Word choice matters. Thinking through how others will read and perceive words is important, especially when sharing opinions.
The Sentinel editorial last week is a case in point.
My purpose in the editorial was that the borough assembly could have interviewed candidates for the manager’s job in public. I think they should have, but that’s just my opinion and my view of the law from the perspective of a journalist who has written about public policy and government in Alaska since 1976.
I wanted readers to know that the courts have held that such interviews can be held in public, but have never ordered that they must be held in public. I was not careful enough in choosing between “should” and “could” in that description last week.
The borough’s past practice has been to conduct such interviews in executive session, following the legal advice of the borough attorney intended to protect the interests of job candidates. Just as in the past, the assembly and staff consulted with its attorney to ensure that it would be following the Alaska Open Meetings Law.
The fact that I disagree with how the intent of the law should be interpreted doesn’t mean the assembly committed some nefarious deed or conspired to deny anyone their rights, liberties and pursuit of happiness. Rather, they acted on advice of their attorney to do their job as best they can.
My opinion is a disagreement over the judgment call on candidate interviews, not questioning the honesty, civic-mindedness or responsibility of the assembly, a collection of seven volunteer elected officials who spend hours every week trying their best to make good decisions.
Which is the point I want to make this week: While I think the public is best served by hearing from borough manager job candidates in open interviews, and while I believe that is allowed under the law — actually encouraged under the law — I do not want anyone to misconstrue my opinions as a condemnation of our local government for making a different decision. This country and this state are being torn apart too much already by people who believe public officials do not deserve respect, do not serve the public, and do not know the constitution from a tide table.
Such emotional, unsubstantiated criticisms against public officials are not about freedom or individual rights, Valley Forge, the Founding Fathers or our grandfathers who fought in too many wars. The rush to recalls, the hurried condemnation of public officials with different opinions, the actual threats against the life and safety of public officials — including Alaska’s chief medical officer — are not making America great. They are making it a sad country.
To the borough assembly members: Yes, I think you could have and should have interviewed the job candidates in public. But you didn’t, based on your efforts to follow the law as you were advised. Differences of opinion on public policy are healthy when the intent is constructive. My intent is to steer public officials in the direction of as much openness as possible, not provide a reason for any more conspiracy-minded complaints against government. There is too much of that as it is.
Reader Comments(0)