Here’s a transcript of a conversation my daughter and I used to have when she was in elementary school:
“Editorette, I see you got a C in math.”
“Yeah?”
“A C?”
“It’s a passing grade.”
“A C is okay, for a C student. But you are not a C student. You’re an A student. Your mother and I expect you to get an A.”
“But all my friends’ parents think a C is fine.”
“I’m not talking about all of your friends. I’m talking about you.”
“Why can’t I have normal parents!” Stomp, stomp, stomp, slam. “I hate you!”
I get that a lot.
As a teacher, if a C student makes 85%, I’m elated, and I write “Good!” in big red letters at the top of the paper. However, if an A student makes an 85%, my expectations have not been met, and I tell him or her so.
I tell his or her parents, too. There is a difference between adequate and excellent. Part of what a teacher is supposed to do is to promote excellence. To do otherwise would be to shirk part of my job.
Enough with the teaching metaphors, and on with my other hat. A major part of the Home in Henderson project is to inform the residents of Henderson about the goings-on of their government. Part of how we do that is by demanding information from government bodies and disseminating that information in its unadulterated form on the site. If I pass on partial information without calling attention to the fact that it is partial, I am not doing my job as editor. If I do not demand that the information be complete on the eve of possible council action, then I am not being a responsible editor or citizen.
This isn’t about whether or not we favor a performing arts center. Home in Henderson has taken no stance on the issue. This is about the very valid question of how can citizens make their wishes known to their council in a public hearing if they do not have complete information?
I’m sorry, Interim City Manager of Henderson Ed Wyatt. 85% isn’t good enough. You’re an A student, and I expect A work out of you. Just like the city isn’t going to settle for 85% of my water bill or 85% of my property taxes, I just can’t settle for 85% of the information before a public hearing on a grant application that could have long-term repercussions, good or ill, for the city that is my home.
It’s not that I don’t trust your judgment. It’s just that our opinion of what “routine polishing work” is may differ. It also leaves a giant loophole of a “we-didn’t-have-the-complete-information” excuse should something go awry later on. It’s just not good business. It’s kind of like bringing a knife to a nuclear war.
A rubber knife.
The public hearing should be delayed until the city has had the opportunity to dot every T and cross every I. (Yes, I know that the metaphor is reversed. It is, however, 85% correct, so I’m going to print with it anyway.)