The current City Council is struggling with the same nagging quandary the previous Council did -- how much protected personnel information can be officially released to 'restore the public trust and confidence' without violating the confidentiality protections mandated by state law?
The answer to that question could depend on one's response to THIS question -- Is there a difference between 'in the public interest' and 'satisfying the public's curiosity?'
The first reason is legitimate, the second a product of modern society's 'got to have it NOW' mentality. It's up to the councilmembers to determine which response best fits this latest situation.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'm looking forward to a council that comprehends state law.
Sandy, our position is that the details aren't protected under personnel law. We filed suit today making such an argument.
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/NRSTAFF/940998999
Thanks for that information, Margaret. It will be interesting to see what the "legal eagles" determine in this confusing situation.
In my amateur legal opinion, if there had been a 911 call to which officers responded or the alleged victim had taken out a warrant, this case would clearly fall into the criminal investigation/public information realm. But since it was filed as a internal personnel complaint and no police report was filed (as far as I have been able to determine from media reports), I'm not so sure. I guess that's what the legal system is for, to provide answers for these murkey questions.
But that's really immaterial to the question I originally posed -- is this information necessary for "the public good" or is it merely to satisfy our insatiable curiosity?
"But that's really immaterial to the question I originally posed -- is this information necessary for "the public good" or is it merely to satisfy our insatiable curiosity?" -- Sandy
Necessary for the public good. Democracies cannot function when government acts in secrecy.
That aside, it appears to me as if the city council fulfiled their obligations under current circumstances.
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but it seems that Trudy Wade is trying to relive her turbulent days as a county commissioner.
SANDY: WE MISS YOU!!
Does the law distinguish between public interest and public's curiosity?
I would have guessed the law defines what is public knowledge and what is not.
...feels like a slippery slope when interest and curiosity become subjective topics for city leadership to decide.
Happy New Year
Margaret,
Why does it appear your reporting has become more Rhino like with negative comments toward the City Manager. I look to the N&R to provide some level of objectivity and let the public make up their minds.
Hi Sandy,
I asked a question a few days ago and keep checking back for your reply or guidance.
thanks
If you prefer..drop me an email.
I apologize, Meblogin -- I thought your question was rhetorical.
The only guidance in the law of which I am aware says the information release can be made to restore the public trust and confidence.
My rhetorical question -- do you feel more trusting and confident now that you know more details of the incident?
Sandy,
My short answer is that council should release all information that is legally permitted. My guess is that in all instances there will be citizens that could care less and others that need full disclosure always.
Rather than pick and choose what is released, I would advise to release all information legally permitted. I can not imagine council seeing this topic any other way. Not releasing can certainly create many trust issues. If you do see it another way...please share as I respect your opinion.
As an example I would be interested in learning more about the Blair Carr DWI subject. Was there ever any hint of a problem when she was employed by our city? Behind closed doors was she asked to leave? If any information exists how much can legally be shared with the public. Why..one could ask? Is not the answer obvious? If there was a problem why did our leadership not share with our sister city? If there was a problem she should have been terminated so that she could not move on to the next city..etc.
How can our city regain trust in it's leadership without full transparency and or disclosure is my question in return?
I have been reading on other blog sites that regardless if Mitch is innocent or guilty he should move on due to trust issues that can not be resolved. Your thoughts?
thanks and wishing you well,
Meblogin,
I am not comfortable in making a blanket statement that "everything should always be released" to apply across the board to any and every situation that might arise. For me, it depends on the specific case and circumstances -- my "measuring stick" would be "Will the release of information damage or undermine an investigation, contaminate potential witness statements, make it impossible to charge/convict a guilty party,make it impossible for someone who is being charged to receive a fair trial, etc. My priority is to ensure that justice is served, and there are times when release of information could potentially undermine that.
Your curiosity about Blair Carr is understandable. I am not aware of any problems with her or her performance when she worked for Greensboro. The only knowledge I have about her departure can be found here --
http://sandycarmany.blogspot.com/2007/03/citys-loss.html
Your question about trust and transparancy gets to the heart of the matter. Finding that balance between "transparancy" and what the law defines as "confidential" or "protected" is always going to be a problem for which I do not have an answer.
As far as I am concerned, it does not matter one bit what "other blog sites" think about Mitchell Johnson, just as it does not matter one bit what I think about him on this blog site. The only important opinion is that of the nine members of the City Council since they are the only ones who can hire/fire the city manager. The previous council of which I was a member rated Mitch highly on his yearly evaluation in November 2007 -- which I totally whole-heartedly supported and agreed with at the time -- and still do today.
Thanks for your reply.
If the law says that it is legal to release to the public then it should be released. In no way am I trying to change law.....just want it followed. Are we saying the same thing or are you saying that council should withhold information that the law says can be released?
Meblogin,
The law says that the employee's date of hire, date of change of employment status, and his/her salary is public record. Anything beyond that is left up to the discretion of the governing body to restore the public trust and confidence.
Hi Sandy,
I apologize because I believe I was not clear.
My comment was much more general than this particular post.
In a much more general sense I believe that information that is legal to release should be....not really trying to address this specific post. :)
sorry....I'll try to be clearer
Post a Comment