Chris Flynn wrote:
>One, you don't bring your personal politics to work.
Two, you remain neutral within your orgainization.
This is excellent advice, Chris (Dr. Rhoads - there's a name I haven't
heard for a long time!).
The second point in particular has been a key to the success of our
program. And, yes, you are correct - at time it has been hard to maintain,
particularly if the given leadership at the time wants to enroll you in
inter-agency politics.
Regarding one, I hope, once I retire, to engage in advocacy of the kind I
have not felt comfortable with while working as a public servant.
Transparency is the area I'm considering as a focus, particularly as it
relates to support for public records programs.
Transparency is a difficult issue. On the one hand, I think elected
officials and private leaders have some legitimate concerns about the
ability to engage in the normal give and take associated with decision
making without the fear that every opinion will end up in the press. There
are also costs associated with providing transparency. In addition,
transparency often runs the risk of infringing on privacy rights (as
reflected in the recent exchange on this listserv relating to gun records).
This is particularly true when transparency is defined primarily as an
element of press access, rather than public access.
On the other hand, rarely is transparency seen for what it actually is: an
important part of checks and balances, often represented in law, other
times something aspired to. How much of the public or press, do you think,
recognize the importance of retention as it relates to transparency? How
does time or technology impact transparency? What happens when transparency
is "stolen", aka Wikileaks, or the Murdoch press in Great Britain? If
stealing transparency results in positive change, was it wrong, and what
does that say about existing structures of transparency? Finally, in a
world dominated by global institutions of various stripes, where does
corporate transparency fit - is it a right of global citizenship? A
corporate obligation? A burdensome government regulation? Most importantly
(and this is where I have found the greatest difficulty associated with
this issue) - who gets to define it?
Its this last question that demands a more concerted focus of advocacy
globally. All too often, decisions regarding transparency reflect the fox
guarding the chicken coop. And, in my opinion, in a world dominated by a
corporate/highly politicized press, we can no longer rely on the press to
be effective advocates for this issue, as they see transparency as
something "owned", not "shared". This really needs to be seen as a right of
citizenship, offering the average citizen (regardless of political stripe)
the only opportunity she or he has outside of his or her vote/buying
decision to hold our leaders (public and private) accountable.
Locally - the level of advocacy I aspire to - transparency starts with
simply pointing out the large gap between the transparency needed, and the
support infrastructure funded. When requesting a simple, commonly requested
record leads you to a website that has inaccurate phone contact
information, which then leads to phone numbers that go unanswered for days,
and, once answered are staffed by overworked individuals who then pass the
buck to other overworked individuals - something is seriously amiss.
--
Dwight Wallis, CRM
Multnomah County Records Management & Distribution Services Manager
1620 SE 190th Avenue
Portland, OR 97233
ph: Records- (503)988-3741
ph: Distribution - (503)988-3533, x29131
cell: (503)260-2263
fax: (503)988-3754
[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
