In that spirit, I want to share a few thoughts about government transparency and public discourse.

The letter of the law in the Open Meetings Act provides the most basic and fundamental protection of the public interest in a representative democracy: decisions (i.e. the votes that advance an action) are made in public with electors able to hold officials accountable for their individual votes. Our Freedom of Information Act provides a complementary basic protection in ensuring that the information generated by the government that informs those decisions or is useful in evaluating them is accessible as well to the public. These foundations are necessary but obviously insufficient parameters for public engagement in government decisions.

The question that creates the most tension in government-public discourse is the extent to which the muddier side of the decision-making process should be public. On one extreme you have citizens who would have even policy conversations between individual elected officials subject to public scrutiny, while on the other (as in the UM Regents’ case above) you have policy makers who feel only the recording of the vote is necessary.

Neither extreme creates an environment for making good public policy. At the crux of the matter is the fact that all of our elected officials are human beings, as subject to the same passions, fears, discontents, failings and emotional needs as anyone else. Complicating the situation is the rabidity with which some people confront politicians that they disagree with. Equally challenging is the limited space or attention given by many in the media to complex issues and decisions. In the face of either constraint, government officials are often quickly vilified or celebrated for the decision rather than appreciated for being thoughtful and deliberate.

In a representative democracy, we trust our leaders to evaluate proposals holistically, understanding not only the immediate impact of a decision but the tangential ramifications on other aspects of the political system and process as well. This introduces an array of issues — emotional, interpersonal, political, strategic — some of which, we might have the desire to know, but simply do not have the right to know, such as what personal life experiences might guide my actions. As the public we need enough information to judge the appropriateness of a vote; as public officials, we need enough trust to not have to share every detail of our individual decision-making processes.

If we want more open and accessible dialogue among our leaders regarding issues, we must be able to publicly afford them the benefit of the doubt that they are approaching a decision with reason and good intentions. Policy makers, on the other hand, should understand that that trust is not forthcoming when deliberations are unnecessarily secretive.

You, Mary, mention that the reporter has a responsibility of “developing a deep understanding of what’s being discussed around the board or council table, and in providing accurate context and background information so that readers can make sense of it.” I’d argue that this is a good benchmark for the public and for policy makers as well. I don’t need to share with you the emotional angst I feel about a given vote, but I do owe you a clear rationale for decision I ultimately make. I would hope, too, that the public ultimately accepts some occasional simple and vague answers, understanding that not every decision is driven by data — “I felt it was the right thing to do” is sometimes the very real and honest answer when information is inconclusive or long-term ramifications are unclear.

I’ve been so pleased and impressed with the way the City of Ann Arbor now supplies videos of the Council discussions of each resolution. It gives a fuller understanding of each issue. The DDA also has meeting videos. Many of us (including me) who do not have cable make use of these avenues for getting a sense of the atmospherics and dynamics of discussions in public bodies. Minutes, especially action minutes, which are getting to be more frequently used, convey none of that.

So how do we convey that citizen request? Here is a modest suggestion: let the AADL conduct a survey of interest via its website. It would be nice if they would also issue a news release that they are doing so.

Thanks to the Chronicle for its coverage of the AADL. It has put a light on this otherwise inscrutable body.

I don’t necessarily think the President is the instigator either–UM is no different from many other schools in this respect. It’s the climate we live in.

Mary, You make a lot of great points here. One point that should be added is that the quality of the minutes that are provided to the public from many public meetings leaves a lot to be desired–both in terms of the timeliness with which they are made available, and the thoroughness/descriptions provided in the minutes. From both a public access point of view and an archival point of view, saying that “So and so moved to approve the allocation of $100,000 for x” and nothing else gives no sense of the substance of the discussion.

In the University’s case especially, the increasingly tight control over “messaging” is a disappointing thing to see. A university is supposed to be open, not the controlling, paranoid, hierarchical organization UM has been growing into since the Duderstadt era.