Keeping watch

Public officials should champion open government

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” — John Philpot Curran, Irish lawyer, statesman

U

nder threat of imminent attack, everyone becomes a sentry. Senses are heightened. The potential for danger brings a focus on readiness. Procedures for responding to a threat are reviewed and revised. We become acutely cognizant of what we stand to lose. We stand guard. We’re on guard.

Then, we discover it’s hard — really hard — to maintain such a level of preparedness, to stay so keenly aware of our surroundings. We’ve got lives to live, after all. As time goes by and life goes on, old routines demand attention, crowding out that state of alertness so pressing when the threat seemed so real.

Defenders of liberty have reminded generation after generation that indifference is among the greatest self-inflicted conditions through which enemies of self-determination can erode the power of the people to sustain it.

“To fight for one’s country, to offer one’s very life to promote the well being of the United States, is truly a noble undertaking,” author Walter Dean Myers once said. “But so is the vigilance of the citizen who carefully examines our leaders to see if political problems are being solved by wars simply because this seems to be the easiest solution.”

We the People too often imagine those who crave imposing their will on us come from foreign lands. The reality is danger lurks among us, even among those who say they’ll stand for the interests of the people. Time after predictable time, these “representatives” of the public trust demonstrate they trust the public very little.

At the state level, it’s not wars of the violent kind at issue, but battles of the political and, sometimes, criminal variety can be involved. And the strongest weapon on both sides is information — access to it on the one hand, control of it on the other.

This is where the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act comes into play. Pushed by then-Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller as an antidote to the secrecy and sleight of hand prevalent in the machine of his predecessor, Orval Faubus, this 1967 state law represents the front line of defense against government abuse of power. With access to the records and deliberations of the government, Arkansans can monitor the conduct of public officials, the veracity of their statements, the quality of their decision-making and the spending of taxpayer dollars.

And for some in political power, that’s too much to take.

A

s with liberty, the public’s right to know is under constant attack, saved only by constant vigilance. And yet, some state leaders depend on complacency setting in among their fellow Arkansans, creating an environment in which more haze can be injected into the workings of government. The harder it is for Arkansas citizens to get a clear picture of what’s happening at the state Capitol and other governmental buildings, the easier it is for those in power to use the authority of the people loaned to government for their own ends.

State Rep. Kim Hammer, R-Benton, says he wants to change Arkansas’ strong open records and open meetings law, a statute continually the target of proposals or interpretations that do harm to the public’s right to know. His concern, rather, is for state agencies. Hammer wants a state legislative committee to examine ways to prevent state agencies from being overwhelmed by requests for information.

“This is not about eliminating transparency,” Hammer said after a committee meeting. “I am not out to build a wall around FOIA. We need to take a look at whether the system is being abused.”

Call us skeptical. A state official’s idea of abuse can be a resident’s legitimate struggle to obtain records he has every right to inspect. And what’s among the first things one needs to start building a wall? A Hammer.

There can be little doubt the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act has been used as a tool for abuse or intimidation (see Tontitown, Ark., history of). But the citizen/ taxpayers of Arkansas deserve a broadly written and broadly interpreted law to ensure their ability to evaluate state agency actions and public officials’ behaviors.

In the U.S. judicial system, one is “innocent until proven guilty” even though that standard has allowed guilty people to walk free. The idea behind it is simple, expressed by John Adams this way: “It is more important that innocence should be protected than it is that guilt be punished.”

Likewise in Arkansas, it is more important that every Arkansan’s right to information about their government be protected than it is to protect the agencies who must respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

T

he movement to protect government rather than residents appears to be gaining steam. Attorney general opinions from Leslie Rutledge’s office, rather than seeking the most narrow exceptions to public access, favor broader interpretations that slide more information behind the veil. For example, Arkansas State Police have become aggressive in their push to prevent Arkansans from being able to review accident reports. A Pulaski County judge ruled June 23 the reports are public records accessible through the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. An attorney general devoted to public access might celebrate the ruling a victory for the people she serves. Rutledge is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep those prying Arkansans away from traffic accident reports.

It’s the open government equivalent of “let them eat cake.”

Arkansans deserve better from those elected to represent their interests. They should not have to battle their public officials or the agencies their taxes support to keep government information out in the open. Gov. Asa Hutchinson, take the lead of Rockefeller, who declared the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act among his major achievements, and lead a state government that celebrates public access rather than dodges it.

It’s ironic the party that says it favors smaller government appears to be the party that wants to ensure the public knows less about its government.

It’s vital that the state’s residents realize every proposal to close the door on government information and meetings is a rejection of the idea that it’s the people’s government, and an embrace of the notion that we’re the government’s people.

Resistance isn’t futile. It’s critically important. Indeed, it’s a necessary ingredient of eternal vigilance.