Schrenko case provides cause not only for “trusting” but “verifying”
Published 11:03 pm Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Georgia’s former superintendent of education, Linda Schrenko, has reported to federal prison to serve an eight-year sentence for embezzling $600,000 of federal education funds for her personal use, which included a face lift.
This commentary is not about which party she represented. Both parties have had their share of scoundrels. The fact is, she didn’t represent any of us at that post. Rather, she betrayed a public trust. She was selfish and criminal.
And here’s where we must think about that thing called “public trust.” Indeed we try to elect people who we trust will make good decisions and will display good conscience in the performance of their public duties. But the term “public trust” must not be left in a phrase all alone. We must also “verify.” And therein lies the crux of many issues when it comes to government.
Some elected officials may say, “You’ll just have to trust me on that.” Well, no we don’t. We have provisions in our state called “Sunshine Laws.” We also have freedom of speech and press. We have a provision to express our grievances if we find a fox in the hen house.
And at the federal level, we have Freedom of Information provisions to allow us to shake rugs to see what falls out.
Unfortunately, there are many in both state and federal capacities who would like to keep some things hidden from us “taxpayers” who have chosen them through our concept of a democratic republic. Once elected, some develop an “all knowing” kind of attitude. There have even been attempts by some naive lawmakers to pass laws that would forbid criticism of them. What a contradiction of democracy!
The Schrenko case is just an example of why “public trust” must be in tandem with a strong desire and the tools to “verify.” There are many examples, perhaps too many to isolate one and pick a “poster child” for the promotion of “open government.”
And Schrenko is not the only person involved in this embezzlement going to prison. But the fact that she held high office — and of all things an office whose ultimate duties are for the betterment of our children — she must be singled out to defend the concepts of open and honest government.