I quoted the Citizen a while ago when the question was "School Board, will you print the SAU employee salaries in the Annual Report":
The argument has been - hey, why make it easy for taxpayers? They can come in and do a Right To Know anytime they want to get the information.
This proves the argument:
Blandford questioned the need to publicize the information at all, since the public has access to it through making a formal Right-to-Know request for the information.
As it stands now the district keeps track of who makes Right-to-Know requests in town and what information they are seeking.
Blandford said that should the information be printed in the town's annual report, the district would lose their monitoring "control."
Control. Control. Control. And that's what it is all about. Control. Who has it, and who does not? After all:
Knowledge is power
- Thomas Hobbes
Ask yourself in light of that question: Where does that locus of power now exist? And where should it be?
The premise, this time was this:
Promoting a limited government that is open, responsive and fully accountable to and in touch with its citizens without interfering in their personal, daily lives.
It was asked of the Town, the SAU, and the County Commission if they would consider making their websites more open and accountable by including much more information on their website. A good 10 point measure of open and transparent can be seen at the SunShine Review.
At the last Select Board meeting, my request to get on their agenda to give a more formal presentation seemed to be favorably received (hint - be at the next meeting!).
The School Board? I guess from the above and from their meeting yesterday, not so much. From the Citizen:
Gilford School Board stands pat on information policy
The Gilford School Board has turned down a request by the Gilford Town Republican Committee to put a range of School District records on the Internet.
Last week the Republican Committee wrote the board to request that everything from meeting minutes and agendas to the budget and check registry be posted online. While the School District does post some of the information requested, the desire was focused on financial and other information that is not made available on the web.
"It comes down to the essential question, does government stand for the people or vice versa?" questioned Skip Murphy, chair of the Gilford Republican Committee.
There is always the fundamental question: what is the proper role of government? Another: does government (elected, appointed, and employees) exist for the betterment of the citizenry, or is it the other way around - an entity existing at the expense of the taxpayers. Which is the servant of which?
From the start the board was reluctant in moving forward with the request. School Board Chair Sue Allen opened by announcing the request and added: "... but the information they are requesting is available to anyone who comes into the SAU by filling out a request form."
My definition of a more open and more transparent is...
...making it as easy as possible for the citizens (that pay for the functioning of that government) to get at any information they feel is needed or wanted from their government. The technologies of the Internet make this exceedingly easy for anyone to review pretty much anything
as long as it is posted. When posted, there is no longer a "gate keeper" function that is needed.
So, why the hesitation to share that information and make the School Board / SAU's activities more open and more transparently? Their website is already paid for by taxpayer money - why not better utilize it?
Superintendent Paul DeMinico said the district had never delayed, prevented or denied a request for information. He said in his estimation the district has been "more than transparent."
The Budget Committee had this discussion concerning printing employee salaries - sure, information is available for anyone to come in and then ask for it. But in this day and Internet age, why not be proactive and just post it?
Which is more "open and transparent": having to ask for it or having it clickable?
It seems that many who are in public life do not see having to come down to an office, fill out a form, wait for the information, and then review it as onerous. Basically, to them, this process is "not a big deal". But I asked a few people around town - a non-scientific poll - if they would be willing to do this as private citizens. The answer was pretty much "no". Now, throw in that it costs money to get the copies, and you may see the real reluctance of some to take part in the process.
Especially, when in a lot of areas nowadays, information can be had at a click of a button.
The stated reason for the School Board's reluctance is already out in print - simply look back at the top of this post:
Blandford questioned the need to publicize the information at all, since the public has access to it through making a formal Right-to-Know request for the information.
As it stands now the district keeps track of who makes Right-to-Know requests in town and what information they are seeking.
Blandford said that should the information be printed in the town's annual report, the district would lose their monitoring "control."
This is transparency? This is promoting "openess"? Somehow, I do not equate what Dr. DiMinico calls "more than transparent." with the ' monitoring "control"' as stated by School Board Member Blandford- do you? Keeping tabs on who asks for what is neither open nor transparent.
Or is this a new definition of the word?
Like I said, the BudComm talked about it. So I ask you, the reader: are you the kind of person that sees themself as having no problem in filing a Right To Know? Do you know what is involved in knowing how to phrase the request correctly (no disrespect meant towards government, but sometimes it IS hard to know how to correctly ask for information - and that's what I deal in!).
Especially as it will be monitored?
The article continues:
However the Gilford School Board has drawn criticism regarding Right-to-Know matters. Last summer questions were raised as to whether Allen and fellow board member Derek Tomlinson avoided a public meeting where opinions about the town's Budget Committee were to be discussed.
In that case, the two met privately with the chair of the inquiring committee from Moultonborough.
Hmm, this seems to fly in the face "had never delayed, prevented or denied a request for information"....
Murphy said the more information citizens have at their fingertips the more confidence they bestow in their government, and the only goal of the request was to have more information readily available.
The real hang-up was two-fold, though both rested on the question of how many resources would have to be used to put information on the web and the additional demands for services that would follow.
Oh those pesky citizens....just bombarding us with questions (see here with bombarding the County Commission with Right To Know Requests)! I will tell you that when I saw the article, it really says, regardless of what Dr. DiMinico said, that the School Board simply does not want to be bothered.
