In an era when too many in state and federal government seem more bent on protecting themselves than those they are meant to serve, it is encouraging to hear from someone as esteemed as former Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Margaret Workman, who understands the damage done after two circuit court judges were admonished for speaking out regarding child abuse and foster care problems in the state.

“The recent disciplinary actions against Circuit Court Judges Maryclaire Akers and Tim Sweeney for their public criticism of the failures of child abuse and neglect system represent a troubling misunderstanding of judicial responsibility and a dangerous prioritization of institutional comfort over child safety,” Workman said. “These sanctions don’t protect judicial integrity — they undermine it by silencing the very voices most qualified to identify systemic problems harming and endangering the most vulnerable children.”

We in the newspaper business are used to having to defend ourselves when we attempt to shine a light on government actions that otherwise would remain hidden in shadow. We know our job is to make sure our readers learn what bureaucrats and elected officials want to keep hidden from them, particularly when those same folks may not be fulfilling their responsibilities to children and families. We are not alone in knowing the importance of revealing those truths.

Sweeney and Akers “sought to cast the sunshine of public light on these issues,” Workman wrote. “In so doing, they were not abandoning judicial neutrality — they were fulfilling their deepest obligation to protect children. Children do not have lobbyists to seek a fair allocation of state assets for their protection, so judicial officers publicly identifying these systemic failures is one of the few ways any pressure can be applied to state authorities who continue to short-change children.”

Further, she was spot on in noting “By sanctioning judges who spoke publicly about child welfare failures, disciplinary bodies have sent a chilling message to the entire judiciary: Keep quiet about systemic problems, even when children are suffering and even dying as a result.”

Imagine believing it was more important to safeguard bureaucrats who did not do their jobs — not just one time, but for years! — than to speak out to help defenseless and endangered West Virginia kids.

Sweeney and Akers knew how wrong that was. Workman does, too.

Perhaps her words will be enough to remind many others it is time to get their priorities in order.

Sweeney and Akers seem to agree, as both now have filed objections against the rulings handed down by the Judicial Investigation Commission.

“To be clear, I took these steps for one reason: to protect West Virginia’s children,” Sweeney said of his actions. “To ensure that the welfare of West Virginia’s children remains foremost among my priorities, and because other judges are faced with similar problems, I am objecting to the JIC’s decision and its admonishment of me for speaking out to protect (the) most vulnerable.”

Both Sweeney and Akers did the right thing for children here. They should be thanked, not admonished.