May 11,1998 From Opinion Page Editor: Bill Skidmore in the Helena Independent Record Missoulian Editorial. Other examples of arrogance are: arrogance2 ; arrogance3 ; arrogance4; arrogance5&6; arrogance7
The agency has decided to strip from public comments on the proposed reintroduction of grizzly bears to the Selway-Bitterroot the identity of the people who submitted the comments. The purported reason is to protect the privacy of people who submitted the comments.
CAG Comment
You don't suppose the comments were tampered with in any way or the method of reporting tends to "torture the truth?"
Idaho is overwhelmingly against the reintroduction of grizzly bears and Montana during the last session passed a resolution by approximately 70% in favor of not reintroducing grizzly bears into the Selway Bitterroot Ecosystem.
End CAG Comment
The agency says most of the people who commented on the environmental impact statement covering the proposed bear project live in small towns and that they could face harassment from their neighbors if their views happen to be unpopular The government lawyer who advised the agency to remove the names of citizens from their comments obviously has never lived in a small town. To say small-town residents are more likely than big-city folks to harass their neighbors, and thus must have their identities shielded, is ridiculous.
Identification is important for several reasons. The solicitation and acceptance of comments on something like the bear reintroduction proposal is part of a public process-emphasis on public. The whole idea is to conduct this discussion in full public view, so everyone can see what goes into the decision-making and what comes out.
There is no expectation of anonymity when someone takes part in a public discussion. The fact is, hundreds of people crammed into crowded auditoriums last year for a chance to stand up before their neighbors, news media and government officials to speak their piece. Much of the public comment the agency is sanitizing comes from people who didn't get a crack at the microphone, or from those wishing to expand on what they said in full public view.
Identification is a component of credibility. Who says something can be very important. Snipping identities from the comments elevates the views of the worst crackpots to the same credibility of trusted and respected citizens.
Conflicts of interest and special interests are impossible to discern without identification. People from distant cities who will never see a grizzly bear become indistinguishable from someone whose property adjoins bear habitat if you take away the names and addresses. Kids commenting on the proposal as a classroom assignment become blurred with those commenting out of heartfelt passion. Identification promotes responsibility. We can tell you, for example, that the letters to the editor we get with names and addresses on them are far more honest and responsible than the anonymous mail we receive. Check out the anonymous postings on the Internet if you want to see the kind of discourse anonymity promotes. Ever get an anonymous phone call?
When you testify in court, speak to the City Council, address the Legislature or participate in any number of other kinds of public forums, you're expected to identify yourself. Public discourse and participation is, by definition, public. Who says something is as much a part of the public record as what they say.
Finally, how on earth do you know that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hasn't employed a room full of technical writers to churn out "public comments" to suit its own agenda? How do you know they haven't changed some of the comments to suit their own purposes? Is this a legitimate public process, or is it all a clever manipulation?
The fact is, so long as the public's input is presented as anonymous comments, you have no way of knowing whether it's genuine or contrived. The government can't suppress part of the public record and expect people to trust the rest of it.