home

Accountability and the Public's Right to Know

By TChris, Section Misconduct
Posted on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 08:10:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Why isn't the public entitled to learn about the misconduct of a public employee whose salary is paid with public dollars? A Journal News editorial poses that legitimate question after the newspaper was denied access to information about officers in the Yonkers Police Department who were disciplined for unknown infractions.

How many officers? Which ones? Any repeat offenders? What were their offenses -- egregious dereliction of duty? Violation of citizens' rights? Violent behavior? Relatively harmless, technical fouls?

The public doesn't know -- and can't find out -- thanks to the secrecy permitted by a state law that should be changed. ...

"Those who have the greatest power and authority over the public should not be the least accountable to the public," the commission [on open government] has written in support of amending the law. "In terms of accountability, when the public cannot know which officers engaged in misconduct and which others are guiltless, the public is unable to know which officers can be trusted or are credible."

< Tom DeLay's Cash Flow Problems | Feingold on Hamdan and Warrantless Wiretapping >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Accountability and the Public's Right to Know | 4 comments (4 topical)
    Re: Accountability and the Public's Right to Know (none / 0) (#1)
    by JSN on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:10:22 AM EST
    In Iowa personel matters are confidential which sets up some rather large barriers to accountability and in Iowa City the agreement with the union sets up even more barriers. When the Police-Citizens Review Board meets an assistant city attorney is present to make certain they don't talk about confidential matters. The public response to this is that they must have of done something bad or they would not need to hide.

    Re: Accountability and the Public's Right to Know (none / 0) (#2)
    by Joe Bob on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    These practices vary state to state and city to city. In Minnesota, for instance, policy is similar to what jsn describes. Personnel records are not public, and that includes any sort of administrative discipline. Then again, that applies only to state employees. When it comes to law enforcement most of your interactions are going to be with municipal police departments and maybe county sheriffs, and each city and county is likely to have their own standards for data practices. Taking the example of Minneapolis, individual police personnel records are more or less private. However, if there's a settlement for something like false arrest or police brutality those settlements are approved by the city council and therefore part of the public record.

    Re: Accountability and the Public's Right to Know (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    In Chicago, the data is very tightly sealed up. Happily in this case, we'll be publishing some numbers on our website, because the judge in our subpoena case for publishing information about allegedly brutal police officers denied the city's motion. What's fascinating is that the lack of transparency is predicated partially on a lack of technological resources -- for example, the Chicago Office of Professional Standards throws out files after 5 years (don't quote me, I don't have the precise frequency off hand) due to what they claim are the administrative burdens, and have said (to me and in the press) that they are unable to do meaningful analysis of patterns within the complaints. The police unions really work hard to keep these records under lock and key, which I think is ultimately counter-productive to good policing. But the FOP and similar organizations seem to be generally concerned with general immunity for officers, not with justice or quality policing.

    Accountability and the Public's Right to Know (none / 0) (#4)
    by KPinkerton on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 11:05:13 PM EST
    In a message from the Director of the Office of Information Practices State of Hawaii, the following was extracted from the Annual Report 2005:

    "Other events of this past fiscal year have been somewhat troubling in the threat they pose to open government and their cost to the public, both financially and in terms of access. Most significant is Kauai County Council's refusal to disclose a record in compliance with OIP's determination that the record should be publicly accessible and the Council's subsequent decision to file suit against OIP, asking the court to overrule the ruling made. In enacting the UIPA, the Legislature provided the public with the ability to seek relief from OIP for an agency's denial of access to a government record. This optional method of appeal was intended to provide the public with a less costly and more expedient means to appeal an agency denial of access than filing an action in court. To that end, the Legislature directed that once OIP determined that a record should be made public, the agency shall disclose the record."

     Les Kondo, Director of OIP

    Accountability and the Public's Right to Know | 4 comments (4 topical)