‘The Public Wouldn’t Understand’: Scott Ruszkowski’s Record of Transparency
- Logan Foster
- 20 hours ago
- 3 min read
Logan Foster | Redress South Bend
Feb 02, 2026
On January 23, 2026, South Bend Police Chief Scott Ruszkowski announced his candidacy for St. Joseph County sheriff. When asked whether transparency would be a priority if elected, he was unequivocal.
“Absolutely,” Ruszkowski said. “That would be one of the things that I tend to carry over, the transparency component. They’re paying for this. They need to see what’s going on inside and outside.”
It is a clear promise. It is also one that deserves to be measured against the public record.
Over the past several years, under Ruszkowski’s leadership, the South Bend Police Department has repeatedly resisted public access to basic information about how it operates, particularly when that information might invite scrutiny. The explanations have varied. The data is too nuanced. The public might misunderstand it. Vendors consider the information proprietary. Taken together, those justifications reflect a consistent posture. Transparency is only acceptable when it is comfortable and constrained when it is not.
That posture is perhaps best articulated not by Ruszkowski himself, but by the City’s legal counsel.
When asked about SBPD’s refusal to release ShotSpotter data and coverage maps, Assistant City Attorney Kylie Connell said the information could not simply be made public because, in her view, the general public would misunderstand it.
“For somebody who doesn’t understand that, like the general public, then they’re going to think, like, ‘Oh my gosh, we have all these fires,’ like there are firearms that are going off,” Connell said.
She explained that interpreting ShotSpotter data required individualized explanation rather than public disclosure.
“That’s a very high-level conversation that I’m sure the chief would have one-on-one with people,” she said. “You can’t just put that data out there.”
Connell made the statements during a City-hosted “Meet the Mayor and Team South Bend” event, which was publicly advertised as an opportunity for residents to have one-on-one conversations with City officials. Her concern was not that the records were exempt under Indiana law or that they did not exist, but that ordinary residents could not be trusted to interpret public records without explanation from government officials.
That position was tested when Redress South Bend requested ShotSpotter coverage maps showing where the system operates in the city. Such maps are routinely published by police departments elsewhere to give residents a basic understanding of where the technology applies. South Bend refused, asserting that no such maps existed in City records and raised concerns about potential misuse of the records by bad actors.
After the denial, Redress South Bend independently documented approximately 80 ShotSpotter sensors mounted in plain view on public infrastructure and used those observations to reconstruct the system’s coverage areas. Only after this analysis was shared with Ruszkowski did the City agree to release an official ShotSpotter coverage map. Transparency followed only after secrecy became impossible.
The pattern also appears in SBPD’s public reporting. In monthly crime statistics presentations, the department labels a category “Shots Fired,” even though the figure represents ShotSpotter detection events rather than bullets discharged. Each event can involve a single gunshot or dozens of rounds. The distinction is critical, yet it is not explained. Local media outlets routinely report the figure as a literal shot count.
When information cannot be withheld, it is often made costly. In 2025, Ruszkowski and the South Bend Police Department advocated for changes to the City’s public records fee structure, urging the Common Council to approve higher charges for police body camera recordings based on review and redaction time. Ordinance 43-25, as initially proposed, would have authorized fees of up to 150 dollars per video, with payment required in advance.
The ordinance took effect January 1, 2026, at the start of an election year in which Ruszkowski is seeking political office. The practical effect of the policy is deterrence. Public access becomes conditional not on public interest, but on the ability to pay.
Ruszkowski is no longer asking voters to assess his record as police chief. He is asking them to entrust him with broader authority as county sheriff.
This is not an argument about whether ShotSpotter is effective or whether redacting video takes time.
Voters deserve to consider not only what candidates say about transparency, but how they have practiced it. The record in South Bend suggests that transparency under Scott Ruszkowski has come with conditions.
Because transparency that depends on what officials think the public can understand is not transparency at all. It is control, softened by language.