Last Friday the Record-Bee issued an editorial opinion, “No foul committed.” The opinion was about a meeting at Kelseyville High School featuring a debate amongst candidates for sheriff and district attorney. The meeting was closed to the public.

I wrote about that meeting and thanks to Elizabeth Larson it was posted in the Lake County News. I’ve also been following the feedback posted by readers, which I appreciate. However, it is disappointing that those individuals posting negative comments do not have the courage of conviction to reveal their identity as I have.

Be that as it may, as to Lake County News Editor Elizabeth Larson, I am a fan. She gets raves from me for the thorough and unbiased job she did.

As to the closed meeting, I continue to believe the decision to exclude the public was flawed. Additionally, the editorial opinion issued in the Record-Bee stated the obvious but missed the point. While I agree with the editor’s opinion that the law enforcement union had the right to hold a closed meeting for their members and other law enforcement personnel, the question that needs addressing is, “Why was it so important to the public who showed up to be permitted access?” The answer lies in several points overlooked in the Record-Bee editorial opinion.

For good reason transparency in all aspects of government has taken hold throughout the nation. Law enforcement officials in many localities realize the value of citizen involvement and are taking steps to draw in the community by day-lighting their operations. The use of citizen advisory and oversight groups is proving to be a useful tool to help solve problems that really can’t be solved with just a police presence. With plenty of empty chairs in the public meeting room the union leadership would have been well served to thank the good people who showed up for their interest and invite in at least a few, if not all, as observers. This would have been a real class act. Instead, their actions simply perpetuated a slew of negative perceptions. And that’s a real shame.

One negative perception fueled by the decision to hold a closed meeting is the notion that law enforcement personnel don’t consider themselves as members of the public. In fact they are the public, employed as public servants, with special powers to enforce the law. They are in a very powerful position and it sends a bad message when instead of finding every opportunity to embrace transparency, openness, and partnership with the public they sometimes act in ways that can be interpreted as elitist – as though they are separate and above the public.

The closed meeting also perpetuated the notion that law enforcement in general didn’t want to hear from the public or for the public to hear them. At a time when negative aspersions against certain public officials appear strong in the community this meeting missed the opportunity to allow the general public to see how the candidates talk amongst themselves and, more importantly, to answer their co-workers. I observed how one candidate, Deputy Rivero, speaks to the public outside the debate on Monday night. It would have been helpful to observe him and the other candidates in a setting where they face their fellow officers and coworkers. Other debates will not offer this unique and important setting.

Further, the reasons given by the union leaders for not allowing the public to observe the meeting, i.e. they didn’t want their meeting somehow derailed by the public, could perpetuate another notion – that the very people we look to for protection from crime and criminals somehow fear the public. A few simple ground rules could have been issued for the public attendees and, frankly, violators could have been shown the door.

Sadly, another notion heard amongst the excluded group – that some cops are not truthful – was perpetuated. While the media reported the events at the meeting as a debate, at the front door we were told emphatically the meeting was not a debate. Among other things, a debate is a discussion of opposing reasons or views. Semantics? Maybe. But I think the media characterized the meeting as a debate because it was. Why the union leadership chose to argue the point is silly at best; a lie at worst. Either way, the notion was perpetuated.

It bears mention that the so-called “protesters” were a civilized group of individuals. In my view, there wasn’t one person there that was disruptive or couldn’t have been handled with just a modicum of diplomacy and tact if they became agitated. To my eyes, the group seemed to be a pretty good cross-section of the Lake County community. That 40 people (+/-) cared enough to show up at the meeting and stand in the cold, hoping to be allowed entry, speaks volumes about their commitment to engage as citizens in matters of great importance and their concern for the issues being discussed.

I am pro-law enforcement and I believe the vast majority of Lake County law enforcement personnel do a difficult job well. I also understand what it is to be a civil servant in law enforcement and the importance of good, responsible and accountable leadership. For these reasons, I want and expect more from the leadership. In this case, the union leadership missed an incredible opportunity to elevate the standing of its members and the broader law enforcement community.

A relevant and wonderful old Chinese saying going around right now is that the best time to plant a tree was 40 years ago; the second best time is now. Now is a good time for the union leadership to start using and promoting a different approach when dealing with the public. If they haven’t already done so, it would behoove the union leadership to take an honest look at how they handled this situation and consider what they could start doing differently, now, in the interest of a better public image and providing better public service.

Olga Martin Steele lives in Clearlake Oaks.