An anology only works it it has some relevance. Yours has none.
I'm not, and never have, argued direct supervisory responsibility.
I'm arguing access to information, knowledge of the process, no secrets.
IBM shareholders have no right to demand to sit in on IBM board meetings. I have every right to demand to sit inon the meetings of my local commissioners, school board, etc.
IBM directors are free to discuss anything they want to in secret and not tell me what they are doing or why.
We have three county commissioners. It is illegal for any two of them to meet outside of public view to discuss policies, plans, potential legislation, etc. They have to tell me when they are going to meet and what they are going to discuss. They must publish any resolution they plan to pass so I can look at it first and tell them whether I like it or not.
Absolutely, totally different structures. Your analogy is meaningless and deceptive. Unless you can tell me why it was in any way useful, and why you even brought it up in the first place?
No one with an ounce of self- respect would find it tolerable to be under constant scrutiny, even about his job.
Au contraire. That's exactly what public servants should be. If they don't like it, then that particular kitchen is not for them. Except for very, very limited exceptions as I have already noted, every document that is delivered to my County Commissioners office is open for me to look at. Every memo they write is open for me to look at. The process is and should be transparent.
My original point was that corruption cannot take place when everything is out in the open. Corruption requires secrecy. You have not yet disagreed with that statement. Do you care to? |
