Opinion: Technology can cloud transparency
OPINION
The [Sunbury] Daily Item
Government emails are treated no differently from any document printed on paper and should be made available for review, under Pennsylvania’s revamped Right-to-Know law.
A story in Saturday’s newspaper tackles the use of emails from a different direction. This is the other side of the push for public transparency. The story explores how the use of email by elected officials can limit or eliminate deliberation in meetings.
Sunbury Mayor David Persing is a go-getter. He has embraced the use of e-mail as a means of giving other members of council a sense of where he stands on issues — such as eliminating the city administrator position — before they arrive at public meetings.
Persing does not consider his use of e-mail problematic. He compares it to sending memos. The gray area arises when other members of council respond to Persing’s email.
On occasion, e-mails obtained by the Daily Item sometime show that Persing and other members of council were sorting out where they stood before meeting. The vote at the public meeting became a formality, an exercise largely aimed at putting the decision on the record.
In private business, Persing’s approach would be perfectly acceptable. Persing’s use of e-mail is probably typical of how most of us now communicate. However, it creates a barrier between the public’s right to participate in government in a meaningful way.
At the Lewisburg school board the issue arose when an administrator suggested that board members give him input via e-mail. Sensing the delicacy of the situation, school board president Kathy Swope urged directors to avoid copying each other on the e-mails.
We have a right to know what government officials do or say afterward — that protection is afforded by the Right-to-Know Law — but we ought to learn what officeholders think before they vote.
The vitality of participatory government depends on the ability of citizens to be informed and engaged.
Changes in communication present challenges. It is easy enough, with online meetings, teleconferencing, texting and whatever innovation is coming down the road to shut the public out of debate.
Transparency will require a commitment by those in office to be open.
We urge Persing and all elected officials to seek a balance that provides the public with an opportunity for meaningful input as decisions are being made, rather than afterward.
The [Sunbury] Daily Item
Government emails are treated no differently from any document printed on paper and should be made available for review, under Pennsylvania’s revamped Right-to-Know law.
A story in Saturday’s newspaper tackles the use of emails from a different direction. This is the other side of the push for public transparency. The story explores how the use of email by elected officials can limit or eliminate deliberation in meetings.
Sunbury Mayor David Persing is a go-getter. He has embraced the use of e-mail as a means of giving other members of council a sense of where he stands on issues — such as eliminating the city administrator position — before they arrive at public meetings.
Persing does not consider his use of e-mail problematic. He compares it to sending memos. The gray area arises when other members of council respond to Persing’s email.
On occasion, e-mails obtained by the Daily Item sometime show that Persing and other members of council were sorting out where they stood before meeting. The vote at the public meeting became a formality, an exercise largely aimed at putting the decision on the record.
In private business, Persing’s approach would be perfectly acceptable. Persing’s use of e-mail is probably typical of how most of us now communicate. However, it creates a barrier between the public’s right to participate in government in a meaningful way.
At the Lewisburg school board the issue arose when an administrator suggested that board members give him input via e-mail. Sensing the delicacy of the situation, school board president Kathy Swope urged directors to avoid copying each other on the e-mails.
We have a right to know what government officials do or say afterward — that protection is afforded by the Right-to-Know Law — but we ought to learn what officeholders think before they vote.
The vitality of participatory government depends on the ability of citizens to be informed and engaged.
Changes in communication present challenges. It is easy enough, with online meetings, teleconferencing, texting and whatever innovation is coming down the road to shut the public out of debate.
Transparency will require a commitment by those in office to be open.
We urge Persing and all elected officials to seek a balance that provides the public with an opportunity for meaningful input as decisions are being made, rather than afterward.
