Instead of a Parental Caution, along the lines of what goes on the screen before a TV show featuring violence or sexual references -- and don't they all anymore -- this editorial comes with a Frown Emoticon Caution. It features three frowns, all concerning Iowa government.
Excuse us if we sound a bit suspicious, but how committed are Iowa officials to open government?
First, the Iowa House couldn't manage to act on a Senate-approved measure to strengthen the open-records law and make it more efficient.
Now, Gov. Chet Culver is telling state agencies that, if they decide to have an attorney review documents before acting on an open-records request, to stick the requester with the bill.
This is a variation on a theme. It wasn't that long ago -- remember the Iowa Lottery's TouchPlay fiasco? -- that the response to a public-documents request was to sue the requester.
Either way, the state's message is clear: If you want to see public records, this access could come at a steep price.
Sure, large media organizations have deeper pockets -- The Des Moines Register, for example, is most active in requesting and analyzing public records -- but even they have their limits. What better way to stymie The Register and their ilk than to "lawyer-up" and make them pay for the privilege of accessing public documents? Note that these are expenses over and above the copying fees associated with most requests.
And what about private citizens, who have a legitimate claim -- and a legitimate interest -- in seeing those documents. How convenient for government to keep the public at bay than to stick an exorbitant price tag on the request?
What's next? Charging crime victims who call 911 or whistle-blowers whose reports forced investigators to investigate?
Accepting and processing requests for public documents should be government's cost of doing business.
Speaking of public accountability and fiscal responsibility in Iowa, consider State Auditor David Vaudt's recent report.
The good news: A consultant recommended ways for state government to save $50,325.
The bad news: The consultant's bill was $882,260.
The consultant, Chicago-based A.T. Kearney, Inc., disputes Vaudt's conclusions, saying it identified more than $1.5 million in savings.
In the meantime, Culver has suspended payments to the consultant. Let's hope Kearney is right. Otherwise, that is efficiency Iowa cannot afford.
A decade ago, Iowa, as part of the huge settlement with Big Tobacco, agreed to accept $2 billion spread over 25 years.
The state in 2002 sold those rights to most of that money for an immediate payment of $500 million. Officials said they would set aside the money and use the earnings on tobacco-related expenses, including anti-smoking campaigns and treatment for smoking-related illnesses.
It's not unusual to sell the rights; mega-winners in lotteries often choose to do it.
Last month, the Legislature decided to sell off whatever future income from the settlement remained.
Now, with the money virtually gone, advocates and critics disagree on whether it went for its intended purpose.
Is it unreasonable to demand that state officials account for those hundreds of millions of the public's dollars?
Editorials reflect the consensus of the Telegraph Herald Editorial Board. Its members are: Jim Normandin (publisher), Ken Brown, Brian Cooper, Monty Gilles and Amy Gilligan.
