So, a few days ago, I wrote about the rub between my idea of transparency before being in elected office versus implementing transparency as an elected official. And in today's Plain Dealer, we have a great case study of how the different sides of the issue play out - the elected officials, the residents, the watchdog, the vendors, the contractors.
Is anybody actually wrong? Who? Why? Can they all be right - that is, are these really just competing interests and always, someone is going to lose out? Who gets to decide the ultimate best interest and then what action (or inaction) is in that best interest?
I really don't think it's as easy as we would like to make it out to be, but on the other hand, what is the goal of the pursuit of transparency in this situation, and doesn't that change the answer too?