Free speech -- sometimes

"I have a constitutional right to speak freely ... When I received this letter, I was shocked that she (Fayette County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink) would demand $25,000, but equally as shocked to censor my right to free speech, a right that brave men had fought and died for. I believe this demand for money is wrong and the public should be informed."
-- Harry Fike, chairman of the Fayette County Housing Authority board of directors, as quoted in "Zimmerlink seeks monetary restitution," Herald-Standard.com, Aug. 5.

So Fike believes in: A. Free speech, and B. The public's right to be informed. Hmmm ...

"She has violated our trust and violated her fiduciary responsibility by improperly discussing on-going litigation on behalf of a litigant opposing the Authority, as well as discussing an on-going Federal case."
-- Text of the Fayette County Housing Authority motion, supported by Fike, to censure fellow board member Beverly Beal.

Apparently, Beal's right to free speech isn't as important as Fike's. Or maybe those brave men who died for it said, with their last breaths, "Don't let the right to free speech apply to anyone named Beal. If they try to speak freely, censure them!"

"The law makes clear that certain types of documents are protected and thus not available for public review."
-- Taken from "Board responds to Beal's commentary," Herald-Standard.com, July 29, a guest column submitted by Fike and three other housing authority board members, regarding Beal's quest to obtain information about payments to the Cohen & Grigsby law firm.

So Fike firmly believes that "the public should be informed" about a letter from Zimmerlink marked confidential, but concurrently believes that "certain types of documents ... are not available for public review" when it concerns how the housing authority spends tax money.

It is worth noting that just because the state's Right-to-Know Law contains several exemptions that permit a public agency to shield information from the public doesn't mean that the agency has to do that. It doesn't have to invoke one of the exceptions if it does not want to.

So when someone signs off on a commentary that says certain documents are "not available for public review," what they are really saying is, "We are choosing to invoke one of the exceptions, and keep that information from public view."

Beal believes that Cohen & Grigsby has been paid $500,000 by the housing authority. If that's true, we certainly hope that she is successful in finding out adequate details on how that money was spent. To that end, we hope she that in addition to refiling her information request using the Right-to-Know Law form (which she should have done in the first place) that she also seeks the information as a board member.

Beal may have to state the reason why she wants the access while wearing a board member's hat, thus meeting a condition laid down by the authority, but she may also get to see more complete information.

In the interim, we wonder why in the past few weeks the intrepid reporting staff of HeraldStandard.com hasn't asked for the same information as Beal. It would take all of five minutes to fill out the form.

Simply put, no one needs to wait for Beal to shake this tree.