| Author | Post |
|---|
cjustice
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 06:47 pm | 1st Post |
|
All Union Institute and University Fall 2008
(Includes Session I, Session II and Semester Learners)
You must make two posts to receive full credit.
Everyone, including a government employee, is entitled to privacy. However, in many high profile government positions (highly visible such as firefighters and police, or highly placed such as upper level executives, etc.) what might be for a non-government employee a private matter can often be of public interest when it involves a government employee. Where is this line for the government officials? The line between privacy and public interest?
|
jholtunion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Sep 12th, 2008 06:20 pm | 2nd Post |
|
Government employees have private lives and the right to have them protected. But for some government employees, certain aspects of daily life that are considered private to those outside the government service have not been subjected to privacy protection especially when it concerns the interests of the public.
Some complaints against the conduct of public employees, if they are submitted in confidence, are protected from disclosure to protect the interests of the complaining party. But if they’re dealing with serious matters, and are confirmed by the agency's investigation, the public interest dictates disclosure.
However, some government employers tend to control certain private habits and proclivities of their employees that have no relationship to job performance. I believe that a person’s lifestyle i.e. sex orientation or religious belief, is their own business. We, as an American, pride ourselves to this type of social diversity. Last edited on Fri Sep 12th, 2008 06:23 pm by jholtunion
|
jholtunion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Sep 12th, 2008 06:21 pm | 3rd Post |
|
On the other hand, government employees are highly regarded individuals and in a way are expected to act in a proper manner by both the hiring institution and the public. They are the little representations of our government, might it be for the city, state or federal. They are also susceptible to more public scrutiny because they are given a level of trust by individuals of the community. An example of this is when a firefighter goes to a person’s house to give medical aid. They are allowed open access to an individual’s home and therefore are expected to conduct themselves with the highest level of professionalism. This act of professionalism is expected not only when on duty but also when they’re off duty.
In conclusion, I believe that government employees such as firefighters and police officers waive their rights to privacy due to the nature of their jobs and fact that they are always in the public’s eyes. They are held to the highest standards by those who need them, support them and trust them. Last edited on Fri Sep 12th, 2008 06:23 pm by jholtunion
|
teemason
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13th, 2008 11:38 pm | 4th Post |
|
Actually, I believed there is not a line for government official's. Even though everyone has a right to privacy, public official's are held to a higher standard than normal people. Every public official's business is of interest to the public. Their lives are in the public eye.
They must be professional at all time. Its not fair because everyone has their private life outside of the job. On several occasions, public official's careers undergone attack and scrutiny because of the conduct off duty.
Last edited on Sat Sep 13th, 2008 11:45 pm by teemason
|
teemason
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13th, 2008 11:52 pm | 5th Post |
|
| I agree with you statement but I also believe that people make mistakes. I feel that its not fair that our public officials should have private lives too. Everyone is entitled to freedom and as long as a crime is not being committed,they should be able to enjoy life like everyone else.
|
jholtunion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14th, 2008 03:40 am | 6th Post |
|
| You're right about it being unfair to some government employees. But I guess that is just the way it goes. As a city employee, we have to be careful on how we perceive ourselves both inside and outside the job environment.
|
flimaunion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 07:33 pm | 7th Post |
|
| A government employee is under the scrutiny of public opinion because the citizens are essentially their "boss". I equate it to living in a "fish bowl". If citizens question a government employee's actions, they have a right to obtain answers. Government employees, such as firefighters, are required to report to their employer any type of criminal activity such as DUI arrests, drunk in public, wreckless driving etc. This is of public interest, because these employees hold commercial licenses, which is a requirement of their job, and the citizens entrust them to be obedient to the law. However, the 'line between privacy and public interest' is drawn in regards to family, healthcare ex. HIPPA, and financial information. Extramarital affairs of government officials, such as mayors of metropolitan cities, may be morally and ethically distasteful, but are they really of public interest? If public money's are being used inappropriately, then yes. Another example, is financial status. Recently the LAPD gang unit has been in the headlines regarding disclosure of financial statements. While I understand the government's need to ensure public safety by decreasing the incidents of money laundering or bribes or whatever they are looking for. However I don't agree that the bank statements of employees (which may include information for non employees as well, such as spouses/domestic partners) should be accessed by the governmental organization.
