Sheriff Dan Houston; bad boy! Bad boy!

Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston is in trouble with some County Commissioners and others.  He will be taking some flak over his decision to allow Cops to ride along with his deputies.

There are those who think the truth (to the extent that Cops tells the truth) might make the County look bad.


Houston expressed confidence that his deputies would acquit themselves well in front of the cameras.  He expects to be proud of them.

Good for him.

The last time this issue came up the, if the truth might look bad, the best thing to do is hide it, school of thought prevailed.

Then Mayor Marty Chavez decided to not allow Cops in city cop cars.

He was of the opinion that the truth would make Albuquerque look bad.  So, he ordered that it not be told.

If the truth is inconvenient, it's OK to hide it.

A couple of questions are begged; who gets to decide what truth will be told, and more importantly, who gets to decide who gets power enough to be put in charge of the truth?

I would argue that if there is a decision to be made regarding limitation on truth telling about the public interests, it is up to the people to make that decision.

The terms of public service are the prerogative of the people.
It is not up to public servants to establish the terms of their in-servitude.

The most fundamental terms of public service are transparency and truth telling.  If limits are to be set on transparency and truth telling, it is the prerogative, and the responsibility of the people to establish them.

Allowing politicians and public servants to redact public records and restrict access to public meetings, creates a conflict of interests.  The public interests in open meetings and accessible records conflicts with the self-interests of politicians and public servants; in particular those needing to limit public access to the records of their public service.

If one were going to start from scratch and write an Open Government Act, would they begin by allowing politicians and public servants self-redact the records of their public service, and to limit access to their meetings?

Who would even suggest such nonsense?

Is it government of, by and for the people, or
is it government of, by and for public servants?

The truth about the spending of public resources and the wielding of public power belongs to the people.  The convenient truth and the inconvenient truth; it all belongs to the people.

And yet, a person looking for a public record or access to a public meeting finds a bass-ackwards abuse of power; public servants are allowed to close meetings and hide records at their own volition.  The onus falls upon the citizen to prove to a court that they do indeed have a right to attend the meetings and inspect the records.

Why aren't all meetings open and all records public, unless the public servants have to established to the law; their need to meet in secret and or their need to hide public records?

I can't imagine a more dangerous situation than allowing powerful politicians and public servants to believe they have the right to decide what truth gets told to the people.




photos Mark Bralley