news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

BLOGS

The Editor's Log

Public means public

For years, state and local government officials and employee groups resisted efforts to open up the personnel law. As a result, North Carolina until last year had one of the most secretive personnel laws in the nation.

Apparently, they want to go back to those halcyon days. The News & Observer details a bill that would shut some of the files of public employees. It also details information that was available to the public since last year when the files were opened. Here is one: Charlotte reported that six police officers had been fired in the past five years for misbehavior such as domestic assault, lying in court and filing a false police report. The officer who lied in court caused the dismissal of more than 100 cases because of credibility problems.

There is an easy solution: Requre all public employees to sign a release and acknowledgement that the public is their boss and information about their salaries, work history and any disciplinary action is available to their boss. That's pretty much the way it works in the private sector.

 
Posted by John Robinson on Sunday, May 15, 2011 at 11:30 am

Other Recent Entries

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Panacea

May 15, 2011 - 1:40 pm EDT

NO, it is NOT the way it works in the private sector. An employee's work history is NOT available to anyone for the asking. You can't even get it if you are a potential employer anymore.

Here's what you get: Date of hire, date of termination (which usually means a resignation), and whether or not the employee is eligible for rehire.

The ins and outs of public employees is NOT fair game for titillation. If you want to dig up dirt on a public employee, you need a bit more than curiosity to get it.

John Robinson

May 15, 2011 - 2:27 pm EDT

I wasn't clear. The public can't see a private employee's personnel file but a boss can. In the public sector, the public is the employer.

The employee should be protected, but the public should be protected, too. It's the public's money that's paying the employee.

Panacea

May 15, 2011 - 6:59 pm EDT

I think you're stretching the definition unrealistically far. The public does not have the power to hire or fire. Public employees answer to their direct supervisors, not the public directly.

Most private employees work for corporations . . . that doesn't mean investors should be able to see personnel files just because the investor's money pays the private employee.

I agree the public should be protected . . . but opening personnel files to public scrutiny is not the answer.

John Robinson

May 15, 2011 - 7:10 pm EDT

OK. Let's not open them entirely. How about just to salary adjustments and disciplinary actions? After all, that is what we have now and the world hasn't ended.

Panacea

May 16, 2011 - 9:35 am EDT

No. No one has any business knowing what I make, or how much of a salary increase I get as an individual. Salary range for my position is another matter, and is all anyone needs to know about how much I make.

Ditto for disciplinary actions. Disciplinary action is not a criminal offense. If I get disciplined by my boss, that is all it is . . . an effort to correct and improve my work performance. If work performance improves, the discipline has done its job and the matter needs to be let go, and not hang like a bell or an anchor around the employee's neck. If the disciplinary action was unfair in the first place, it still will stand out like a scarlet letter on the forehead of the hapless employee if make public.

If the worker gets fired, that is all anyone needs to know about why.

If the worker commits an illegal act, turn it over to the prosecutors. Then it becomes a matter of public record anyway.

John Robinson

May 16, 2011 - 9:41 am EDT

I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree on this one, Panacea.

retiree

May 16, 2011 - 12:51 pm EDT

I agree with Panacea. Having worked in the public sector for a while, there were always newspapers and political constituent groups wanting access to the personnel files as if some hidden dark secrets about employees were in the file and kept from the public. The current laws are sufficient and don't need to be changed.

Taking this a step further, as citizens should we have access to the personnel files of our congressmen and their staff? I think not and can't see what the deal is with local or state employees. Do you wan tto verify their address? Do you want to see if they have a valid social security number, or VISA, etc? At some point it becomes a meaningless hunt for something that's not there.

mellancamp

May 15, 2011 - 6:25 pm EDT

I must disagree, John. Look at any publically traded company. The salaries of the top executives are listed on public documents, but does everyone with one share of stock get to micromanage and scrutinize every employee action (or inaction) that is taken on every level?

In most companies, salary lists and employee files are strictly off limits to prying eyes. As a supervisor in a private company, I am authorized to keep my own notes and copies of information related to my subordinates for my reference; but chances are, the Personnel Department wouldn't let me look at everything in their file that has ever occured unless I had a good reason.

I do agree that all public employees should have to sign an acknowledgement of the terms of their employment, including their understanding that no matter how hard they try, they will be obliged to silently accept:

Constant criticism from the public and media;
Incessant scrutiny of every detail of their personal and professional lives, including where, with whom and in what neighbrhood they live;
Full disclosure of their income to anyone who wants to know;
That any infraction, regardless of whether it was handled through appropriate disciplinary action, may be dredged up and printed on the front page of the local newspaper at any time..

