You hear it all the time. "We're committed to transparency." Our current lesson in transparent-not-transparent revolves around the officer who has been placed on administrative leave because he divulged to media a situation that is, perforce, a matter of public record. Of the "police blotter" kind (it is worth noting that none of local rags with a police blotter have mentioned Parsons' DUI in that format). Sounds a lot like the bloke on leave was simply being "transparent."
But that is not what this city actually wants nor is what they're committed to. The police chief released a statement that it would be "inappropriate" for him to comment on an active investigation. For what it is worth that investigation is by an outside authority, sadly not a higher authority like the GBI. This "we have nothing to say" statement was followed up by Truth Botcher claiming the city will continue to be transparent in future incidents. Just not this one.
Posts