To put that information out on the Web would not take that much amount of time. After all, making citizens go through the process of RTK submissions slows down that questioning, doesn't it? And does slowing the number of questions add to "openess and transparency"?
As far as the resources is concerned, how about this? For instance, consider it a computer science class project! If we have students in the school system that can do real time programming for the Robotics program and construct their own website for the team, they certainly can handle FTPing a few documents out to the web and arranging a few pages. Set up a couple of daemons sniffing at some directories, and when Scott Isabelle and staff run the reports, just drop the outputted files into those directories. Set up the FTP mechanism to upload an updated HTML page onto the web site with the required links.
Heck, here's a hint if you don't know how - use a shareware tool called PDF995 which will create a virtual printer on your system. Instead of printing to a real printer, it "fakes" out the system to look like a real printer but creates a PDF file. Just use that resulting PDF file for the site.
It doesn't take that much time to do!
Fellow board member Paul Blandford explained that his concern was that the information would cause a "micromanaging" type of questioning by the citizens of Gilford, to which he said, "that is why we are elected, that's why we hire."
And that is the wrong principle and, I believe, assumption. In the short run, as with any new thing, there may be questions. Frankly, I see that as engaged citizens taking an interest in how their tax money is spent. Over time, as people hear reasonable answers that pan out, the questions may rise up only on the "outlier" type of stuff.
The citizens are supposed to be in charge and in control at all times. Too often, I see people in government putting the cart before the horse. Subtly, it changes from the "citizens are more important" to "our work is more important" or "my position is more important". The analogy is in the private sector, we see this when companies forget who they serve - the customer.
The result is painful in the private sector - I have worked for three multi-billion dollar corporations that no longer exist because they took their eye off the ball - serving and putting customers first. Unfortunately, there is no analogous model to do the same with government as it is self-perpetuating.
"So citizens are not supposed to ask questions then?" asked Murphy. "When information is not readily available it creates power. To give up that information may mean a loss of power to some people."
When information becomes more generally available, power by those that hold it is diminished. It ceases to be a lever. Yes, I may be somewhat exaggerating the position. However, I hold that when more people have the ability to "use their flashlights", only good things can happen.....and bad things may be prevented. But the first step is to make the information freely available.
"I think going to this next level, I don't know what the value is," said board member Margo Weeks.
Still some on the board were willing enough to put the information at the public's fingertips.
Kurt Webber, who is up for re-election in 2009, said if it is easy enough to do then why not do it, because even if the district's technology does not quite match up then the board should be working toward that goal.
Kudoes to Kurt! He "gets it". And being in the computer "biz", he truly understand how easy this could be.
The value added is to the curious citizen that wants to see what is going on has an easier experience in doing so - after all, financial numbers do tell stories all on their own. And not having to "bother" the staff at any time has much value. And being able to peruse that data at 1am has value - the Burger King motto applies ("Have it your way") is even more valuable. Admittedly, the value proposition may not be on the SAU side, but it will be on the citizens'.
And only the School Board can make that happen....and reap the reward. Note: at the very least, wouldn't this be a great PR move on the part of the Board?
I applaud Kurt Webber's willingness to work this forward. Being a computer guy, he certainly sees the possibility for making things more available.
Assistant Superintendent for Business Scott Isabelle did inform the board that it would require more than converting a Microsoft Excel document to a web document in order to get the information posted.
Isabelle did offer a bottom line for the board, saying the district does not have the resources or the capability to complete the request.
I disagree with the capability part of that, and probably the resources as well. What is lacking is the political or bureaucratic will to get it done. I'm quite sure that if the School Board as a whole, or Dr. DiMinico said to do this, it would get done.
Now, I was not at the Board meeting so I do not know exactly what was said. However, from the technical side, not much more is needed, at least in the beginning, than a few new pages with links in different places.
After all, that's what this is! Mr. Isabelle may be an excellent accountant, but methinks that there is a bit to learn about "web documents". Now, if he meant "PDF documents", then I did use a piece of shareware to convert these spreadsheets to PDF files.
In the first case, it took all of 4 minutes to post (given that I'm not sitting next to the server and have to upload over the Internet, it takes a while, and had to create the post to boot). The second post not much more (and then I "gussied" it up a bit).
However Webber did press to have what could be put on the web put on the district website. He did meet with some resistance from Tomlinson's and Blandford's side of the table.
Why am I not surprised...
Ultimately the only change to the website will be the addition of an online version of the Right-to-Know request form, with the idea being to have the initial request be made over the Internet while the actual information would still be picked up in person.
Furthermore, he said he would not want to see the request go away as often as he or his staff is able to aid citizens in their quest for specific information.
"I'll take what I can get," said Murphy, noting he would have rather seen the board embrace the Republican Committee's suggestion.
There is something in having the form on-line that has value. But, wouldn't it be more cost effective to allow the taxpayers to see what is already available and then be ready to answer "more value added" type questions once an inquirer has seen what is available? After all, the answer might have already been posted, thus saving Mr. Isabelle and his staff "working time".
.
