Becky Holland: When Trust Starts to Erode, Transparency Matters More

By Becky Holland

In a previous column, I wrote about what “off the record” means and why journalists sometimes rely on it. But there is another side to that discussion: while sources may sometimes need confidentiality, government itself cannot operate indefinitely in whispers.

Neither can accountability.

Those entrusted with public positions hold something that does not belong solely to them. They hold the public’s trust.

With that trust comes an obligation to explain decisions, answer reasonable questions and accept scrutiny — even when those questions are uncomfortable.

Transparency is not the same thing as agreeing with every criticism. Accountability does not mean admitting wrongdoing when none occurred. And asking questions is not the same thing as accusing someone of misconduct.

Sometimes the answer to a question may be perfectly reasonable.

But the public still deserves the answer.

There is another piece of this conversation that matters just as much: truth.

Trust is rarely destroyed by one dramatic moment. More often, it erodes a little at a time. A statement turns out not to be accurate.

An explanation changes. An excuse gets repeated so often that people stop knowing what to believe. Even seemingly small untruths can create dissension when they begin piling up.

That is why accuracy matters so much in public life.

People do not expect leaders to be perfect. They do expect them to be truthful.

And when information is wrong, incomplete or later corrected, the best response is not to pretend it never happened. It is to acknowledge it, correct it and move forward.

Because once people begin wondering whether they can trust what they are being told, every future explanation becomes harder to believe — even the truthful ones.

Transparency builds trust. Consistency builds trust. Admitting a mistake builds trust.

But repeated explanations that do not line up with the facts will eventually do the opposite.

Over the past several weeks, I have also been reminded how quickly legitimate concerns can become personal.

People become frustrated. Sides form. Conversations become emotional.

Before long, facts can become secondary to finding another piece of information that proves what someone already believes.

That is dangerous territory.

Our responsibility — whether we are elected officials, government employees, citizens or journalists — is not to decide the conclusion first and then search for evidence to support it.

It is to follow the facts wherever they lead.

Sometimes those facts reveal serious problems.

Sometimes they provide an innocent explanation.

And sometimes they leave us with unanswered questions.

There is integrity in saying, “We don’t know yet.”

There is also integrity in saying, “We need more information before making a permanent decision.”

Leadership requires more than occupying a position or casting a vote. It requires being willing to explain why decisions were made, what information was considered and how the public interest was served.

And accountability cannot rest entirely on people speaking quietly behind closed doors, through private messages or under promises that their names will never appear.

Eventually, somebody has to be willing to stand behind the facts.

Government belongs to the people it serves. Its decisions should withstand daylight.

That does not mean every rumor deserves an investigation or every accusation deserves to be believed. Quite the opposite. Transparency protects public officials, too. Facts can clear up misinformation just as readily as they can expose problems.

Perhaps that is what we need more of right now: fewer predetermined conclusions and more questions asked in good faith.