An unfortunate loss of transparency

Transgressions, shenanigans and outright corruption at local, state and national levels have sparked a vocal call for greater transparency by our officials.

The more we know about what government is doing, the better chance we'll have to head off misconduct, right?

So, we find it a bit odd, and more than a little disconcerting that one of our government bodies would reduce the information it provides to taxpayers.

That happened in Mundelein High School District 120, where Superintendent Jody Ware decided without public discussion or school board approval to stop posting documents and supporting information for agenda items of the board's regular meetings.

For about four years, those documents, covering purchases, program proposals, contracts and many other subjects, had been available for public review at the district Web site. They were usually posted a day or two before board meetings, giving parents, teachers, community members and the media a chance to educate themselves about the issues up for discussion.

The truth is most government bodies are not so forthcoming, and District 120 had established itself as one of the suburbs' more transparent.

Legally, governments are not required to put such documents online, but open government advocates say they should.

"The Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act are meant to be floors, not ceilings," David Morrison, deputy director of the Chicago-based Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, told the Daily Herald's Russell Lissau last week. "There's nothing that prohibits agencies from going above and beyond. And they should be going above and beyond."

Some District 120 officials who defended the move said it's a lot of work to post the information before meetings. Others said there is less criticism and more trust of district officials than in the past. Ware said she's more concerned about potential legal problems of posting confidential information, such as employment recommendations.

Some of that rationale is troubling. Confidentiality is a concern, but laws are in place to govern what does not have to be made public.

Is quietly moving to be less transparent without any public discussion really the best way to build trust?

We don't think so.

The information drain was halted, at least in the near term, when board President Edwin Specht and Vice President Vicky Kennedy ordered memos for future meetings be available on line until the full board can debate the matter. That public discussion is set for Aug. 25.

When the board convenes, we strongly urge its members support transparency.