Dear editor:
The recent coverage of the Platte County complaints missed the forest for the trees. By focusing on the petitioners’ use of AI as a negative, the article disparages the very concept of an engaged citizenry.
The headline claims the complaint contains "False Claims," yet the body of the article actually validates that there are serious legal questions at play.
For instance, the article cites a legal expert who agrees that the commissioners’ exclusion of the public from a fire safety meeting raises legitimate Open Meetings Act concerns.
The "false claim" seemingly boils down to citizens checking the wrong database for campaign finance reports.
Is a procedural error by a layperson really more newsworthy than a potential violation of the Open Meetings Act by elected officials?
For too long, the complexity of legal statutes has acted as a barrier between the government and the governed.
AI tears that barrier down. It empowers Wyomingites to cross-reference their local leaders' actions against state law in seconds.
This does not undermine the political process; it strengthens it by ensuring complaints are grounded in statute rather than emotion.
The article implies that a rise in these complaints is a problem to be solved.
I argue that a silent populace is far more dangerous. Our Republic relies on the active participation of its people.
If AI helps citizens draft clearer, more logical petitions for redress, that is a victory for civic engagement.
We want citizens who verify their facts and check the law.
Criticizing them for using a tool that helps them do exactly that is absurd.
Sincerely,
Mark Koep, Sundance
