Free Editorials

Award-winning editorials on open government and citizens' rights — free for any media outlet to republish.

About These Editorials

The Transparency Project of Georgia features editorials written by award-winning editorial writer and open government advocate Jim Zachary and fellow advocate James Zachary. These editorials are available free of charge and may be republished by any media organization or publication without written permission.

Government Does Not Know Best

Government does not always know best. In fact, it seldom does. Government cannot be of, by and for the people unless it's before the people. It should never be forgotten that government belongs to the governed, not the governing.

Whether talking about the federal government in Washington D.C., the General Assembly in Atlanta, the county commission, the school board, or city council, government does not know better than the citizens it represents. Those elected to office should never usurp the will of the public or assume they know more about what is right for their community than the public at large.

We do not elect officials to think for us. We elect them to represent us. That is what is meant by the word "republic" — a representative form of government. Given a choice between the will of elected officials and the will of ordinary citizens, we should always defer to the people. The people we elect should never be so audacious as to abridge the rights and interests of citizens. Public service is not autocratic rule.

Being elected to office should not be viewed as being placed in a position of authority and privilege. The Declaration of Independence provides: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

These words are primary to our entire form of government. All real power belongs to the governed — citizens — and not to the governing. We have protections in place, laws, to prevent a governing class from seizing power away from citizens. The problem, however, is that citizens and the media have become accustomed to looking the other way while officials have become accustomed to looking out for themselves.

The intention of a public servant should never be merely to do what is necessary to get re-elected. Their intention should always be to adequately, competently, and ethically represent the interests of the citizens they are elected to serve.

Written by Jim Zachary, originally published in the Henry Daily Herald, Nov. 29, 2013. Jim Zachary is an award-winning editorial writer, longstanding advocate for open government, featured speaker at Tennessee Press Association and Georgia Press Institute, and creator of both the Tennessee Transparency Project and the Transparency Project of Georgia.

Legislation by Loophole Is a Violation of the Public Trust

Some big corporate fat cat finds loopholes in the tax code and pays virtually no income taxes despite making millions and living a lavish lifestyle. A successful hedge fund manager finds ways to benefit from proprietary information and grow personal investments without technically being guilty of insider trading. A large commercial developer knows all the strings to pull to get permits done without the same kind of scrutiny that constrains individual builders.

None of them have really violated the law. They operate on the fringes. They benefit from loopholes. And how do we feel about these things? Largely, we do not think they should be rewarded for their ingenuity, craftiness, and deceit. Rather, most common, ordinary people feel violated — and they should.

When people look for loopholes in the law, their obvious intent is to get by with as much as they possibly can without going to jail. When elected officials legislate by loophole, it may not technically constitute a violation of the law, but it absolutely violates the public trust.

It is not exactly a secret that city and county officials use technicalities and loopholes to get around the state's Open Meetings Act. When attorneys instruct their clients on how to deliberate the public's business in private without technically violating the Sunshine Law, it is obvious there is a total disregard for the public's right to know.

What is commonly known among elected officials as the "3-on-3" is not illegal — it's just wrong. The Open Meetings Act basically requires that any time a quorum of any elected body meets, it constitutes a legal meeting that must be open to the public following adequate public notice. Civic lawyers have interpreted this to mean that any number less than a quorum — three members of a body that requires four to make a quorum — can meet and deliberate all they want without triggering the requirement.

What transpires actually becomes a bit of a game, or at least a tactic, that elected officials use to circumvent the public notice and public meeting requirements. It amounts to vote-getting — officials arriving at a foregone conclusion before the public meeting even begins, then staging the public vote as theater.

While officials think they are being clever, they are actually being dishonest and disingenuous. Citizens have every right to know everything their elected government is doing and why they are doing it. It is not enough to merely vote on every piece of legislation in public. Deliberations should also take place before the public, whether at a public work session or in the regular meeting itself.

When a city council, county commission, or board of education comes to a meeting, someone makes a motion, another makes a second, and they vote on some significant piece of business with no discussion, no description, no debate — it is obvious they are practicing loophole legislation. Why even look for loopholes in the law if everything you are doing is on the up and up?

Frequently Asked Questions About Free Editorials

Can I republish these editorials in my newspaper or publication?

Yes. The editorials published on this page are made available free of charge for republication. No written permission is required. We encourage all media organizations, school papers, community newsletters, and advocacy publications to reprint these editorials and share them widely.

If you do republish, we appreciate attribution to the original author and a note that the editorial first appeared at transparencyprojectofgeorgia.com. If you would like to submit your own editorial for consideration, send it to [email protected].

Who wrote these editorials?

The primary author is Jim Zachary, an award-winning editorial writer, longtime advocate for open government, and featured speaker at the Tennessee Press Association and Georgia Press Institute. Jim is the creator of both the Tennessee Transparency Project and the Transparency Project of Georgia.

Additional editorials have been contributed by James Zachary and other fellow advocates. Together, they represent decades of experience observing, reporting on, and advocating for transparent government practices in Georgia and beyond.

What does "government does not know best" mean in the context of open government?

The editorial argues that elected officials derive their authority from the consent of the governed, not the other way around. When officials act as though their judgment supersedes the public's right to know, they invert the proper relationship between a representative democracy and its citizens.

The phrase echoes the Declaration of Independence's principle that governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of citizens — not to manage or restrict those rights in pursuit of administrative convenience.

What is "legislation by loophole" and why is it wrong?

Legislation by loophole refers to the practice of government officials using technical workarounds to conduct public business outside public view without technically violating the letter of the Open Meetings Act. The most common example is the "3-on-3" tactic, where fewer than a quorum of members meet privately to pre-deliberate before a public vote.

While these strategies may survive legal challenge, they fundamentally betray the public trust. The Open Meetings Act requires not just that votes be taken in public, but that the deliberative process — the discussion, debate, and decision-making — occur before the constituents who are affected by those decisions.

How does a citizens' republic differ from an autocracy in practice?

In a republic, elected officials represent the will of the people. They are entrusted with power — not granted it as a personal privilege. When those officials use closed meetings, denied records requests, or legal loopholes to shield their actions from the public, they are acting more like autocrats than representatives.

The antidote is a well-informed citizenry that exercises its legal rights. Georgia's sunshine laws exist precisely because the founders understood that accountability requires transparency. Citizens who attend meetings, request records, and report violations are exercising the most fundamental civic responsibility.

How can I submit an editorial for publication on this site?

We welcome submissions from citizens, journalists, attorneys, and public officials who have experiences with or informed perspectives on government transparency issues in Georgia. Send original editorials in MS Word, Pages, or PDF format to [email protected].

We also accept published works that can be reprinted with permission. All submissions should be relevant to open meetings, open records, or related transparency topics in Georgia or at the national level.