|
flimaunion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 08:00 pm | 8th Post |
|
| In response to teemason...I agree with you that public officials are held to a higher standard and that they must be professional at all times. However, I disagree that 'every public official's business is of interest to the public'. There are certain things that are confidential in nature. For example a members personel file. Another example would be the lockers in a firefighter's dorm room, can't just be arbitrarily searched by management or the public.
|
Calvin
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 07:44 am | 9th Post |
|
| I think the line should draw like this. When the matter is involved moral, as a government official, it should not be a private issue anymore because he or she has his or her people’s trust to serve this country. It is not convincing that he or she trying to break the law, but on the other hands, he or she asks us to live under the law. The question you may have is how about he or she is not breaking the law? Yes, it is true that we should not mix up with one’s accountability to ability. However, when one becomes government official, he or she has again our trust to serve this country. I think it is more about the responsibility. For example, when a government official tries to put effort against prostitution, but on the other hands, he or she participates on that. It is first immoral. Secondly, it shows that he or she is having double standards. When there are two different standards, which means the mature trust is broken there. People cannot be in the best interest on himself or herself and at the same time in the best interest to the public. Therefore, when moral involved, it becomes a public issue not private issue anymore.
|
cmuirunion.
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19th, 2008 01:18 am | 10th Post |
|
| I agree that we are in the public's eye and must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards. Not just because we are in the public's eye but because it is the right thing to do. People do make mistakes and that is a fact of life, but a mistake is a mistake but using poor judgement or trying to beat the system is not a mistake but rather unethical behavior. A mistake is generally an accident. I believe we do have a more of an open book on our lives to generate public trust and accountability, but I do have to draw the line when that open book is about our families and not us an individual. There should be some protections and exceptions when the issue involves spouses or children, they are not the ones working for the publice,we are as individuals.
|
cmuirunion.
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19th, 2008 05:19 am | 11th Post |
|
| After thinking more about this I do also want to add that just because we are public servants there is also the right to privacy. I still believe that we are more of an open book than the general public, but that doesn't mean every aspect of our lives should be scrutinized.
|
Calvin
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Sep 19th, 2008 07:24 am | 12th Post |
|
As we understand, life is not fair. At the most, life can only be fair in the process, but can not be fair in the end result. What I am trying to say in here is when you take the lead of being a public figure, you take all of these not only the good part but the bad part also. When things happened, it may be his or her own matters. However, if someone has tendency of doing things crossing the boundary of moral, I am not saying 100%, but most likely, he or she will handle his or her work the same way, too. Look at what happened to Taiwan former president. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6112668.stm If you follow the news of this corruption scandal, you will understand why private life has major impact on official decision.
|
rperezdavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 10:56 pm | 13th Post |
|
Everyone, including Police Officers, Firemen, Probation Officers, and civilian government workers are entitled to privacy. But when a person goes into public service, he must understand the responsibility that it comes with. There are issues that might be considered private like our health information. I believe our health care providers are required by law to maintain the privacy of the patient’s health information. But as a Police Officer there might be a time where you have to have a random drug test because your agency wants to see if you are clean from illegal drugs. A government agency is also required to give you notice about their privacy practices, your legal duties, and your rights concerning your private life. We must follow the privacy practices that are described in our polices and procedures manuals while it is in effect. As a public servant I am held to a standard, and if the public wants to know about issues that might jeopardize my services as a Police Officer, I believe they have a right to know.
|
JsmithDavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 02:30 pm | 14th Post |
|
As government employees, we should be entitled to more privacy, especially with the advent of technology. Criminals have become increasingly technologically savvy and can use what was once considered innocuous information in decades past to devastate governmental employees lives. For many years, the Department of Motor Vehicles have allowed officers to block the private information from their vehicle license plates for this very reason.
It is understood that as public employees the work that we do should also be public. However, governmental officials private matters such as religious beliefs, sexual orientation, address, and especially family information should remain private. Nevertheless, a governmental employees career details should be considered the property of the citizens it serves.
