SCRUTINY is uncomfortable.
Anyone who has been put under the microscope, whether through a job interview or an audition of some kind, would likely feel some sense of relief at the end of the experience.
That does not make it unneccesary. In both instances above, it is a procedure designed to test and examine fitness for a particular role or opportunity.
Such measures are paramount in the administration of public money.
The ramifications of such funds being handled irresponsibly are drastic enough that integrity must be upheld at every turn.
That is why governments talk about transparency.
Disclosing every dollar spent theoretically means those who contribute to the broader funds through rates and fees can assess the decision-making, and that can inform them to vote or make their displeasure known through proper channels.
The opposite, then, leaves those same ratepayers in the dark.
City of Newcastle ratepayers bankrolled an independent agency to explore general manager Jeremy Bath's behaviour surrounding letters under the name of his close friend Scott Neylon.
Mr Bath trumpeted the report's findings as vindication he had nothing to do with the letters.
Critics argued it was a narrow investigation that failed to canvas all the options.
Regardless of your own view, a pertinent question remains: how much did it cost?
This newspaper asked the council, then tried to find out under legislation designed to safeguard your right to know how public money is used.
City of Newcastle declined.
It reasoned the Newcastle Herald had reported on the matter previously "resulting in reputational damage".
"I note that the fact that disclosure of information might cause embarrassment to, or a loss of confidence in, the government ... is irrelevant and must not be taken into account," one of the council responses notes.
"Nevertheless, the conduct and motives of the applicant can be taken into account [in certain circumstances]."
The motives of a journalist seeking information are clear: to report to the public, and let them make up their own minds.
The council is entitled to make its decision, just as this newspaper is to appeal it to a higher authority.
The issue here, though, is larger; it indicates public accountability sits second to reputational concerns.
Councils exist through the largesse of the public, and therefore owe voters a greater degree of explanation on fiscal decisions.
Their bureaucracies are apolitical, so how could they face political attack?
City of Newcastle has repeatedly trumpeted its own proactive transparency, but under scrutiny those claims appear to have several notable exceptions.
The report in question emerged into the public sphere long after its findings were hailed.
The cost of the council move to rented premises in Newcastle West, for instance, emerged into public light only through Donna Page's investigative reporting.
It is not only this newspaper, either.
Supercars critics, too, had to work hard to reveal the details of agreements between the council and the race company.
To knock back a request for how many ratepayer dollars were spent on an investigation that has come under fire in a system the responsible minister has labelled a "shambles" seems to follow that trend.
To do it on the basis that past reporting has been uncomfortable for those involved ignores that local government is designed to draw scrutiny, however uncomfortable, and that refusing it can be as telling as disclosure.
