When government acts on behalf of the people, it is supposed to be clear. That’s why meetings are open. It’s why records are searchable. It’s why the Sixth Amendment guarantees a public trial.
So why is Armstrong County conducting business in the dark?
Niki’s Quick Six in Parks Township closed suddenly on May 15, about three weeks after a fatal shooting. The sheriff arrived, papers were served and the bar closed, all while TribLive staff was on the scene for an interview.
Documents being served and a law enforcement presence in the wake of a violent incident is not unusual. However, a complete silence regarding what is happening and why is odd. Not only would Sheriff Frank Pitzer not disclose information, neither would the courthouse, with staff only saying there was an emergency injunction.
On Wednesday, the situation came to an “amicable resolution.”
What is that resolution? We don’t know. What was the situation being resolved? We also don’t know. We cannot read documents about it; they are under a protective order.
What we do know is that there was a brief meeting in Judge Chase McClister’s chambers.
The opaque nature of the resolution does not just leave us to wonder what happened. It creates a new question about the lack of transparency itself: Why?
Indeed, it is not just one question but a web of them, each arising from information the public cannot see and officials will not explain.
Why are the documents sealed? Why was the hearing conducted in chambers? Why will neither the court nor the district attorney explain what happened? Why was a business apparently forced to close without any public explanation of the legal basis for doing so?
There is a time and a place for closed doors in government, but those times are rare and those places are prescribed — and usually require acknowledgement.
Courts routinely seal information involving juveniles. Sensitive personal information can be redacted from public filings. Certain investigative details can be protected when disclosure could jeopardize an ongoing case. Government bodies can meet in executive session under limited circumstances established by law.
But secrecy is supposed to be the exception, not the rule.
The reason is simple. Public institutions derive their authority from the people. The people therefore have a right to understand how that authority is being exercised.
That does not mean every document must be public or every discussion must happen in open court. It does mean there should be a compelling reason when public access is restricted and, whenever possible, an explanation of why that restriction is necessary.
When government does not act openly, it invites skepticism. There may be perfectly valid reasons for the sealing of documents, for talking in chambers and declining to answer questions.
But without transparency, it is hard to grow trust.
Transparency is not a gift the government bestows on the people. It isn’t a bone thrown to a hungry dog. It is proof of accountability. It is evidence that confidence is not misplaced.
When government — be it law enforcement or the courts — acts on behalf of the public, it asks the public to trust those actions. That’s hard to do in the dark.