Political insiders can get so caught up in winning and losing, they sometimes forget those they serve.

For instance, state Rep. Timm Ormsby, D-Spokane, thought it would be nice to have a conversation about whether it would be best for Spokane Valley to elect council members by districts or wards, rather than at large. So at the behest of a former council candidate, he initiated that chat in – Olympia?

Yep, he bypassed the Spokane Valley Council and introduced a bill last spring that would entertain the possibility. The bill died in committee after surprised council members quietly lobbied against it.

Valley residents are forgiven if they knew nothing about this. They might never have known if Spokesman-Review reporter Peter Barnes hadn’t submitted a public records request that unearthed the behind-the-scenes machinations.

Should council members be elected by wards, considering that five of the seven live within about a mile of each other? It’s worth having the discussion, but proponents chose to try an end run around the community’s leaders, and opponents didn’t even want the public to know that it was being considered. The item was deleted from the Spokane Valley Council’s list of legislative priorities at the behest of its lobbyist.

“Please delete this section, but do the work. Since this is a defensive action on our part, we think it best not to alert the opposition of our proactive approach,” wrote lobbyist Tim Schellberg in a confidential e-mail.

So it was deleted, and at least three council members e-mailed area legislators. In keeping the opposition in the dark, the council also kept this information from the public.

The arguments for maintaining at-large elections are hardly surprising or controversial. But like so many governmental leaders, council members felt it necessary to control the information. After all, if the public caught wind, that could complicate matters.

It bears repeating that democracies are messy – and necessarily so. Public input should be encouraged, because civic engagement doesn’t end at the ballot box.

As it stands, the council members look more interested in self-preservation, even though they may be right that at-large elections are best for the young city. Had they trusted the public to hear the rationales in a timely fashion, they’d be on much firmer footing. Similarly, those who wanted to change the system should have been upfront about it, instead of trying to stack the deck before springing the idea.

Episodes like this have become depressingly familiar and they only add to the erosion of public trust.