Mr Richards on technology, information, and people

Coming in via Instapundit is a link about increased traffic policing in Knoxville, that supposedly geared towards increasing revenues for cities and states. The linked article describes the police spokesperson's response when asked to address the accusation: "We do not respond to blog postings."

The dialogue goes on, to include the spokesperson mention "As far as responding to blogs, we never have responded as a department. City Council members know how and who to contact at the KPD to get answers to their questions. And believe me, they have never been shy about requesting information or clarification on our policies, practices and crime incidents."

Would it behoove this person instead to point the question to a City Council member, the appropriate point of contact, who can then go ahead request information and clarification on this alleged practice? Is the City Council member the proper channel for the citizenry to communicate questions and concerns to the police?

Its my opinion that as agents in the public service, the police ought to make themselves available for responding to the citizenry, not just their elected political representatives. In this manner, the common citizen can voice concerns directly, online, just as they would if they were to walk into a police station downtown. Those protecting the polis can communicate with their inhabitants.

Share the point of contact at the KPD's email on your website. Sure this person will require a good spam filter and relegate a portion of their day cleaning the good messages from the loony ones, but hey, that's a good description of anyone in the corporate world's job first thing in the morning.

Labels: gov 2.0