Sometimes I wonder what's really going on behind public doors.

In our jobs as journalists, we typically have access to leaders of all types -- congressmen, school superintendents, mayors, presidents of universities, police department chiefs, etc. These are the types of people who craft policy, who cast visions, create a working culture, decide how our money is spent and the ways our children are taught.

Most of the time these types of people are very articulate and, I believe, out to do the best possible job they can for the public. However, with vision and articulation usually comes salesmanship. Spin. A tendency to present an idea or vision in its best possible terms so the public's favor can be obtained through mass media.

But what if these concepts, ideals or spin don't reflect reality? What if the vision or idea has considerable flaws realized by people in the trenches that aren't being presented to the public?

I've been writing a lot about transparency and open records in recent weeks. I've written about ways the governor doesn't use email or electronic communication so as to leave no public record of his decision-making process. I've written about how the local university wanted to charge $2,900 to produce materials of an investigation into a coach. I've written about how smaller entities have held invitation-only meetings to discuss public business or haven't shared their agendas and minutes.

All of those things, though they took some work to discover, are tangible, real-life examples of a flippancy or disregard for following the spirit of transparency laws.

But there are larger issues at play that are more subtle, yet systemic, legal and every bit as damaging to silencing voices and tamping down information as failing to post a meeting agenda. Perhaps the most damaging, universal tactic in today's society that indirectly limits information being delivered to the public is the limitations public bodies put on access to people.

I'm not talking about access to leaders (though President Obama is certainly not living up to his campaign promises for transparency). Limiting access to leaders can be understandable. Not everyone, including media, can have direct access to the president. Or even the governor. Limited access is more troublesome in my view when it deals with regular public employees. Teachers. Police officers. Clerks. Dispatchers.

Many public bodies, including some local ones, have policies in place in which public employees are not allowed to speak with journalists unless they have permission from management.

Last spring, the Southeast Missourian issued a Sunshine Law request to all of our local school districts for policies regarding teachers and media access. The response was a mixed bag. Some schools had policies requiring permission to speak to the media. Others had no policy. A couple of districts didn't respond to our request at all.

We issued the request not long after a Sikeston School District teacher testified in Jefferson City against Common Core. During her testimony, she said she had been threatened and risked losing her job for doing so. Even though an independent investigation found she had not been threatened to be fired, I do wonder if there is an unwritten heavy-handedness when it comes to sharing opinions among public employees. How comfortable would a police officer in Baltimore have felt if he came forward about poor police practices, even before Freddie Gray died of a spinal cord injury? Would he have been reprimanded?

What about teachers who see flaws with Common Core?

A 2013 study for the Society of Professional Journalists, conducted by Dr. Carolyn Carlson and Megan Roy of Kennesaw State University in Georgia, shows that education journalists surveyed "overwhelmingly agreed" that "the public was not getting all the information it needs because of barriers agencies are imposing on journalists' reporting practices."

Here are some other findings:

• About a quarter of the 191 journalists surveyed said they have been prohibited from interviewing school, department and institution employees at least some of the time.
• Thirty-eight reporters said the public information officer, principal or superintendent will intervene to stop them from interviewing a particular person.
• Twenty said some employees, particularly teachers, are prohibited from talking to them.
• Three quarters of the reporters said their requests for interviews are forwarded to the PIOs for selective routing to whomever the PIOs want.
• Almost half said their interviews are monitored in person or over the telephone at least some of the time.

This might be a good time to point out that we deal with some good public information officers. Nicolette Brennan of the city of Cape Girardeau is, in my mind, the best PIO we work with on a consistent basis. She is helpful, promptly puts us in touch with people and largely stays out of our way in our pursuit of keeping the public informed. We are free to contact department heads directly; we are treated as professionals trying to do a job rather than tools to be manipulated.

Brennan is more of the exception than the rule, however.

By controlling whom we can interview, public bodies also are controlling messages. They know which people to choose on certain topics who will put forth the message most beneficial to management. And beyond that, it is commonplace that a PIO or administrator will sit in on interviews. While this may not be the intention, it creates a suppressive situation.

With government agencies employing more and more public information officers to control the media, it's all the more important that we support laws that protect whistleblowers where prudent.

As for what public employees can say, I found this nugget from the ACLU's website that specifically addresses teachers, but I believe applies to most other public employees:

"Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher's speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning."

Policy or no policy, every teacher and public employee has a voice. And he or she shouldn't need permission to use it.

Bob Miller is editor of the Southeast Missourian.