I can agree wholeheartedly that there should be no fear in having the business of these entities detailed and discussed in the press, blogs and other new media. I'm not asking anyone to keep it quiet - quite the opposite. And yes, it can be scary and wrong when major decisions are made in backroom conversations that side-step public input.

What I'm trying to avoid is the phenomenon where "Bob tells Alice to tell Sven that Bob is upset with Sven." This gives Alice too much power, and harms productive dialog between Bob and Sven. There are better ways for humans to communicate, especially when it comes to difficult or tense issues.

I hope I'm identifying a useful distinction here, but I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm not. Thanks, anyway, for the continued engagement.

For years, various government councils have decried the public discussion, through newspapers, blogs or radio, of public policy, which is exactly what's going on now in the Pal-Item and I hope elsewhere.
One primary reason this "problem" came to a head yesterday was the lack of a robust public discourse, in my opinion.

Playing into the hands of those elected officials, many of whom are believed to have played a role in the sacking of one former Pal-Item managing editor due to his crusading journalism that exposed EDC corruption, is hardly a position for a fan of the 1st Amendment to be staking.

Noticeably absent from the Pal-Item article was the vote's roll call, hardly an omission you'd expect from a veteran writer, but one that might well reflect the pressure of local boosters to limit the amount of facts relevant to the story.

My main point - regardless of the differing viewpoints about the EDC - is that the conversation should be conducted directly and respectfully amongst interested parties, not through Bill Engle at the Pal-Item.

Back in the 90s, local boosters sold the idea that our county needed a (regressive) tax to pay for what had essentially been a chamber of commerce function. The principle argument before the county council, the body that authorized the new tax, was that the state's commerce department would not put much effort into a county that didn't invest in their own economic development by enacting the EDIT. At the time, East Central Indiana was famously snubbed by Indianapolis-based economic interests, as was the rest of the state, though to a somewhat lesser degree. Wayne County's own EDIT and a private club to spend the dough was established with these goals publicly stated in the sales pitch.

Objections were also voiced, not the least of which had to do with the unaccountable makeup of the EDC proposed board. Also included with these concerns was the narrow representation of those whose taxes would support the EDC.

There was to be no representation by the education community, surely a key factor in attracting sustainable business.

Organized labor, whose membership would essentially be supporting a de-facto chamber of commerce, an avowed enemy to public education an unions.

All of these concerns were explained away with the lamest of excuses and none of the county officials bothered to require any more accountability for these concerns than they did for the spending of the tax dollars.

Today, none of the claims that justified the EDIT or explained away legitimate worries over the lack of accountability of the EDC have been fulfilled. What was accomplished was the public funding of what had been a chamber of commerce function, and that is essentially the the issue that must finally be addressed by the whole community, not just Richmond and the county Republicans who imposed this flawed system.