That way, all the teachers, soldiers, firemen, caseworkers, police officers, clerical workers, sanitation workers, wastewater treatment operators, probation officers, public health nurses, inspectors...will know the score up front.

Let's make Monday, May 16 the official "Be Nice to a Public Employee Day". Because chances are, if you need them, they will be nice to you, respect your privacy and make every effort to be of assistance to you.

John Robinson

May 15, 2011 - 7:20 pm EDT

Well, I can't control the "constant criticism," but I promise you, I feel your pain.

I'm not calling for "incessant scrutiny of every detail of their personal and professional lives" nor does the N&R do any of that. Who does?
I'm not interested in your income -- just what salary you're pulling from the public coffers.
I am interested in disciplinary records because I think that public employees ought to be subject to more scrutiny than private employees. You're being paid with tax money. Plus, there are political ramifications involved, as the city council's efforts to have the city attorney report to the council rather than the manager, shows. Remember how a couple assistant city managers "retired" because of politics?

As I said above, the current law allows anyone to view disciplinary actions and salary changes. Has that caused havoc or invasive personal scrutiny? I'd say no...or point me to the case.

mellancamp

May 15, 2011 - 8:59 pm EDT

Ok - nobody has thrown themselves in front of a train because of the fact that their salaries are published. The same sorts of problems occur when salaries are published in the public sector as would occur in the private sector. "So and so was hired after me and makes more"..."is that all your mom makes???" "gosh,I had no idea your parents were so rich..." I do more than they do. Why don't I make more???"

I have no idea whether the salaries of everyone at the News and Record are posted in the break room. I suspect they are not. If they are not, why not just do it tomorrow? Post them in the morning in the breakroom. Everyone will have a great day. I prmoise.

John Robinson

May 15, 2011 - 9:04 pm EDT

Well, let's not go off all half-cocked!

You know I and everyone else can go to City Hall and get the salary of any city employee right now. Same with county employees, school employees, state employees and federal employees. There's no rioting in the streets. And public employees should be aware that their salaries are public. That's one of the costs of being a public servant.

And it's one of the advantages of working for a private company.

overtaxed

May 15, 2011 - 9:49 pm EDT

I agree with you 110 percent John.
The comments posted on this blog by those that disagree with you say alot.
Tax-payer funded employees whose jobs contribute little or nothing to public service, don't want us to know their salaries. Why?
They remember the fallout in Bell City, Ca. when citizens discovered the salaries of the town leaders.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-27-bell-california-city-offi...

mellancamp

May 15, 2011 - 10:19 pm EDT

Overtaxed,

Within your post is the assumption that:

A. The author is a public servant.
B. Anyone who posts on this blog in defense of public employees must contribute "little or nothing to public service."
C. Only the ever-vigilant eye of the taxpayer prevents public employees from robbing the public blind.

You're right, John. There is no "constant crticism" of public employees. I stand corrected.

overtaxed

May 15, 2011 - 11:04 pm EDT

mellancamp,

A. I used the term "Tax-payer funded employees".
B.Unlike you,some of us know the difference between public employees and those who contribute little or nothing to public service
C. The link I provided is proof enough
Remember the saying about those who ASSume.

Panacea

May 16, 2011 - 9:43 am EDT

overtaxed, those "leaders" were elected officials, not classified employees.

You like the hyperbole that public employees contribute nothing to public service. Oh so wrong. Communities could not function without public employees. We'd have no clean water, no trash disposal, no streets worth driving on, no law enforcement, no EMS, no education (as bad as our system is it would be worse to have no teachers at all), and so on.

Yes, your taxes pay my salary. So what? My own taxes pay my salary, and pay to support services that benefit YOU (you're welcome, btw).

I don't want you to know my salary because it is none of your darn business. It's a rude question to ask anyone; you don't get a free pass simply because I work for the government.

If a total stranger came up to you and wanted to know what your income was, you'd be offended. So don't expect me not to be.

overtaxed

May 17, 2011 - 12:15 am EDT

panacea, I never said or remotely implied that "public employees contribute nothing to public service" .
However, there are a considerable amount taxpayer funded jobs that don't.
Like it or not, elected officials are "public employees." Everyone benefits when elected officials are exposed for robbing the taxpayer via salary or "jobs" created for friends or family.
I'm trying to do you and other public employees a favor. Exposing and eliminating the wasteful spending by every government agency will bring better salaries and benefits to public employees that contribute to the function of communities.
BTW, Thanks to you and others that work to make our communitees better. BIG THANKS to those that risk their lives to make us safer.

Panacea

May 16, 2011 - 9:37 am EDT

John, just because something bad hasn't happened yet, does not make the law a good one.

retiree

May 16, 2011 - 12:54 pm EDT

Public employees are aware their salaries are public record. It's part of the orientation process.

lexalexander

May 16, 2011 - 12:27 pm EDT

Let me see if I can spell the issue out in little words.

When you strip away the fancy language, here is the relationship between you and your government: The government can tax you. If you try not to pay your taxes, it can jail you. If you try not to go to jail, it can kill you. That's true at the federal, state and local levels.

If that kind of relationship is going to be in place, then it must be balanced by broad, strict scrutiny. How broad and strict? I mean that no government employee at any level, with the exception of a very few in positions related directly to national security, should have any expectation of a right to privacy with respect to the performance of his/her duties. Their pay and benefits should be public, tailored only to preserve individual employees' medical privacy. Their performance evaluations should be public. (This daylight also would help protect employees from evaluating supervisors who are inconsistent, capricious, petty, malicious or worse.)

You don't like it? Fine. Do as I've done for the past 35 years and work in the private sector.

Panacea

May 16, 2011 - 1:31 pm EDT

If you try not to go to jail the government can kill you? Oh, come on. That is UTTER nonsense.

If you are sentenced to jail for tax evasion, the government can do a lot of things: freeze your bank accounts. Seize your passport. Issue a warrant for your arrest. But unless you, the convicted felon, pull a firearm on a law enforcement officer duly deputized to arrest you, then the government cannot simply kill you. The government does not issue assassination contracts for tax deadbeats. If you pull a gun on a cop and he kills you, you are dead because you pulled the gun, not because you didn't pay your taxes.

Working for the government is simply a job. I don't give up my rights simply because my job is for the government, and I certainly don't give up my 1st Amendment rights to speak my mind or petition for a redress of grievances. Government workers aren't second class citizens.

lexalexander

May 17, 2011 - 12:17 pm EDT

Try fleeing an armed officer. But don't try it too many times, particularly in certain jurisdictions.

DrMaryJohnson

May 16, 2011 - 7:27 pm EDT

I think John got on this high horse expecting to be embraced as a hero of truth, justice and the American way.

Then citizens like Panacea rode in (for once I agree with her - who could have predicted that?) and knocked him off. Working for the government (or, by extension, a "non-profit") is a job for most of us. Some things are public record (like many salaries and basic financials), others are not (like personnel records) . . . for good reason, lest "the collective" starts burning innocents at the stake ala 1692.

I do think citizens ought to have the right to open their own files to the public if they want to - without an employer being able to dive under the "privacy" wall as they cover their tail.

As for you, Lex, you talk a real good game. But where were YOU when you were the N&R's medical reporter/blogger/whatever-you-fancied-yourself-being and this doctor was BEGGING for help fighting a pair of "non-profit" hospital executives who REPEATEDLY LIED UNDER OATH about their finances & salaries being "confidential" (withholding information that was actually already public record). You didn't give a rat's tail that my supervisors acted maliciously or illegally. I needed to get over being swindled and move on.

Did you (or John here) ask a coherent question of anyone I accused? Nope. In your private sector job, you were too busy sucking up to your big advertisers (one of whom plays prominently in what happened to me).

Allow me to refresh your memory (using a Housecalls post chiding another so-called local "reporter"): http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2011/03/courier-tribunes-annette-jord...

OBTW, I'm sorry if I've used any big words (hypocrisy comes to mind) or gone over your word limit.

lexalexander

May 17, 2011 - 12:38 pm EDT

Mary, show me where it says I personally had any professional, legal, moral or ethical duty to DROP EVERYTHING ELSE I WAS DOING FOR MY EMPLOYER AT THE TIME, which is what it would have taken, to suss out just how much of your story was true.

Go on. I'll wait.

