How much privacy does a public employee deserve?

[radcen]

How much privacy does a public employee deserve? An example...

- A recent local issue had a police officer found sleeping in his patrol car while on duty. Someone took a picture and sent it to the newspaper. Big controversy. The police department launched an investigation, but absolutely refused to release any conclusions or details of the investigation, citing it as a "private personnel matter". They did announce later that it had been resolved, but refused any comment beyond that.

Is the officer deserving of privacy in this matter as a private citizen? Or, does his public status as a publicly-funded employee, especially one entrusted with public safety, change things? Should he be held accountable to those who pay him, albeit pay him indirectly. (Note: I've never accepted the "I don't see your signature on my paycheck" crap. If you're that simple-minded, just wave the white flag now.)

Thoughts?

ETA: Please keep in mind that the example I gave is only an example, and is meant for discussion in an overall sense of what amount of privacy a public employee deserves. It is not meant as a discussion on the relative issues the employee might have done.

 

[Ikari]

If the worst cops ever did was sleep on the job, we'd probably be a lot better off. But in this case, I think it's fine. Since it wasn't so detrimental and didn't actually result in someone being hurt wherein that particular cop could have intervened in some positive manner.

 

[MaggieD]

How much privacy does a public employee deserve? An example...

- A recent local issue had a police officer found sleeping in his patrol car while on duty. Someone took a picture and sent it to the newspaper. Big controversy. The police department launched an investigation, but absolutely refused to release any conclusions or details of the investigation, citing it as a "private personnel matter". They did announce later that it had been resolved, but refused any comment beyond that.

Is the officer deserving of privacy in this matter as a private citizen? Or, does his public status as a publicly-funded employee, especially one entrusted with public safety, change things? Should he be held accountable to those who pay him, albeit pay him indirectly. (Note: I've never accepted the "I don't see your signature on my paycheck" crap. If you're that simple-minded, just wave the white flag now.)

Thoughts?

I think this is okay. Had the person who took the picture made it public, that'd be okay, too. But I'm comfortable with the police department not releasing his name. There'd be other incursions where I wouldn't be comfortable with it, but this one's A-OK to me.

 

[jamesrage]

They have no expectation of privacy while on the tax payer's clock. If they are off the clock at home then sure they have a right to privacy.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Their job is public record or should be.
If my employer caught me sleeping on the job, I'd be out of a job.

 

[apdst]

How much privacy does a public employee deserve? An example...

- A recent local issue had a police officer found sleeping in his patrol car while on duty. Someone took a picture and sent it to the newspaper. Big controversy. The police department launched an investigation, but absolutely refused to release any conclusions or details of the investigation, citing it as a "private personnel matter". They did announce later that it had been resolved, but refused any comment beyond that.

Is the officer deserving of privacy in this matter as a private citizen? Or, does his public status as a publicly-funded employee, especially one entrusted with public safety, change things? Should he be held accountable to those who pay him, albeit pay him indirectly. (Note: I've never accepted the "I don't see your signature on my paycheck" crap. If you're that simple-minded, just wave the white flag now.)

Thoughts?

ETA: Please keep in mind that the example I gave is only an example, and is meant for discussion in an overall sense of what amount of privacy a public employee deserves. It is not meant as a discussion on the relative issues the employee might have done.

If I got caught sleeping on the job, I would be fired. If I found an employee sleeping on the job, he would be fired. Since I'm paying a cop's salary, I think he should be fired, if he gets caught sleeping on the job.

 

[radcen]

If I got caught sleeping on the job, I would be fired. If I found an employee sleeping on the job, he would be fired. Since I'm paying a cop's salary, I think he should be fired, if he gets caught sleeping on the job.

The police did confirm that the officer was identified, and that the incident was indeed true, but didn't elaborate on what had been done. It is general consensus around the community that he is still employed.

 

[Ikari]

The police did confirm that the officer was identified, and that the incident was indeed true, but didn't elaborate on what had been done. It is general consensus around the community that he is still employed.

I mean, if it were found to be a habit, then yes I can see firing the officer. If he did it once and the only proof is it being an isolated case, there can be some punishment involved, but not necessarily firing.

 

[radcen]

I mean, if it were found to be a habit, then yes I can see firing the officer. If he did it once and the only proof is it being an isolated case, there can be some punishment involved, but not necessarily firing.

In this particular incident, I can go with that.