Last edited on Sun Nov 9th, 2008 09:20 am by JsmithDavis2008
|
JsmithDavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 02:53 pm | 15th Post |
|
I wholeheartedly believe that my private life is my own and what I do as a governmental official should be completely public. The lines between privacy and public interests can often be blurred
Currently the LAPD is dealing with a financial disclosure issue in which Departmental personnel whom are assigned to gang and narcotic divisions are required to give the Department access to their private financial accounts. I, as many do in the Department strongly disagree with this unfettered access to what I consider a private matter. I understand the almost whimsical theory behind these disclosures, but the reality is that if a corrupt public official had signed such a disclosure; he or she would not deposit any ill-gotten gains to those accounts. I also believe that it is just flat-out lazy for the department to ask for these disclosures. The reality is that if the department can show probable cause of criminal activity, a search warrant can be obtained to further their investigation. Currently this issue is being appealed to the 9th circuit court of appeals.
 
|
M.Marhaba2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 06:46 pm | 16th Post |
|
There is certainly a different expectation level as it relates to privacy in the private and public sectors, especially public safety employees. That is a reasonable expectation because generally the descisions made by government employees have a direct impact on peoples lives and there has to be a level of trust. In law enforcement there are some privacy protections such as personnel files at the work place. There should be a line drawn on what public employees have to disclose. The criteria for that line should mainly be based on the interest of public safety and whether or not it will affect the employees ability to carry out their duty.
Often times the privacy issue in the private sector is ignored and really should be looked at when your talking about high level executives that work for large companies. For example the Enron scandel created an energy crises in California and is one of the reasons the state is in the economic crises it is now. Another example is the corruption in the loaning/bank induistry which has significantly impacted the economy nationwide and placed many people in a financial bind. Maybe it's time that high level executives in major companies are held to the same standereds as government employees.
|
M.Marhaba2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Fri Nov 7th, 2008 06:58 pm | 17th Post |
|
| Johnny, I completely agree with you. LAPD asking their employees to disclose financial records is not the answer and in my opinion will solve very little. The time to do this type of research and any other research to avoid employee corruption is during the background stages. Maybe the focus for any police agency that would want to implement this type of policy should be on the backgrounds unit first and foremost to insure those units are conducting thourough investigations.
|
jhartdavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 09:29 pm | 18th Post |
|
| Goverment employees have a right to have certain aspects of their lives private. Being a police officer, there are people out their that would like to do harm to me or my family. We are not special people, but deserve our privacy. When we apply for a loan for a house, car, etc, I expect the same privacy as John Q. Citizen. the records of that information is privleged information. There is a right to know and need to know policy for the credit agencies. However when the public demands my personal information in regards to a lawsuit, I have been granted certain rights that the general public doesnt have. I t is my belief that what I do off-duty is my business, not the publics. if I screw up, then of course the public has the right to know especially if I am the subject of a serious criminal matter, i.e. murder, child molestaion, etc.
|
jhartdavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Nov 8th, 2008 09:35 pm | 19th Post |
|
| I agree with your post on Financial disclosure. I have worked backgrounds for my department, way back in 1988. We did a very good job investigating a candidates credit history. If he or she showed poor judgement, we did not hire them. I also realize that after you become a police officer, it is quite easy to obtain credit due to a full time job and a steady pay check. My feeling is this uis a very intrusive order if it is overturned in the courts. If a cop is dirty, get a warrant and do your job. I do not trust my department to keep the records secure from wandering eyes.
|
SPedenDavis2008
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sun Nov 9th, 2008 01:18 am | 20th Post |
|
When it comes to public safety employees they are always held to a scrutiny that is far beyond normal standards. Therefore their finances, private lives,back grounds and prior conduct should be kept as secure as possible. People will always judge police officers more harshly when the truth is they are just human and not perfect as the myth goes. What is done in their daily duties on the job and their conduct should be open to the public to review since it is taxpayer funded but personnel files and the previous listed items should be private unless their is current criminal conduct afoot and firmly established.
|
Current time is 06:01 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