I realize that facts get in the way of your narrative, but it is a FACT that stories go uncovered or undercovered all the time, with serious, even lethal, consequences on the local, state, national and global levels. It sucks. I get that. Years ago, I invited you to vent at me about your situation if it made you feel better, but I also said it wasn't gonna solve anything. At this point, I think the venting has simply become a habit, even a reflex.

lexalexander

May 17, 2011 - 12:47 pm EDT

One other things, which I stumbled across in a completely different context but might be relevant here:

A Greensboro lawyer who used to do corporate litigation once told me, "I tell all my clients, plaintiffs and defendants, up front: Tell me what your most realistic best outcome is. But don't tell me you're here for justice. Because, win, lose, mistrial or settle, I can guarantee you won't get it."

DrMaryJohnson

May 17, 2011 - 4:37 pm EDT

Ah Lex, I was hoping you'd have a retort. And what a LAME one it was. You most certainly didn't have to stop everything you were doing.

The court documents that prove my very basic allegations of PERJURY, CONTEMPT and FRAUD on the part of the executives of Asheboro's largest "non-profit" (we're NOT talking about all the stuff I've had to post online at Housecalls to satisfy Edward Cone's equally do-nothing curiosity) WERE YOURS FOR THE ASKING. If anyone in the press had expressed an interest, people would have lined up to talk to you on my behalf.

BUT YOU DIDN'T PUT ON YOUR REPORTER'S FEDORA AND ASK. Not once in the I-forget-how-many-years-you-had before you took your severance. You couldn't spare fifteen or thirty minutes to talk to me IN PERSON (or anyone who might have supported my allegations) - and I/we would have come to you. Neither you nor your former boss here have EVER given a rat's tail about any "facts" . . . especially as they pertain to non-profit officials illegally withholding public records . . .a tiny little relevant fact that always seems to get in your way.

I LOVE IT that you have the stones to bring up your moral, legal, professional and ethical duties as a journalist - after I fell on my sword (as a doctor AND public servant) to do mine . . . AND after I answered YOUR EDITOR'S call to "citizen journalism". How many times have you sneered and spit at me - or at Joe Guarino - on the basis of what you want out of healthcare/our labor - citing medical ethics? I've got news for you buster. My rage, my disgust, isn't just "venting" (I read your blog occasionally and you are one to talk). It's about journalists doing their job. YOU are the guys who are supposed to be our last/best defense against tyranny and corruption.

What a JOKE you two are! I read these things John periodically puts out on accountability and transparency and I want to vomit at the hypocrisy.

The truth is that your newspaper/your Editor could not/would not do anything to show the Moses Cone Healthcare system in a bad light (and make NO mistake, the facts of my story do exactly that) . . . or report on laws clearly violated by a hospital trying to stay in their good graces. It's embarrassing, I know. I don't care.

Now you and your former Editor are lecturing the rest of us on the virtues of creating even more laws-that-will-NEVER-be-enforced regarding public records. If it were no so pathetic, it would be funny.

I am well aware of the limitations of civil court. But we're beyond that now. I've reported CRIMES - in this case a crime without a statute of limitations. You and Ed and John are real pieces of work when it comes to rationalizing away what happened to me. Justice wasn't just negotiated away. Justice didn't happen because the law was brazenly broken by people charged with the public good - people who are now paid obscene amounts of money (shored up by the public's dime) for the job they do. But the law & facts are just too inconvenient for the "right people".

Using little words and basic concepts, JUSTICE WAS OBSTRUCTED.

I came to you for help. I begged for it.

And you, dear Lex, could not be bothered. You dropped this ball. And your high horse is tripping over it.

lexalexander

May 17, 2011 - 5:33 pm EDT

And I listen to you whine like a 12-year-old, Mary.

That horse high enough for you?

For years I have listened to you. At times I have explicitly sympathized with you. More importantly, I've done everything I could do for you given the competing professional and personal demands to which I was subjected at the time. Other people have, too, to a greater or lesser extent.

That wasn't enough for you, and that's fine. But in failing to do everything you wanted, I violated no professional, personal, moral, ethical or legal obligation. My conscience is clear.

And although I've more or less quietly taken your abuse for years, out of both professional obligation and, later, simple good manners, I'm done with that. Get some professional help. It is no reflection on the merits of your allegations against your former employers to point out that you need it badly.

overtaxed

May 17, 2011 - 12:17 am EDT

"It is never too early to learn that the government is a greedy piglet that suckles on the taxpayers' teet until they have sore chapped nipples." -- Ron Swanson

John Robinson

May 17, 2011 - 5:49 pm EDT

Thanks, all. Knowing how Lex and Dr. Mary can go on and get more and more personal, I'm going to close these comments and let them continue in another venue.

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search