What I am more concerned about, however, is the police department's refusal to publish what the result/punishment (if any) was. Being that he was a publicly paid employee, and especially combined with his being in a position of public trust, then the citizens have the right to know.

 

[Councilman]

Private personnel matters are an internal matter depending on the state and the circumstances. The final result may be a different matter but it depends on a lot of variables.

When public safety is in question I would think that the Police Dept. would want to do everything they can to put this to bed as fast as possible.

As a Member of the local City Council I would want to know that this type of infraction would be handled properly and the punishment be fitting.

I have been involved in similar situations and it's tough to decide. Personnel issues in the City I was in are dealt with in closed Educative Session and may never be made public, ever.

I have been involved in the review of a Municipal Judge and many more issues and even today many years later if I

were to talk about what happened I could face jail time.

 

[radcen]

Private personnel matters are an internal matter depending on the state and the circumstances. The final result may be a different matter but it depends on a lot of variables.

When public safety is in question I would think that the Police Dept. would want to do everything they can to put this to bed as fast as possible.

As a Member of the local City Council I would want to know that this type of infraction would be handled properly and the punishment be fitting.

I have been involved in similar situations and it's tough to decide. Personnel issues in the City I was in are dealt with in closed Educative Session and may never be made public, ever.

I have been involved in the review of a Municipal Judge and many more issues and even today many years later if I

were to talk about what happened I could face jail time.

I used to serve on a city planning commission, and I can attest that sometimes having everything public can be a hindrance, but that's not specifically what I'm getting at. I'm ok with the internal investigation happening behind closed doors. I just think that the final result should have been published.

I do not mean this to say that they can keep the case forever open as a way around publishing the results, btw.

 

[Kandahar]

I think it really depends on what type of public employee we're talking about. If it's an elected official or a high-ranking appointed official, then they are deserving of less privacy. If it's some low-level paper-pusher in the accounting department of some big government agency, then I think they're deserving of more privacy. IMO it would be wrong to publicly bust that low-level guy unless he's doing something really wrong (besides just general incompetence).

In this particular instance, I think it's somewhere in between those two extremes. A police officer interacts with the public, so I afford him less privacy than the paper-pusher I mentioned above. On the other hand, this is pretty minor. Sleeping on the job isn't worthy of public embarrassment for a low-level public official...but public embarrassment would absolutely be appropriate if it was, say, police brutality. Whether they fire him or not is really not that big a deal IMO. It's hard to tell the circumstances. Some employers would have no tolerance for that sort of thing, whereas others would merely wake the employee up and tell him to get back to work. But not knowing the circumstances I don't think it's really the public's place to call for his head. He's just a cop, not the Chief of Police. Leave the guy alone.

 

[Manc Skipper]

At that employee level they are entitled to as much privacy as a peer in the private sector would have. Each case is decided on its merits and there MAY be extenuating circumstances. So long as the disciplinary process has been followed the individual outcome is neither here nor there.

 

[radcen]

At that employee level they are entitled to as much privacy as a peer in the private sector would have. Each case is decided on its merits and there MAY be extenuating circumstances. So long as the disciplinary process has been followed the individual outcome is neither here nor there.

How does the taxpaying public know everything was handled properly and above board? By this standard, should we repeal open-meeting laws for city councils and the like? Either we trust people to act honestly, or we don't, and this is public money and public policy at issue, not private.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Their job is public record or should be.
If my employer caught me sleeping on the job, I'd be out of a job.

Me to:

 

[DiAnna]

A public employee (or a private employee for that matter) who is abusing his position on the job has no expectation of privacy. What is done about it once the abuse is reported is between the employee and the employer, not for public consumption. Personnel matters are private. I don't think anyone who has ever had a reprimand in his personnel file believes it's okay to post that reprimand on the company's website for all the world to see.

The only time private personnel matters can and should be made public is if a crime is committed and the employer knew, or should have known, and covered it up.... for example, an employee had several complaints of inappropriate touching of female employees, then goes on to sexually assault one of them after the complaints are basically ignored. Then the personnel files could be subpoenaed for an investigation of wrong doing and potential criminal action or civil lawsuit.

 

[OhIsee.Then]

I’m invested in a corporation, if someone in that corporation is sleeping on the job I want to know about it. If the CFO promoted a gal because of her special extra-curricular activities I want to know about it, wouldn’t you?