Opinion: Transparency Must Be Consistent — Even When It’s Uncomfortable

Opinion Disclaimer:
The following editorial reflects the personal opinions and perspectives of Sarah Boggs, publisher of The Jones Journal. It is not presented as official fact-finding, legal determination, or a statement on behalf of any public body or individual. Readers are encouraged to review official records and documents for complete context.

Five years ago, I sent an email to the Jones Board of Trustees regarding an open records request that I made. At the time, there were concerns circulating about financial irregularities within the Town. I believed it was important to ask questions and seek clarity.

I had no idea then what kind of personal backlash would follow. The process of pursuing answers was difficult and, at times, deeply personal. Ultimately, the State Auditor’s Office confirmed that the wrongdoing I suspected had occurred, but the road to that conclusion was painful.

Since that time, conversations about transparency and accountability in Jones have often become personal. I have experienced that firsthand. When I have raised policy concerns or asked for public records, the response has not always focused on the substance of the questions, but sometimes on the motives or character of the person asking them. That dynamic is exhausting, and it discourages civic participation.

In light of the special meeting agenda posted last week, I cannot help but notice similar patterns emerging again — this time involving someone else.

Missy Wilkinson served on the Board of Trustees from 2021–2024 before becoming the Town’s full-time administrator. Her tenure and subsequent departure from that role have been the subject of public discussion and speculation. More recently, she has submitted a series of open records requests to the Town.

Here is where I want to be clear: the right to request public records does not depend on who is making the request. It is not a favor granted to allies, nor is it a privilege revoked from critics. It is a statutory right.

When the Town previously denied my request for certain resumes made in December 2025, I was told they were exempt and the documents were not provided to me. In contrast, Missy’s request for resumes was placed directly onto a public agenda for open discussion. That approach struck me as unusual. Open records requests are typically handled administratively, not debated in a public meeting. Turning a records request into an agenda item risks creating the appearance that the requester — rather than the record — is the subject of discussion.

Likewise, the announcement of an investigation into police department practices raises important questions. If there is credible concern about misconduct, the appropriate course of action is to follow established procedures: place employees on administrative leave when warranted, conduct a thorough and independent investigation, and communicate findings clearly once the investigation is complete.

What does not serve the public is ambiguity. When investigations are announced but never formally concluded with a public report, the result is speculation. And speculation erodes trust — not just in individuals, but in the institution itself.

Over the past several years, multiple high-profile personnel matters have unfolded in our town. In each instance, the public has been left with partial information and lingering questions. Regardless of who is involved — whether it is a former employee, a current administrator, a police chief, or anyone else — the standard should be consistent:

If termination is warranted, state the reason plainly within the bounds of the law.
If an investigation is launched, conclude it and report the findings.
If records are requested, process them according to statute — without theatrics.

This is not about defending or condemning any one individual. It is about process. It is about fairness. And it is about equal treatment under the same rules.

It is easy, in moments like this, to feel a sense of irony or even vindication when roles reverse. But personal vindication is not the goal of local government. Transparency, accountability, and stewardship of public resources are.

Our trustees are entrusted with managing taxpayer dollars and safeguarding the public interest. That responsibility requires consistency, professionalism, and restraint — especially when tensions are high.

If mistakes have been made in the past, repeating them does not correct them.

Jones deserves better than cycles of retaliation and suspicion. We deserve clear processes, completed investigations, and public confidence in how decisions are made.

That standard should apply to everyone — without exception.

Author’s Note:
This piece represents my personal views based on publicly available information and my lived experience in local civic matters. Allegations referenced are matters of public record or prior reporting, and all individuals mentioned are presumed innocent of wrongdoing unless and until determined otherwise through appropriate legal or administrative processes. My intent is to advocate for transparency, consistency, and due process in local government — not to defame or harm any individual.

— Sarah Boggs