PUT THE OATH ON THE TABLE

For too long, we have judged public officials primarily by what they say.

Campaign speeches.

Party affiliation.

Promises.

Press releases.

Let’s judge them by something else.

Their record.

We now have a Constitutional Accountability Record documenting how government has actually exercised power against the people.

So bring that record into the open.

Once or twice a year, hold what we might call an:

Oath Accountability Hearing.

Open the doors.

Invite the public.

Invite the supervisors.

Invite the mayor.

Invite the council.

Invite department heads.

Invite the officials whose actions appear in unresolved constitutional findings.

And put the oath on the table.

Not symbolically.

Make it the standard.

You swore to support the Constitution.

Here is the record of how governmental power was exercised under your authority.

Now explain it.

Suppose the record shows twenty constitutional complaints.

Ten were investigated and found unsupported.

Say so.

Five resulted from mistakes and were immediately corrected.

Recognize those officials for correcting them.

But suppose five resulted in findings that government had exceeded its proper authority—and the officials responsible refused to change course.

Those five deserve answers.

Call each matter.

Identify the governmental action.

Identify the right or liberty affected.

Identify the official responsible.

Present the finding.

Then give that official the floor.

Explain yourself to the people.

Maybe the official has an answer nobody previously considered.

Hear it.

Maybe new evidence changes the finding.

Consider it.

But perhaps the official simply says:

“We followed county policy.”

That answer is no longer enough.

The question is not whether you followed policy.

The question is whether your exercise of governmental power was consistent with the constitutional limitations embodied in the oath you took.

Answer that question.

And now imagine what happens to local government when officials know this hearing is coming.

The department head knows he may have to defend his decisions publicly.

The county administrator knows unresolved findings will appear in the record.

The council member knows that repeatedly ignoring those findings will become part of his own record.

And the voter finally has something more useful than campaign rhetoric.

Evidence.

When election time comes, don’t ask only:

“What did this person promise?”

Ask:

“What did this person do with power?”

When an appointment comes up for renewal, examine the record.

When budgets are considered, examine the record.

When department leadership is reviewed, examine the record.

When candidates ask for another term, examine the record.

Now accountability is connected directly to conduct.

Not political party.

Not personality.

Not slogans.

Conduct.

Did you respect the people’s freedom?

When a problem was identified, did you correct it?

When evidence was presented, did you examine it?

When government exceeded its authority, did you stop it?

And when you were confronted with your oath—

did that oath mean anything?

This is how the relationship between government and the people begins to change.

The people are no longer waiting until election season to discover how their government behaved.

They are examining it continuously.

But eventually something else will become apparent.

The record may show that the same deprivation keeps happening.

Different employee.

Different citizen.

Same result.

And every investigation leads back to the same ordinance, regulation, or policy.

At that point, stop blaming the individual employee.

The machinery itself has become the problem.

And that’s where we go next.