It's important to have open, transparent public entities

This week is Sunshine Law Week across the nation.

It's a week to recognize the importance of transparency in government. It's a fundamental cornerstone of democracy, but it's a topic not often brought up unless a controversy arises.

When people think about a lack of transparency in federal government, they think of scandals such as Benghazi or the NSA's sweeping surveillance program. There's the controversy about photographers having not been allowed to photograph the president; there was even a story last year about a young journalist being forced to delete photos of Vice President Joe Biden at a very public event. Everywhere you look, it seems, the government is looking to keep information secret, to control messages and protect reputations. Be wary of any government that wishes to keep information hidden.

But the idea of transparency goes well beyond the federal government.

It plays a vital role in your local newspaper.

Because of Missouri's Sunshine Law, we can publish the daily police report. We can publish meeting agendas and minutes. We can find out when public bodies are meeting, and report on what is said and done.

Many, if not most, of the government bodies we deal with are compliant. The cities of Cape Girardeau and Jackson and the county government are very good at posting meeting notices and responding to our requests. Interestingly, the East Missouri Action Agency in Park Hills, Mo., always mails out a detailed agenda and even includes a map on how to reach their offices.

That certainly is not the culture in the town of Chaffee, Mo., where rumors abound about problems with the police department, particularly the chief. We were told the police board, a public body, would be meeting to discuss issues raised by residents. A reporter called city hall and was told there was no meeting scheduled. The reporter asked to be notified when the next meeting would be held. A week or so later, we learned the police board met. We were not notified of the meeting.

In another case, Southeast Missouri State University declined to release the names of students who were punished in the student judiciary system for acts of violence that could include rape. The federal law that governs the privacy of student records allows for the release of such information, but the university cited a provision in the state law which allows, but does not require, the closing of educational records. It is our belief, as the federal law makes plain, that acts of violence do not fall into the realm of education records and should not be withheld from the public. Denying the release of such information places public safety at risk. It fosters an environment that could allow for sweeping violent crimes under the rug so as to not give the institution a black eye in public relations. We're not claiming that is happening, but such redactions foster speculation. On other issues, such as Regents meetings, the university is very transparent.

Often, public bodies say they "can't" or are "prohibited" from releasing records when that's not the case. There are a finite number of things public bodies cannot give to the public. Among them is Social Security numbers. But often you hear public bodies saying they can't release information because it's a "personnel" matter.

Public bodies always have the option to make those matters public under the Sunshine Law, but they choose not to. And that makes sense. The public doesn't need to know, for instance, whether a teacher resigned because of a cancer diagnosis or even because they just couldn't handle the demands of the job.

But there have been instances in the past where public bodies have used Sunshine Law exceptions to cloak heavy matters that should've been brought into the light. In the last handful of years, we came to learn of more than one school in the greater Southeast Missouri region that had teachers enter into sexual relations with students who were 18 years old; in one instance a teacher had sex with two such students. At the time, this was not against the law; the teachers resigned under pressure by the districts, but they were not fired and the districts would not and did not publicly state why the teachers left the district. Presumably, the teachers could have gone on to teach at other districts. The districts could have addressed the widely circulated rumors. They chose not to. It could be because they feared losing a lawsuit. It could be because they didn't want the schools to suffer a reputation hit. It was not because the Sunshine Law prohibited them from doing so. More recently, a prosecuting attorney released the personnel records of an attorney who sought public office. He did so because he felt the public needed to know about certain aspects of the person's professional and personal demeanor, including his use of the n-word. That candidate, when approached with the personnel file, dropped out of the prosecutor's race two years ago, but this year is running for judge.

Transparency laws are vital, and the exemptions put into place are done so for good reasons. There are certain circumstances where privacy is needed.

The Missouri Sunshine Law agrees with our position, however, that all public bodies should remain open when possible. Public documents should be available for inspection. The next time you have a public candidate visit your house while stumping for office, ask him how highly he rates transparency and openness to the public.

After a long winter, a little more Sunshine won't hurt a thing.