Last week I wrote a column regarding the use of tax dollars, and I think - even at the risk of beating a dead horse in the minds of some readers - I need to elaborate.

(Frankly, I think the horse is far from dead. It's galloping along at a full clip.)

You see, I've been in the newspaper business since 1980. I've worked at big newspapers and small newspapers that have covered good news and bad news.

I've seen plenty of bizarre, tragic, silly, heroic, even unbelievable stories over the years.

But the one thing I have always tried to do is not lose sight of the role of newspapers - large or small - in our society, in our culture.

There's a reason they call a free press the Fourth Estate.

In my view, the single most important thing a newspaper does is keep track of the actions of public officials. I take that very seriously.

I take it seriously because every dollar those public officials spend is yours. Everybody knows that. It's almost a cliche, isn't it? But cliche or not, it's true. Taxpayers pay the bills. Taxpayers write the paychecks.

And once in a while, I think, public officials need to be reminded of that.

Lately - and this is not something unique to this area - it seems some public officials believe they need to do their business in increasing levels of secrecy. To be sure, there are certain details that the state legislature has decided can be kept from the public - and rightly so. Those things are specifically delineated - purchase of real property, pending litigation and personnel matters. Beyond that, the business of public officials is an open book.

And that's the way it should be. Why? Because that's the way our founding fathers wanted it to be. That's why the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. They knew, as should every right-thinking individual, that if public officials were allowed to conduct their business in secret, there would be a much greater chance of abuse.

Does this mean town council members would vote themselves vacations to San Tropez if there wasn't a newspaper reporter in the room? Of course not. But I can guarantee you - beyond any shadow of a doubt - that the government you have today is far more efficient, far more effective and far less costly than it would have been if this country didn't have a free press. (I am not arguing that government is exceedingly effective, efficient and inexpensive - only that it would be worse without a free press.)

So once in a while, I tend to rap the knuckles of public officials.

I do this mainly when I see things that trouble me.

Here are a couple things that trouble me.

Around the state, I've read many news stories lately about elderly people who have had to sell their homes - homes they've lived in for decades - because they can't afford to pay the property taxes. I've seen this happen at the exact same time as state and local officials and schools are saying they're strapped for cash. That's troubling.

Locally, I've seen the establishment of a taxpayers' group, the Concerned Citizens for Quality Education. They felt it necessary to organize, hold fund-raisers, hire attorneys and file lawsuits because they believe the school board is unresponsive to their concerns. That's troubling.

Things like this are not new. They've happened in Indianapolis, Chesterton, Carmel and other cities and towns around the state. But wouldn't it be nice if they didn't have to happen here?

Months ago, I used this very space in the newspaper to implore school officials to avoid a confrontation with patrons, to hold off on building plans, but to no avail.

Sure, I think CCQE comes on a little strong. I think they tend to overstate positions and nitpick from time to time. But at the same time, I see why they came into existence.

Our school board closed elementary schools in small towns. That action will essentially rip the hearts out of those towns. The school board says it needed to save money.

And you know what? I could fully support that decision if they showed the same level of frugality elsewhere. But at the same time we were closing small-town elementaries to save money, we were spending money elsewhere.

I can see where that would be hard for taxpayers to swallow.

Look, we're playing a zero-sum game here.

There is only so much money in your paycheck. The more you use to pay taxes, the less you have for everything else.

We really can't exert too much pressure on Washington where the alleged "conservatives" are running up huge deficits, but I would suggest that local tax-supported entities should consider doing more with less.

You know, downsizing.

Private companies all over this great land are doing it. I think local government could do it, too. No more Cadillac health insurance plans. Make buses, fire trucks and police cars last a little longer. Cut down on the number of municipal vehicles. Decrease employee rolls through attrition. Think lean and mean, like lots of businesses do.

I noticed a couple stories on the state wire this week. In Rochester, the school corporation is foregoing the purchase of a couple of buses this year. In Monroe County, cops were banned from using police cars for personal business. They still drive them home, they just can't use them to run personal errands. They figure it saves them $3,000 to $5,000 per car per year.

That was the point of last week's column - a suggestion that perhaps public officials could be a little more open and a little more frugal.

This is not to say that local public officials are spendthrifts. In the past, public officials in this county have done a pretty good job holding the line on spending. But these are different times and there's always room for improvement, isn't there?

I don't advocate stranding residents atop burning buildings, disarming the police department or stripping public employees of pay and benefits.

I just think perhaps, locally, we could be a bit less free with tax dollars.

*****

Never being averse to heaping credit where credit is due, my hat's off to the Warsaw City Council members who have decided to take themselves off the city's health insurance plan. Each one of them, in doing so, saves the taxpayers about $4,500 per year for a family plan. One of them even donates his city councilman's salary to charity.

That's what I'm talking about. [[In-content Ad]]