On transparency

Southland Express Opinion writer Phil McCarthy has followed up on the 'should councillors blog' story from last week, with his column in today's weekly rag. He's titled his piece Information free flow

The old saying that "what goes on tour, stays on tour", should not apply to our public institutions.
  This is especially when it comes to decisions on how to spend our money, whether it is taxes, rates or any other publically-funded matter.
  We live in an age of decisions being made behind closed doors and one in which the free flow of information seems to be frowned upon.
  My students often shake their heads at how difficult it is to get people to make comment for stories.
  Simple comments for straight-forward stories often need to be put through a sanitation process (known as "public relations") before being approved for public consumption.
  I wonder if people fear scrutiny, and construct walls around themselves and their institutions to shield themselves from interested eyes.

No one wants to be seen as saying anything. And yet most people - politicians and sportspeople in particular it would seem - freely express their views on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

  The media picked up on this and for a brief period of time there were some honest opinions floating around the headlines. But now the sportspeople are banned and we've lost interest in the politicians.
  Last week it was announced the All Blacks would be banned from tweeting during the Rugby World Cup.
  Even our local body politicians have been in the gun. Regional councillor and blogger Robert Guyton was reminded of his responsibilities after being a little too effective in his public communications last month.
  He got told off because his blog allegedly strayed into discussion of a public excluded council matter.
  Councillors should know the rules and know what they can and can't say in public. The end result of the private meeting should be made in public if it's in the public interest - which it usually is with councils.
  The public excluded provisions is used way too often - much like people saying something is "private" when they have little or no understanding of the Privacy Act.
  My favourite example of the former was when a council tried to go into public excluded to approve a public advertisement of a job.
  Common sense prevailed and the ad got the tick. And the sun still came up the next day.