've known a few such mavericks over the years.

Government – on all levels – could use a few more mavericks, those independent, free-thinking individuals who refuse to conform to a particular party or group.

God bless them.

Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.