Image courtesy Pixabay.

Transparency has been a challenge this past year for many local governments. We have written about specific examples of government documents not being provided to the public ahead of time or not allowing public comment on commissioner proposals from the dais. Today, we are writing about what we will call “after-the-fact transparency.” This phenomenon is permeating local governments.

There are laws in the State of Florida regarding transparency requiring a certain level of openness and notifications. This is considered the bare minimum in the state of Florida. Complying with these requirements keeps government legal, but it doesn’t necessarily meet the spirit of true transparency in policy decision-making. 

A local government can supplement these state requirements with their own policies which can be overseen by the local elected body. These can be adopted within the elected body’s rules of procedure. Additionally, where special circumstances are identified that would make a heightened level of transparency and participation fair, the elected bodies can direct their administrators to further increase transparency above their general policy and state law. 

Recently, we have seen local government shy away from transparency in decision making. This is likely to decrease any negative public feedback on initiatives from administration and commissioners. Local governments have purposely not been notifying stakeholders and affected parties and not including them in the policy decision-making process.

Instead, you hear lots of reasons why not to inform the public, reasons like the item was posted on the government website, or this decision has been a long process. No matter that most people don’t check government websites on a regular basis nor watch or monitor government meetings. Taxpayers expect government, and especially their local elected officials, will be responsible and inform them that a local elected body’s decision will be made that directly impacts their future. Instead, they get the minimum, or, even worse, after-the-fact notification that usually occurs after an election, not before.

After-the-fact notification allows the elected official a cover of sorts; they get to say that they told the public — albeit after the fact — when they have no voice in the decision-making process and the public cannot hold their elected official accountable. They do this even though they could have sent those same notices prior to decision-making.

These are clear choices these elected officials are making not to inform the public and to exclude them from decision-making. These officials are demonstrating disdain for the public process and those who are affected by their decisions the most. The Argus Foundation strongly urges local elected bodies to examine their processes and ensure that transparency is heightened before policy decisions are made, not after. 

Christine Robinson is Executive Director of The Argus Foundation.

Image courtesy Pixabay.