I am all for transparency but I am weary of those who think an officer's entire record should be open to scrutiny too. We need increased openness but have to draw the line reasonably. Perhaps criminal issues could be open while policy violations could be kept private?

you have something to hide?

you have something to hide?

Do you think everything an officer has ever done wrong should be on full access to the public? If the officer gets counseled for being late to work, for example, do you want this to be known?

Should we stop at the police, what about teachers or the military, should any and all things in an employee's record be public?

If you don't feel that any line should be drawn then so be it but I think there should be a line drawn somewhere and I am trying to take a stab at a reasonable place to draw one. Feel free to explain if/why you don't think there should be any line.

I wasn't the one addressed by your response, but I'm going to chime in anyway.

Yes. Any government employee, paid by taxpayer dollars, ought to have their entire history open to public scrutiny... not just so people can see their individual history of behavior on and off the job, but to have full transparency on how the agency employing them handled said behavior. Otherwise, you know, people might get "a pass" because of the "brotherhood" or other bullshit lying. I'm sure since you have access to the internet and search engines you don't need anyone to point out the long history of government employees, cops and politicians in particular, who have engaged in illegal and/or unethical behavior and had if "covered up" by their colleagues and/or superiors.

I can see problems with that though. For example, what about unfounded complaints? Lets say public employee is accused of something but his name is cleared, this could come back to haunt them later. I mean do you at least see the reason for some concern about how much is revealed?

When you get arrested as a non-LEO in Hawaii, your case is added to the online database for all to search and see.  If you are successful in your defense, the final verdict is also listed for all to see.  Accused, charged, tried and found not guilty.

Cops' personnel records would be viewed no differently.

Cops indicted and convicted of criminal acts are still listed in the online court records like everyone else.  The department isn't going to advertise it if an officer pops up on there, but if you knew the officers name, you could pull it up and post it on facebook if you wanted to.  I guess the question is if they should be treated differently from other government employees where the police department will advertise the list publicly or upon request.

Internal and administrative violations aren't made public, which is the norm for other government employees and businesses.  I think it should be kept closed from the public as it's micromanaging the department's internal affairs.  The fault lies with the leadership, management, policies, and the union.  Continue publishing lists of officer violations without names like they're doing now, but get tough and start pushing the union and leadership to act on them.  If it continues, then start firing the leadership.

When you get arrested as a non-LEO in Hawaii, your case is added to the online database for all to search and see.  If you are successful in your defense, the final verdict clearing your name is also listed for all to see.  if you are found guilty, that too is online.  Accused, charged, tried and found guilty or not guilty.

Cops' personnel records would be viewed no differently.

I can see problems with that though. For example, what about unfounded complaints? Lets say public employee is accused of something but his name is cleared, this could come back to haunt them later. I mean do you at least see the reason for some concern about how much is revealed?

i see no problems
complaints on other regulated people are recorded at RICO
until recently (apparently 2012), complaints remained online forever
in addition, the disposition of cases was often not clear
(for example, i had a bogus complaint filed against me by a parent that was trying to get me to provide care for her daughter for free for the rest of her life. the case conclusion was listed as "insufficient evidence" rather than indicating i acted correctly or that the claim was disproved- AND this case remained online for over a decade before they changed the rules)
http://web.dcca.hawaii.gov/RICO/RICO_RCNT_NAMES/RICO_Disclaimer.aspx

One of my buddies who is a cop got a complaint on him by a juvenile and his parents for being to rough. He hadn't done anything to the boy at all but his name was on the processing paperwork at the station since he finger printed him and that is how the juvenile had his name to make a complaint. It was later dismissed because they knew the boy was referring to a different officer but it would still suck for that officer to have a complaint on his record for the world to see, even if something at the bottom said "unfounded" or something.

so you're saying that your people should not be held to the same standard as other professionals?

Are you saying that other professionals should have a public record with false or mistaken complaints that anyone can see? Where in what I said did it say anything about a different standard? (it didn't). I gave an example of a problem with everything being made public.

RIF
I gave a personal example a couple of posts above
Focus

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RIF
I gave a personal example a couple of posts above
Focus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk