"FACE TO FACE!" Transparency in the Shadows: The Perilous Stance of Preferring Whispered Words Over Written Records" *Press play to listen what he said*

James Sullivan, a board trustee of SWISD, has taken an unexpected stand that has caused confusion and controversy. Mr. Sullivan's support for in-person interactions for all organizational communications, specifically to prevent creating a "paper trail" goes directly against accountability, transparency, and trust. This frame of mind is at odds with the principles that support a strong, functional community or organization, in addition to being regressive and fear-based.

The Danger of Ignoring Records

The fundamental conclusion of Sullivan's argument is unsettling. He expresses apprehension regarding the openness provided by recorded communications. Emails, messages, and other written communications are not only useful instruments for effective communication in the modern digital age, but they are also crucial records that guarantee accountability, transparency, and the capacity to think back and draw lessons from previous choices.

The recommendation to shun these records and embrace fleeting, in-person contacts that leave no trace poses a number of dangers. An organization's capacity to assess its performance, decide wisely, and hold members accountable is hampered. In addition, it creates a climate that is easily misconstrued and leads to decisions being misinterpreted, forgotten, or even denied.

Openness as a Foundation for Trust

Transparency is a fundamental concept that cultivates integrity and trust in any community or organization, not just a trendy term. Members feel reassured that choices and actions are made transparently, available for examination and debate. The community's trust in its leaders and procedures, as well as growth, depend on open discourse.

Supporting a return to "verbal-only" conversations unintentionally conveys Sullivan's wish to operate in secrecy and escape the accountability that written records afford. This position threatens not just the organization's operational integrity but also the openness and trust that define communities.

The Repercussions of Dismissing a "Paper Trail"

Rejecting recorded messages has more ramifications than just the short-term administrative headaches. It creates a risky precedent by implying that choices and procedures should be hidden from public access. A decision like that might encourage a culture within the community or organization where transparency is seen as superfluous, or even worse, a liability, and accountability is avoided.

An Appeal for Confirmation

We as a community must reaffirm our commitment to accountability, openness, and the documented flow of ideas in light of these issues. The ideas that aim to subvert these ideals must be rejected in order to move forward.

Lastly, The Requirement for Light

James Sullivan's position is more than just a preference for in-person interactions.  It is a warning sign of a misguided understanding of what it means to be a leader and member of an open, responsible community. Let us not let the misplaced fear of leaving a paper trail entice us into hiding while we manage the complexities of our communal and organizational lives. Let us march boldly into the light, where our deeds and words are seen, heard, and remembered as evidence of our unwavering dedication to honesty and transparency rather than as liabilities.