Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 02/02/1998 All articles from this issue

A mandate for basic public accountability

printer friendly version

By David. L. Grey

"The Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." - California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250.

This is our state law and why, for example, "Police Report" appears on Page 14 of the Town Crier. Or why a longer news story was necessary Jan. 28 that Los Altos lawyer Richard M. McGowen, facing 39 varied, long-time misconduct charges, resigned from the state bar association. Not pleasant but possibly "required" civics reading?

Public officials are accountable to us. We have a right to know - with some limits such as timing, details - what they might be up to. Such newsworthy folk do lose much work-related privacy.

And, yes, at the grand scale this means especially a U.S. president. There is the federal 1966 Freedom of Information Act, which tries to ensure as much government in the open as possible. Myriad federal and state laws and court rulings do encourage, even mandate, basic public accountability.

Like it or not, at all levels we live with this system. And the news media/press are one major player as empowered by the First Amendment, the California Constitution, those many federal and state laws and court rulings.

So must we put up with the unpleasant news, even sleazy/sensational? To degrees, yes, but we do not have to consume it.

Criticize the messengers, but do not kill them -especially when their dialogue is directed at reasonable questions of truthfulness, judgment, political and other favors or potential problems that might reflect on ability to carry out the public trust. Notice it matters most only in magnitude whether we are talking about a U.S. president or a mid-Peninsula public servant; the basic rules of openness and accountability so pointedly apply to both.

Innocence in the broadest meaning of the term is presumed until we learn otherwise about public officials.

Compounding all this is what the laws say can or might be allowed to be published or broadcast and what professional standards, judgments and ethics say should be. Indeed, right to know may not be immediate and in stages to protect legitimate investigations and due/fair process.

It is best with time and scrutiny to let the marketplace run its course. Truth will not always prevail but, indeed, with matters of public concern it must be given its fighting chance.

As part of the declaration of intent of California's Brown Act (requiring mostly open local government meetings, agendas) says: "The people in the State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give the public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

David L. Grey, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of journalism at San Jose State University where for 24 years he taught and did research on media law and ethics and such as news reporting, writing. He is a Mountain View resident..