“Transparency” is a big buzzword for governments now. From the White House to tiny town councils, transparency means that the government conducts its business openly and without secrets.
Marin constituents can read all about the transparency of their local municipalities with a few keystrokes. Our cities, towns and the county reference the concept on their websites.
As a reporter, my job includes gathering government information of interest to the public and writing about it. With all this transparency talk by our governments, I should get my work done lickety-split and have plenty of time for afternoon siestas.
However, not all Marin municipalities embrace the approach. As a result, I’m forced to work overtime.
Two weeks ago, Marin County and Novato officials were especially elusive. Mind you, I wasn’t asking for nuclear launch codes or their personal bank account numbers. I had a few relatively simple questions about newsworthy issues. Almost all my numerous phone calls and emails went unanswered. The three written replies that I received contained no information.
I wouldn’t exactly describe this behavior as government transparency. Murky would be more apt.
Case in point, Supervisor Mary Sackett, an elected official serving on the Marin County Board of Supervisors. She also serves on a subcommittee working to bring forth a sheriff’s oversight ordinance for the supervisors to vote on, one that establishes a civilian oversight commission and an office of the inspector general. My questions, had I been able to ask them, were about the ordinance.
Essentially, I wanted an update on when the ordinance would come before the entire board and the specific causes for the delay. In February, Sackett told me the vote would “hopefully take place in late spring.” And county counsel said at the time that they would soon engage in a final step, a mandatory “meet and confer” process with two law enforcement labor unions.
Even before February, community members were demanding to know about the hold-up. The county has been working on this ordinance for two years. It must be a masterpiece, considering it took just 17 days to draft the Declaration of Independence.
Certainly, it’s fair to ask what the heck is going on. Why has the county had numerous meetings, at least five, with the labor unions? When will the process end?
In a reply to my email sent two weeks ago, Sackett wrote that she had no information and sent a link to the county’s website. I had already read the outdated material posted there, and it didn’t provide the answers I sought regarding the current status of the ordinance.
But I had reason to believe that Sackett did have information. She recently met with two Marin residents, both of whom I know and respect, and reportedly gave them news that does not appear on the referenced webpage. Those two people provided the intel to a group of community advocates. Like a game of Telephone, it spread to more people, me included.
Last week, I followed up with Sackett via email, listing some of what I had heard. She decided to respond, denying that she made the comments. Additionally, she provided vague statements, saying that the website would be “updated shortly” and she’s “hopeful” the meet and confer process will conclude next month.
And that is precisely the reason Sackett should have taken five minutes to speak with me—on the record. A conversation would give me the opportunity to press for clarification and specifics. Instead, members of the community will continue to repeat the words Sackett claims she never uttered. Worse yet, the public still doesn’t know when to expect the supervisors to vote on the sheriff’s oversight ordinance.
I find it ironic that the intent of the ordinance is to provide transparency into the inner workings of the sheriff’s department. Maybe the board of supervisors needs an oversight commission too.
Novato officials also recently ignored my many requests for a brief interview. Like Sackett, they referred me to a webpage that did not answer my questions about the city’s plans for a sanctioned homeless encampment devastated by a fire.
Why are these officials refusing to be transparent? The absence of information triggers conjecture, rumors and uncertainty.
Now, I will twiddle my thumbs waiting for responses to the public records requests I submitted to Novato and Marin County. Thank goodness for the California Public Records Act, legislation that forces government transparency, with some exceptions.
The growing phenomenon of public officials dismissing journalists occurs at the local, state and federal levels. The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit global media organization and newsroom, held a symposium last year on the topic and recently issued “Shut Out,” a 22-page report on their findings.
“Not all, but many who do the public’s business have taken a misguided and unfortunate stance that they are under no obligation to make themselves or their work available for independent journalistic review, even though it is an essential component of our civic life,” Neil Brown, the Poynter Institute president, said in the report.
“Shut Out” encourages journalists to tell the public how they tried to obtain information and provide details about uncooperative sources, as I’m doing here. Frankly, I’m not optimistic that it will prompt Sackett to call and tell me all about the sheriff’s oversight ordinance delay. Nor am I counting on hearing from Novato’s Amy Cunningham, city manager; Jessica Deakyne, assistant city manager; Rachel Farac, city council member; or any of the other folks I contacted about the future of the city-sanctioned homeless encampment.
I asked Candice Nguyen, a Peabody Award-winning reporter for NBC Bay Area, about the roadblocks she faced while working on an 18-part series about Oakland’s broken 911 system. The biggest issue, she said, was not receiving timely responses from city officials.
Nguyen said she repeatedly requested—at least a dozen times—to interview Oakland’s mayor on the crisis-level problems with 911. It took more than six months of “respectful persistence” to finally land that interview, according to Nguyen.
“I believe, as an investigative reporter, this delayed or lack of response is disappointing to the public, but it’s no surprise,” Nguyen said. “My stories often hold officials and agencies accountable.”
Even without receiving information directly from officials, Nguyen pointed out that she still gets the story. In fact, she ran 13 reports on Oakland’s 911 system before the mayor agreed to an interview. Her ongoing series shines a light on the extremely long wait times for 911 dispatchers to answer calls. That reporting prompted the city to make some improvements, and Nguyen continues to investigate the issue.
Officials have an obligation to respond to the media, “especially on matters concerning the public’s interest,” Nguyen said.
Indeed, they do. However, when officials eschew their responsibility to transparency, they’ll still be part of journalists’ stories.
Only they won’t get to tell their side to the public.
Thank you Nikki for bringing this issue to light. The Board of Supervisors approved a detailed proposal for Sheriff oversight in June of 2023 and the County Counsel was directed to develop an ordinance to bring its provisions to life. The Sheriff claimed to have no issues with the plan and the public was led to believe that the ordinance would be completed and implementation of the system would begin by the end of the year. Now, 14 months later, the County has provided no meaningful public update, despite persistent requests from MVFREE and others. Selected community members with privileged connections have been the public’s only source of information. In these circumstances, it is especially troubling that the County is also stonewalling the press.
But what if the reporter sincerely wants to help the politician, believes in what the politician is doing and what the politician stands for and does not want to harm the politician with difficult or embarrassing questions. Certainly, then, the reporter ought to refrain.