Transparency is all the public ever wants from government entities.
We don’t want to be coddled or treated like children. We don’t want issues presented through rose-colored glasses. We don’t want lies and twisted statements — we just want the truth.
Latah County District Judge John Stegner ruled in favor of full disclosure of all personnel records for former University of Idaho assistant professor Ernesto A. Bustamante Monday. Moscow police believe Bustamante shot and killed UI graduate student Katy Benoit Aug. 22, and then committed suicide the following morning. In the weeks following the shooting, UI officials have made it known they want to be as transparent with the community about the case as the law will allow.
To carry out its promise of transparency, UI sought clarification about Bustamante’s right to privacy after death. While the court ruling was beneficial for this particular case, the greater point is the university stayed true to its claim to be transparent.
This is a public university and the public should know what is happening in the affairs surrounding faculty, administration, students and alumni who are a part of the UI community.
Too many times in the past there has been murky communication and blurred lines about what is really taking place behind closed doors. The university does not often have to deal with the heightened attention and demand for transparency that has surrounded the Bustamante case, and in general the university keeps its lines of communication tight. Officials like to speak in “one voice,” which is an approach suited for corporate entities, but not one for an institution that is supposed to be dedicated to free and open lines of conversation.
In the past, transparency has been limited by only allowing specific administrators to speak on certain points laid out for them and preventing further gathering of information from multiple administrative perspectives. Press conferences and post-event comments are minimal and rarely exceed more than a few minutes in length, halting further discussion, as was the case with President M. Duane Nellis’ hastily called post-Bustamante press conference.
This kind of constraint on communication and openness does nothing but hurt UI, its reputation and the community’s faith in the institution. People want to know what is happening behind the scenes, they are constantly curious and thrive on a surplus of information, especially when it is something they are directly and continuously involved in.
Tight-lipped communication is a government trend that extends beyond the university level, but if UI and other similar institutions take steps like Monday’s hearing, the lines will come into focus.
The efforts made by UI to provide the public with information could mark the beginning of a new trend — a trend to always be as open and honest as possible.
It’s what the public wants and what universities are supposed to do.
— ER