Editorial: Why the secrecy in Menlo Park?
Original post made on Jan 30, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 12:05 PM
on Jan 30, 2013 at 1:11 pm
City of San Jose Quarterly Employee Discipline Report:
A few years ago, the City of San Jose invested a citizens' commission with the task of investigating problems with the City's "openness". This resulted in a so-called Sunshine Commission:
A goodly number of the Commissions suggestions were adopted by the SJ Government.
It's a shame every local government does not have the commitment to openness that San Jose does.
on Jan 30, 2013 at 2:26 pm
So its unclear. Was the reporter legally entitled to the information she was requesting? If the answer is no, her gripe is nullified.
Maybe that's why they inserted a seemingly non-connected issue where someone was denied info they apparently were legally entitled to...a story that happened 2 yrs ago.
Simple question to the reporter: Were you LEGALLY entitled to be provided the info you requested?
on Jan 30, 2013 at 2:42 pm
I'm not the reporter in question, but I can give Hmmm a simple answer to his/her simple question: Yes, anyone would be legally entitled to the information she was requesting.
Read carefully. The piece says that "she wasn't seeking any identifying information, which the city would be unable to provide legally because of laws protecting the privacy of public employees, particularly police officers. She also noted in her request that the city of San Jose maintains a public database that reports on a quarterly basis disciplinary actions and outcomes involving all city employees, including police officers."
There's an implicit question in the second sentence in that paragraph: If the city of San Jose understands that this is public information v. confidential information, what's Menlo Park's problem?