Opinion: The strongest argument for openness in government: Facts quell rumors

Jim Pumarlo

As youths we all likely tried to hide bad behavior from our parents. The truth inevitably surfaced, and we bore the brunt of punishment. Lesson: Be up front with circumstances and repercussions typically are minimized.

Newspapers should communicate the same lesson to public officials who try to keep secret what they deem sensitive or unwelcome news: Be forthright. Make it standard procedure to volunteer the news and minimize rumors.

Newsrooms work tirelessly to deliver on the “public’s right to know,” and for good reason. In the words of David Bordewyk, executive director of the South Dakota NewsMedia Association: Open government is essential to good government.

The public’s right to know was the thrust behind the SDNA’s support for a bill that passed this year’s Legislature to require all public boards to review the open meetings laws once a year, Bordewyk writes. “Keeping an eye on government and informing readers about public meetings are among the most important jobs for community news media organizations.”

Government transparency often centers on open records and open meetings laws, Bordewyk notes, acknowledging that laws can be confusing and lead to misunderstandings. So why not require an annual refresher course? It’s a great idea, one that should be pursued by other state press associations if it’s not already on the books.

At the same time, newspapers should not wait for the often lengthy and zigzag path of a worthy idea to reach the finish line. Why not initiate meetings with local officials to review and explore the intricacies of open meeting and data practices laws.

Newspapers certainly should stand on the letter of the law when seeking access to public information and meetings. Two other points should be stressed.

First, advance requests based on the spirit of openness – no matter what the law dictates. Challenge public officials to place themselves in the position of friends and neighbors seeking answers from City Hall. Would they be satisfied with “no comment”?

Second, underscore the value of setting benchmarks for community conversation. Meeting in secret or withholding information only fuels rumors. If gossip has reached the newspaper, those affected can rest assured it has circulated broadly, especially fueled by social media. At a minimum, hearsay exaggerates the facts. At worst, the whispers promote blatant falsehoods.

The opportunity to deliver facts straight from the source is one of the strongest arguments editors can present to those otherwise hesitant to share information. Citizens still may dismiss statements as a “company line,” but parameters have been set for community discussion.

The premise of openness should be delivered to the private sector as well. Companies and individuals are not subject to the same laws as public bodies, but they ought to be aware that their news is equally important to the community and often travels more quickly than a city council vote.

Conflicts over the public’s right to know often focus on a specific meeting or particular document. Officials also should be reminded of the value of everyday openness.

I vividly recall the “news” passed along by my photographer when I sat behind the editor’s desk. Word had reached his son’s elementary school that a teacher at the middle school had lost all his fingers in a lab experiment. We promptly tracked a story for that day’s edition. The superintendent set the record straight. The teacher lost a fingertip and all was handled very calmly and professionally.

Our first inquiry, however, went to the school principal. She refused comment, charging us with sensationalism. A few minutes later she called and canceled her subscription without even seeing our report. I’ll stand by our decision to pursue and publish the story. I’m certain we prevented a lot of misinformed table talk at dinners that evening.

I applaud Bordewyk and his association for securing legislation to require all public boards to review the open meetings laws once a year. In tandem, I encourage newspapers to pursue meetings to orient public officials on the laws. Nothing is more important in newspaper missions than to preserve and advance the public’s right to know.

Editors too often find themselves demanding information in confrontation. Seize the opportunity to structure these meetings as an effort to reach a common understanding.

Jim Pumarlo is former editor of the Red Wing Republican Eagle (Minn.). He writes, speaks and provides training on community newsroom success strategies. He is author of “Journalism Primer: A Guide to Community News Coverage,” “Votes and Quotes: A Guide to Outstanding Election Coverage” and “Bad News and Good Judgment: A Guide to Reporting on Sensitive Issues in Small-Town Newspapers.” He can be reached at jim@pumarlo.

Opinion: Appointed county school board grants itself 'sole authority' over library content; some residents push back

A sign on a road in Hanover County, where a battle is underway over a
push for an elected school board. (Photo by Greg Sargent, Washington Post)

America is no stranger to censorship, with the first U.S. book ban dating back to 1637. Some counties, such as Hanover County, Virginia, have a long history of the practice, writes Greg Sargent in his opinion for The Washington Post. In 1966, its school board removed To Kill a Mockingbird from shelves, and this year, it "removed at least 20 books after granting itself sole authority over library content. Last spring, it renamed a school christened after a Black historical figure," but some residents are resisting the bans in what is shaping up to be "A nasty fight in a rural Virginia school district."

In response, the "Hanover Citizens for an Elected School Board" is campaigning to "take away county officials' power to appoint school board members, who are otherwise insulated from public accountability. Unelected boards are rooted in the state's Jim Crow past, as they were sometimes used to keep Black residents out," Sargent writes. "The case for an elected board in Hanover County, which stretches from Richmond's suburbs into outlying rural areas and backed Donald Trump in 2020 by 26 points, is strong. . . . It is one of only a dozen school boards in the state that are still appointed — and it's the largest among those."

"More residents started joining the push for elected boards last spring. First, the board voted to give itself sole authority over book-banning decisions for school libraries — and then promptly started nixing books from circulation, including several with LGBTQ+ themes," Sargent adds. "Liberal-leaning Kelly Merrill, a University of Richmond professor with a transgender teenager, said she was angered when the school board voted against accommodations for trans students."

"This saga goes back a century. At the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1901-1902, delegates shut down a proposal for elected school boards after opponents made clear they believed that would give too much 'negro' control over the schools. . . . In the 1950s, the General Assembly retaliated against Arlington County's board (the only one at the time that was permitted to elect members) by revoking that status in favor of appointments. This ratified the idea of appointed boards as a bulwark defending segregation," Sargent writes. 

Historian Peyton McCrary told Sargent, "Appointed boards were part and parcel of how the Jim Crow system operated in Virginia." Sargent adds, "In Hanover, liberals and even some conservatives are mindful of that dark past. This fall, if residents vote to give themselves the power to hold school board members accountable moving forward, it will be another step toward repudiating it."