The fallacy of openness

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and sounds like a duck -- it's not necessarily a duck, at least according to the Tennessee General Assembly.

This week the State Funding Board reviewed a series of documents comparing tax collections in Tennessee to those of other states. The documents were passed out to board members and discussed publicly in a session that could also be viewed on the Internet.

But economist Bill Fox, who provided the documents, says the data wasn't his to release, despite the fact that he released it, and that it shouldn't be shared with the public. So the board refused to provide copies of the forms it reviewed and discussed in public. The state's open records ombudsman, Ann Butterworth, says the documents aren't public records because the papers weren't legally in the board's possession even though board members held them in their hands. The documents were gathered up after the meeting.

Which is all ridiculous nonsense. It turns out that the information was given to Dr. Fox by the Rockefeller Institute of Government which planned its own press conference to tout its study. State officials decided that the public's right to know should be quashed so a private organization could get maximum PR.

Documents reviewed and discussed in public should be public, especially when the data is based on public information. If Dr. Fox erred in discussing the matter in public, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that government actions should be biased toward openness and the public's best interest.

Finance Commissioner Dave Goetz told the Tennessean that it's not an easy line to walk when balancing openness with private interests. He's wrong. It is an easy line to walk. The public's interests come first and the people who represent the public should behave accordingly.

    -- Jim Grinstead