September 29, 2009 - 9:44am
Today's Poll: Should the council member(s) who leaked personnel information from a closed session resign?
September 29, 2009 - 9:51am#1
Enough closed, secret, sessions!
September 29, 2009 - 10:25am#2
Nothing of a confidential nature can be discussed unless everyone involved can keep it under confidence. This person must be removed in order for such business to be conducted by the others who can keep a trust.
September 29, 2009 - 12:50pm#3
Karen, are you saying that the person who wrote that letter should be revealed because YOU want to know who he/she is? Are you saying that you have no expectation to confidentiality if you wanted to discuss a personal issue with the council?
September 29, 2009 - 7:14pm#4
Somebody please explain to me why such a thing as a "closed door session" exists in our nation, other than that which directly impacts national security! I cannot fathom a justification. Anybody remember "By the People" in some old document that seems to have gone by the wayside?!?!
September 29, 2009 - 8:18pm#5
Bob that is an easy question. We live in a very litigious society. You are personally libel for making an unfounded accusation about someone. In a case like this, you as a resident or taxpayer are financially responsible for anything your Councilperson might say to libel someone as well. I think my taxes are high enough, don’t you?
September 29, 2009 - 11:31pm#6
It's worth noting that we're approaching 500 votes on this poll. Our polls are popular, but that's still well better than average participation.
September 30, 2009 - 1:09pm#7
Charlie, if I understand you correctly, you're saying we should elect people that we expect to do dealings behind our backs - no transparency - such as FUBO. Yes, we pay WAY too much in taxes, but I suggest that we elect "leaders" that we trust - and that also have personal responsibility.
September 30, 2009 - 1:16pm#8
Howard, do you realize all people have to do is vote, sign off wait a little while and come back to the site and vote again, while not being signed in?? They can vote all day long. How can you possibly get true votes that way?
September 30, 2009 - 1:37pm#9
Bob, you don't understand me. What I am saying is that because of our society and common decency there are other topics you cannot speak about in public besides national security. Personal issues are a prime example. You cannot air personal accusations about another person in public, without expecting to be sued. I also can’t release your job performance review in the paper. Also due to the nature of our society I can’t even tell another employer how well you did your job, even after you left my employ. This isn’t news to experienced business people. The government is no different. Holding up the “public’s right to know” as an example is silly. The public also has the right to be sued for their representatives acting in an irresponsible way with personal issues. The paper wouldn’t print the letter for the same reasons. Joanne Beck has integrity and so do the people she works for at the paper.
September 30, 2009 - 1:39pm#10
Bob, I think the lawsuit thing is overblown, but! The person who wrote the letter is the one who wanted this kept quite. So here is the question to you Bob. Does the person who wrote the letter have a right to privacy or should their name be made public in order for this whole thing to be discussed in public? Yes or no?
September 30, 2009 - 2:30pm#11
Karen, we've never made a claim that this is a scientific poll. But I can tell you from reviewing the IP address logs, there is no evidence of serious abuse on this particular poll. It is possible that some people have voted more than once, but not frequently, and not widespread. The vast, vast majority of votes (like 98 percent) are one vote from one IP address.
September 30, 2009 - 3:48pm#12
If something is true its not libel. If its a lie then its libel. There is a vocal and written truth. If its a lie its either slander or libel. Id like to know what else the council is keeping secret.
September 30, 2009 - 4:13pm#13
Mary, Can they keep a secret?
September 30, 2009 - 6:51pm#14
ALL personnel (not personal) matters within a company must be kept confidential by the employer. It's the law. The personnel matter here deals with Mr Molinos alleged acts and not the letter writer. If a City employee discussed personnel matters with the public, he should be fired.
October 1, 2009 - 7:32am#15
I agree that personnel matters in the private sector should be kept confidential- within that company's management. I also agree that the letter writer's identity need not be disclosed unless legal issues arise. I do, however, maintain that PUBLIC employees cannot expect the same level of privacy. Whether elected, appointed, or hired they are paid by our tax dollars. This means they work for us and as such we have a right to know about anything that may possibly effect their ability to fulfill their job duties. Bob