Category Archives: Politics

Participatory Culture, Politics

Transparency is a bullshit buzzword? only when employed without action.

We have all heard public officials (elected or appointed) state that they are for transparency.

We have heard candidates for various offices, at all levels of government, claim they want to make government more transparent.

Yet. When these officials and candidates assume their positions, we rarely see any meaningful changes in the policies, procedures, and actions that would constitute increased transparency.

All talk and no action equals bullshit.

Another dimension to this idea are the pro-transparency candidates who lose their respective elections, but then sit on the sidelines, usually in silence, and do nothing that promotes greater transparency of the offices they were running for.

Again. All talk and no action equals bullshit.

In the #opengov community, there is consistent dialogue around the idea of proactive transparency. That is, a public entity running ahead of the Open Door Law (ODL), Access to Public Records Act (APRA), and other similar statutes in Indiana Code that govern the transparency of public entities (which is another area of confusion, which we can explore in a future essay).

Many others, and myself, hear from officials, “But we are following Indiana Code.” or “Indiana Code does not state we need to allow for public comment.” or “Indiana Code doesn’t mandate that meetings are recorded.” or another such excuse.

While although technically correct, this doesn’t mean that offices or officials cannot go beyond the lowest common denominator for transparency and accountability.

An idea I have been advocating for is good governance; ensuring the Public understands the why and the how behind the decisions made in their name.

Some small, yet, impactful changes that can be made to increase transparency if they are not already in practice today:

  1. Record all public meetings. Work sessions. Regular sessions. Other sessions. Make these recordings available on the Internet and easy to find.
  2. Post the various board/committee/council packets online and ahead of the meeting.
  3. Post drafts of minutes as soon as they are available.
  4. Update and modify operational processes and policies to make commonly requests information instantly available for inspection online.
  5. Create and post an APRA log on the Internet. Include pertinent information like the name of the requester, company, date, status, and resolution of the request.
  6. Documents released through APRA should also be posted in an online reading room, allowing other members of Public to inspect the same records.
Participatory Culture, Politics

Excuse me. Can you tell me who lied about the rain?

Journalism 101: “If someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the fucking window and find out which is true.” – Journalism Tutor via Sally Claire

I first came across this meme on Twitter in later 2018. I found it interesting, retweeted, and moved on.

Then it came up again.

And again.

And again.

If you search Twitter for “journalism OR journalist AND raining“, you will find it, along with variations, used on a regular basis.

Being someone who enjoys source material, I wanted to see if I could track down more information about this quote.

And no. It wasn’t your journalism teacher, professor, or tutor.

The earliest source of this quote I could find (thanks to Google Books) is from the book Fighting Words: Independent Journalists in Texas which states it is from the 1940s journalist, Hubert Mewhinney, writing in the Texas Spectator:

Writing in the Texas Spectator in the late 1940s, Hubert Mewhinney criticized the timidity–and inadequacy–of the objective approach to writing the news. “If Jimmy Allred says it’s raining, and W. Lee O’Daniel says it isn’t raining, Texas newspapermen quote them both, and don’t look out the window to see which is lying, and to tell the readers what the truth is at the moment.”

I appreciate the nuance of this quote because it forces the journalist to learn who is lying and report what the truth is regarding rain, truth telling, and lying. No bullshit allowed.

Ask me about public records some time.

But I slightly digress.

I did try to see if I could find copies of the Texas Spectator online, however, I could not. If you happen across the original article, please share the information.

I have this book on my To Read list as it seems incredibly fascinating. Check out this wordcloud (view the image to see more detail):

You can borrow it from your Library (this WorldCat search may help) or purchase it from Amazon.

Participatory Culture, Politics

Lead Sampling (Testing) Program for (Indiana) Public Schools

(This is a work in progress. Please excuse the brevity, typos.)

Here is the folder that contains all of the letters I have received from the Indiana Finance Authority.

These letters include the actual parts per billion (ppb) levels found at each site within a school. The IFA is releasing 50 of these letters per week, with a total of 1000+ letters.

The original report from the IFA only mentions if a particular school’s test results show one or more locations above the 15 ppb, not the actual lead levels for each school.

IFA’s Lead Sampling Program For Public Schools (official site)

The Indiana Finance Authority (“IFA”), with assistance from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”), has developed the Lead Sampling Program for Public Schools to help schools assess if there is a presence of lead in drinking water within their facilities.

In the FAQ, you find this entry:

What is considered an elevated lead level in a school’s drinking water?

In Indiana, an elevated lead level is a reading that meets or exceeds the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “action level” of 15 parts per billion (ppb). The action level of 15 ppb is not a measure of health effects. It serves as a signal to the school to take steps to reduce the lead concentration in the water.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (a group within the CDC):

The EPA Lead and Copper Rule has set drinking water standards with two levels of protection [EPA 1991; EPA 2000b].

Action levels for lead of 15 ppb and copper of 1.3 ppm in more than 10% of customer taps sampled. An action level is the level for enforcement.

The maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is zero. This is the level determined to be safe according to toxicological and biomedical considerations, independent of feasibility.

“If a water system, after installing and optimizing corrosion control treatment, continues to fail to meet the lead action level, it must begin replacing the lead service lines under its ownership” [EPA 2007].

Exceeding the action level alone is not a violation of the regulation. Public water systems are assigned a violation when they fail to perform actions required by the regulations. This happens after the action level is exceeded [EPA 2000b; EPA 2016b].

The use of lead solder and other lead-containing materials in connecting household plumbing to public water supplies was banned by EPA in June of 1988.

Many older structures, however, still have lead pipe or lead-soldered plumbing internally, which may substantially increase the lead content of water at the tap.

Regulations controlling the lead content of drinking water coolers in schools went into effect in 1989.

For comparison, during the Flint Water Crisis, some areas were testing 100+ ppb for lead. From the records released so far, the highest has been 200+ in Columbus, Indiana for Parkside Elementary:

As of July 30th, Lafayette School Corporation and West Lafayette School Corporation have not tested their water. Tippecanoe School Corporation has participated in the program and several schools have tested above the 15 ppb:

If you follow-up in your own community, please share your story.