Opinion articles provide independent perspectives on key community issues, separate from our newsroom reporting.

Editorials

Lying isn’t illegal, KC officials say? That’s kindergarten logic, and no way to lead | Opinion

Maybe we need to rework every city ordinance to start out, “We really, really mean it.”
Maybe we need to rework every city ordinance to start out, “We really, really mean it.” Bigstock

Even when it comes to the nitty-gritty of City Hall politics, there’s a reason newcomers to this part of the country always seem to notice “Kansas City nice.” But part of “nice” means being virtuous and respectable — and that means telling the truth. So shouldn’t that mean our public officials shouldn’t intentionally mislead the public, even when they aren’t technically breaking the law?

That’s the absurd needle city lawyers tried to thread in a Jackson County Circuit Court filing last week. As The Star’s Kevin Hardy reported, the motion argues that lying just plain isn’t against any existing rules or ordinances.

The city is seeking the dismissal of a suit from longtime former Communications Director Chris Hernandez, who alleged last year that he was demoted for refusing City Manager Brian Platt’s directive to lie to The Star and other press outlets about city projects and services. “This whistle-blower lawsuit clearly states our concerns about the honesty and transparency that Kansas City taxpayers and residents deserve from City Hall,” Hernandez said in a statement last December, after claiming Platt’s “legitimate media strategy” involved inflating figures to show more lanes of streets would be resurfaced than could really be accomplished with available funding.

“Despite the respected place that the press has as the fourth estate of American politics, there is no law concerning false disclosures to the press,” reads the the city’s motion to dismiss the suit from Hernandez, a former TV news reporter. “Nor is there a rule or regulation set forth by any governmental entity, including the city, that governs false disclosures to the press.”

So this is our standard now? Our laws, rules and regulations are meaningless unless we write kindergarten logic into them?

Let’s rework Kansas City Ordinance 220916, Section 70-137, then:

“We hereby really, really mean it: No person shall operate any motor vehicle or trailer upon any street or highway of this city unless such motor vehicle or trailer has properly displayed a valid license plate or temporary permit issued to the lawful owner of the vehicle by the department of revenue of the state. No do-overs or take-backs.”

That would be beyond silly, to be sure, but it gets to a fundamental truth: Our systems of government were designed from the Constitution down with a basic understanding that public servants — elected and appointed — should act on behalf of the people they are supposed to answer to, and do so openly and honestly in good faith. The reason for the multiple layers of checks and balances throughout those systems is the pragmatic recognition that individuals or groups sometimes act in self-interest, or intentionally deceive others. And that’s why we have to listen for potential canaries in the goal mine such as Hernandez’s suit.

Because good government relies on the disinfectant of sunlight. As we said when Hernandez alleged Platt retaliated against him: If you want to lead your professional life away from public scrutiny and accountability, working with public policy is not for you. We can expect politicians to spin the facts and to put their best foot forward, but there’s a stark line between emphasizing your best case and plainly misrepresenting the truth.

Arguments about slippery slopes can be problematic: One minor misstep doesn’t always lead to a calamity, and fibbing about paving the streets doesn’t mean wholesale budgetary fraud. But the people of Kansas City deserve to know that the people making decisions about how to spend tax dollars are doing so from a baseline that shouldn’t be controversial: It’s wrong to lie to the public, even if there isn’t a rule on the books saying you shouldn’t. If we can’t agree to that, what do any of our laws mean?

This story was originally published January 24, 2023 at 1:01 PM.

Get unlimited digital access
#ReadLocal

Try 1 month for $1

CLAIM OFFER