***Garrett Jackson is the owner, editor, and publisher of the Lawton Town Crier. The views and opinions expressed below are his own and are intended to encourage discussion about local issues and the actions of the City of Lawton.***
If you’ve been paying attention to the news lately, you’ll notice a pattern that crosses political divides and city boundaries: secrecy breeds suspicion. From the still-unreleased “Epstein files” to the Hunter Biden laptop saga, to Russian disinformation operations that continue to haunt our national elections—Americans are often told to just trust the system, while more and more of that system operates behind closed doors.
It’s not just a national problem. Here at home in Lawton, we’re wrestling with transparency in our own backyard. Just last week, during the July 8th Lawton City Council meeting (YouTube link, around 1:10:45), city officials discussed the growing strain that public records requests are putting on city resources. Several members expressed concern that the demands of complying with the Oklahoma Open Records Act are stretching staff thin and driving up costs.
The implication is clear: the cost of transparency is rising, and the city is feeling the effects.
National Headlines, Local Parallels
The news cycle is cluttered with stories that, if we’re honest, we can barely keep up with. We’re told the Epstein case remains “under investigation” while the files stay locked away. We’re told the Hunter Biden laptop is everything from a “nothingburger” to a smoking gun, but the average citizen still hasn’t seen the unfiltered evidence. Meanwhile, “Russian disinformation” is cited as an explanation for anything inconvenient, yet the details remain behind closed doors.
All of this leaves the public with rumors, leaks, and a growing sense that the truth is something we’re not allowed to have.
Finding Balance in Transparency
In Oklahoma, our Open Records Act is designed to guarantee access to the workings of government—not as a loophole, but as a right. But as Lawton’s recent council discussion highlights, there are real concerns about the practical challenges and financial costs of transparency.
So maybe it’s time to look at this from another angle. Instead of seeing open records solely as a cost, is there a better way to balance the financial burden of transparency with the public’s right to know? If fulfilling requests is becoming more difficult, perhaps the solution isn’t less transparency, but smarter transparency. Are there digital tools or streamlined processes that could make it easier and less expensive to provide information? Can we learn from other communities that have found ways to efficiently serve both government and citizens? Rather than pulling back, maybe the conversation should be about how to improve—not reduce—access for everyone.
Transparency in Practice: My Experience with Open Records
This isn’t just theory or political talking points—it’s a process that affects real citizens. As a Lawton resident, I recently exercised my right under the Oklahoma Open Records Act by submitting a request (Reference #P001082-070425) to the City of Lawton and Lawton Police Department on July 4, 2025. My request was simple: I asked for a list of all active arrest warrants, in a machine-readable format, so that the public could better understand what our city’s law enforcement is working on.
The City of Lawton uses the GovQA system to manage and fulfill public records requests—a platform also used by other regional governments, like Wichita Falls. This provides a modern and accessible way for citizens to request and track information. One feature I appreciate is the public reading room, where many completed requests and their responses are made accessible for anyone to review. This is a positive step toward proactive transparency, reducing duplication and making public information more widely available.
However, my experience also raised some questions. While reviewing the public reading room, I noticed that some requests—such as Reference #R001445-052125, which sought detailed records about police vehicle purchases, photos, and assignments—are listed with a status of “Full Release.” The archive summary clearly describes the nature of the records provided. Yet, despite being marked as fully released, the underlying documents themselves are not actually available for public download.
Why are some records, even those with “Full Release” status, shared openly, while others remain inaccessible? The summary tells us what was provided to the requester, but the rest of the public is left out. I have not yet asked the City for clarification, and there may well be valid legal or privacy reasons for restricting access. Still, it raises important questions about consistency and transparency in how Lawton handles its public records. For a system designed to promote openness, understanding the criteria for what gets published in the public reading room—and what does not—is crucial.
This is an area I will be watching carefully. If transparency is to mean anything, it must apply not just to the records themselves, but also to the process by which they are made available to the public.
What’s At Stake?
Whether it’s federal agencies hiding files or local officials raising concerns about public records, the underlying message can become: “We know what’s best, just trust us.” But trust, once lost, is hard to win back. Democracy only works if we, the people, can see how our government operates.
If Lawton truly wants to be a modern, accountable city, we should see transparency as the foundation of public trust—not a burden, but a basic expectation.
Call to Action
Let’s work together to make Lawton a leader in open government—not just because the law demands it, but because our democracy depends on it. The cost of transparency is always less than the price of secrecy.