Don’t play cute with the public’s right to know

“The public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business.” Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1).

While lawyers, unions, lobbyists and two-bit politicians may attempt to twist and turn around it, Wisconsin state law is clear in saying that the public has the right to know what its government is doing.

That is why it was disappointing at last Friday’s Taylor County Forestry Committee meeting when, coming out of closed session regarding a personnel matter, committee members voted on a motion to approve what they talked about and agreed to in closed session without any further explanation of what that action actually was. If you are going to go on record agreeing to make a decision, you should be willing to own that decision and let the public know what it was rather than leaving citizens guessing.

According to the meeting’s posting, the forestry committee was to go into closed session to discuss potential discipline regarding issues with a hotel bill from a recent state conference held in Rothschild which a county employee attended.

The purpose of having personnel items in closed session is solely to protect the reputations of the employees involved. This makes sense. There isn’t anyone who hasn’t made a mistake and been called out on it. Getting dressed down by your employer is bad enough without it being made into a public spectacle.

The challenge is that when it comes to government workers in leadership positions, it matters how the oversight committee chooses to resolve the issue. This is especially true with an organization as large and complex as county government. The resolution reached, whether it be a simple clarification of policy or require more severe human resources intervention, sends a message throughout the organization which ideally would help prevent the same type of situation from cropping up elsewhere.

Members of the public, as well as other employees, have been left to speculate about what action the committee took. Was it as simple as denying the reimbursement for an expense outside the scope of a vaguely worded county policy? Or was there something more?

Considering past instances where county taxpayers ended up paying through the nose on personnel issues, citizens legitimately have a stake in being able to weigh for themselves if the resolution reached was the right call.

There is an old saying among computer programmers, “garbage in, garbage out.” This saying emphasizes the need for quality, accurate information going in, in order to guarantee the best results coming out. This applies equally to government bodies making decisions and needing to know the full situation before acting, as it does to members of the general public who judge the actions of those elected officials.

Playing cute with the intent of the open meetings laws by intentionally hiding the action taken by a committee, regardless of what that action may have been, does a disservice to the general public.