Many years ago I observed what appeared to be a case of child abuse. Each week I would see a particular child and notice bruises, an occasional black eye, and what appeared to be bites. When I attempted to talk to the parents about what I noticed, I often received conflicting remarks which were usually not very convincing.

Eventually, and after much soul searching, I called the child abuse hotline. I told the person who answered the phone that I wanted to report what I suspected was child abuse. After being repeatedly assured that my name would be kept confidential, I provided my name and described what I had observed.

A few weeks later, I received a telephone call from the mother of the child. She wanted to know what I was doing reporting her for child abuse. Needless to say, initially, I was stunned that she even knew what I had done because I had been assured my name would be kept confidential. I did my best to explain my actions, but nothing I said comforted the mother.

As it turns out, there was child abuse, and the parents of the child had secured the services of an attorney who obtained certain records from a government agency. In those records was a description of my telephone call, a call I thought was confidential.

When my conversation with the mother ended, I called the person I reported the child abuse to. I let her know in no uncertain terms how disappointed I was that she misled me into believing that my name would remain confidential.

I have often thought about my actions regarding that experience. I have concluded I was wrong to want my name to remain confidential in the first place. What is wrong with people in a society who are unable to find the courage to put a name with a statement?

Along those lines, I have repeatedly asked myself, since becoming involved in the newspaper business, what is wrong when government officials want to operate in secrecy? Under certain circumstances, the need for operating in secrecy appears necessary. Obviously, there is always the fear of someone suing and winning. That is one motivating factor behind our tendency to want to remain anonymous, or secret, I think.

Under most circumstances, however, there should remain openness in all our government officials do. The light of freedom of speech and freedom of the press may be the only spark that keeps the light of freedom itself burning.

Concerning the operation of governmental agencies, the state of Missouri has expressed a commitment to openness in government. The Sunshine Laws of the state express that "public meetings, including meetings conducted by telephone, Internet or other electronic means, are to be held at reasonably convenient times and must be accessible to the public."

It also says, "It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law."

When necessary, take a stand, make a statement, and be willing to put your name behind it.

Jack Rollins is the managing editor of the Daily Dunklin Democrat.