The battle for openness in government is a difficult but necessary one. In some parts of the country, notably northern Virgina, some police departments are doing everything they can to prevent greater openness. Radley Balko of Reason writes about how departments in that state batten on the legitimate need for public safety to justify their own illegitimate desires for concealment and secrecy from the very public that supports and pays for those departments.
See, Trust Me: You Can Trust Us.
Even a modest bill to allow limited public access to public documents has been met with a firestorm of bureaucratic opposition in Virginia.
Consider these objections to open records laws —
When asked why she couldn’t release the name of a Virginia police officer who shot and killed an unarmed man last November, Fairfax County police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings replied, “What does the name of an officer give the public in terms of information and disclosure? I’d be curious to know why they want the name of an officer.”
Pope reported that “police chiefs, prosecutors, and sheriffs from across Virginia” spoke against Edwards’ bill” at last week’s hearing, complaining that “incident reports were raw and unedited documents full of accusations and opinions that would reveal police operations to criminals.”
They also warned that releasing such documents would “create a chilling effect on victims and witnesses,” discouraging them from “coming forward to share information.”
Balko observes that
These worries are red herrings. Nearly every other police department in the country releases police reports to the public without compromising investigations, public safety, or the security of witnesses. Sensitive information such as the identity of police informants or the names of witnesses can be redacted.
What’s the reason for such opposition to simple requests? Keeping watchdog organizations, journalists, bloggers, and families in the dark about incidents shields the small number of bad officers from public view.
In shielding them, corrupt leaders compromise entire departments of good officers for the sake of a few of their incompetent or dishonest friends. Rather than clean house, bad leaders circle the wagons.
Perhaps one shouldn’t be surprised by any of this — bad leaders protect bad employees (at the expense of good ones). What’s particularly unfortunate is how those who are supposed to oversee departments impartially are so quick to cover for bad leaders, and to support secrecy and concealment:
Meanwhile, the elected officials who are supposed to oversee law enforcement in these jurisdictions told Pope they saw nothing wrong with all the secrecy. “I am in the corner of trusting our police department,” said Arlington County Board Member Barbara Favola.
That’s why, on a bad oversight board, there will be no attempt at balance — sycophants — toadies of every shape and size — will fill the board. There will be not even the pretense of impartiality — just boosters, cheerleaders, and starstruck defenders. Defenders not of good conduct, but of any conduct as though it were good conduct..
Fortunately, the defer-to-authority, don’t-you-know-who-I-am-crowd faces a bleak future. They’ve run out of excuses, and the flimsy ones they’ve offered aren’t credible beyond they tiny spheres in which they circulate. When they leave the scene — and they will, as they’re tired mediocrities — better leaders and overseers will take their places.