At the beginning of the year, administrative employees of the MFPD were directed to sign confidentiality agreements to keep their jobs. I have a copy of the agreement and find it quite ambiguous so I asked the district the following questions:
Is there a written district policy covering these new confidentiality
agreements? If so, please provide.
If not, is there a district policy that defines confidential? if so, please
provide.
> Mike Heins
> South County News
After 4 days, and without explanation for the violation of the Missouri Sunshine Law, the district's records custodian told me the answer was" no "to all my questions. This leads me to ask some new questions.
Who proposed this new secrecy code?
Who wrote the secrecy code?
Is the code designed to hamper testimony in the current lawsuit in federal court against the district?
Is the code designed to to restrict the citizens' rights to access to our public records? We know the answer to this one!
I have also learned through Sunshine Law requests that an employee has been suspended for not testifying properly on behalf of the district in a sworn deposition. The district has refused to disclose the name of the employee citing a pending appeal. But I've learned that the employee has already served the suspension. This is crazy. This is exactly why we have a Sunshine Law. This information should all be public. No new secrecy codes can override Missouri's statutes.
Update: The district's records' custodian has told me that the tardiness in reply to my request was caused by human error. I can accept that. Things happen.
1 comment:
I believe his name was Gaterman. His dad was a former board member, fire chief and was a long time union president. You don't believe because his father was a long time union president is why the union hater Tim White reprimanded him?
Post a Comment