Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Avoid being disciplined, call us. LE illegal access to ACCESS.

None of these law enforcement officers would have been disciplined if they would have just made a simple call to us. We could have provided them with the same information they sought and much more. http://komonews.com/news/local/wash-state-records-over-30-cops-misused-databases-to-dig-up-personal-info http://komonews.com/news/local/wash-state-records-over-30-cops-misused-databases-to-dig-up-personal-info

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Finally, some accountability in the public sector.

I pray that this is a sign of things to come, ACCOUNTABILITY! No more free rides for public employees that work 2 hours out of a 10 hour work day and treat the public without dignity and respect. This is what happens when you have poor customer service and possess a sense of entitlement. Of course, Fife's response will be to threaten loss of public safety services as their angle; however, the tribe has already signed an MOU with Pierce County. This probably could have been prevented; however, city officials refused to listen to public concerns about how their city was being run and staff supervised.http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article96842907.html

Friday, July 29, 2016

Karma again.

http://q13fox.com/2016/07/29/judge-rules-tens-of-thousands-of-names-of-state-workers-can-be-released-to-the-freedom-foundation/

More karma. As you know I am sort of an expert about public disclosure laws and the union fighting this law is another example of their wasteful spending of union dues. Keep in mind I was the president of two separate police unions. I know the game. The public agency that retains the public records cannot impose "conditions" on the release of public records. If they want that, then go to legislature and attempt to change the law, but you will fail and waste more money. Consider the stop sign or street sign by your house, they are in place as safety for the public to be viewed by the public, just like the public records laws. Should we impose a condition on viewing stop signs, so certain people can view them and others cannot?

A similar incident just occurred with a county prosecutor's office. They were in possession of records pertaining to disciplinary records related to alleged dishonesty that had never been sustained. Criminal defense wanted to see these public records; however, the records purpose was to attempt to terminate officers. Their purpose was not to be used in criminal court, right? That's just crazy talk. Prosecutor's office wanted criminal defense to sign a condition of release for that imposed restrictions on what defense could do with the public records. Criminal defense threatened to sue under the Public Records Act claiming a violation of PRA. Prosecutor's office knew all along they had no legal or standing to demand such and would lose a costly law suit with attorney's fee reimbursed to plaintiff.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Modern Day Witch Hunt

 
This was a prime example of political police and was a modern day witch hunt. I'm pretty confident the accused will launch civil suits against the DA and the politicians that leveraged this witch hunt.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-in-freddie-gray-case-no-convictions.html

Monday, July 25, 2016

And, I was right again. Jury finds in favor of officers.

http://komonews.com/news/local/jury-backs-seattle-cops-who-say-they-were-retaliated-against

If you remember, I knew the command staff was guilty of the allegations made against them. Here are the results of the federal lawsuit. What is most disturbing is the standard of guilt in a personnel investigation is more likely than not. Here you have a federal jury that found the alleged committed violations of departmental policy however, there will be no discipline handed down since this involves command staff. Any front line officer would be instantly terminated and rendered unemployable.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Threat Assessment & Active Shooter Training

We are doing this training now for private and public sector entities.  I have pasted below an excellent video created by the U.S. Marshals in Seattle for the U.S. District Courthouse, Seattle, WA.
Project 365: Active Shooter


Friday, April 1, 2016

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Would-Be Diplomatic Assassin Pleads Guilty

BROOKLYN, N.Y. (CN) - A man who tried to murder a U.S. diplomat pleaded guilty Thursday to a federal conspiracy charge, prosecutors said.
     Alhassane Ould Mohamed, also known as "Cheibani," is 46-year-old citizen of Mali, according to the government's press release. He faces 25 years in prison at his sentencing on April 26.
     Citing court filings and this morning's plea hearing before U.S. District Judge William Kuntz, prosecutors say Mohamed's plot nearly came to fruition on Dec. 23, 2000.
     Several employees of the U.S. Embassy in Niger had been leaving a restaurant in Niamey that day when Mohamed and a co-conspirator accosted the group.
     Department of Defense official William Bultemeier was about to enter his car, a white sport-utility vehicle bearing diplomatic license plates, when the assailants approached, brandishing a pistol and an AK-47 rifle.
     Prosecutors say Mohamed and his co-conspirator were trying to get the keys to the diplomatic vehicle, when Staff Sergeant Christopher McNeely, a Marine detachment commander for the U.S. Embassy in Niger at the time, ran to help Bultemeier.
     The men shot Bultemeier to death, jumped in the diplomatic SUV and drove away.
     McNeely survived the shooting and has since retired from the Marine Corps as a master sergeant, according to the press release.

Are performance evaluations subject to a PDR?

Let me explain:
Statutory Provisions:
      Personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency [are exempt from disclosure] to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy. RCW 42.56.230(2).
      “Privacy” as [used in an exemption means] disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.  RCW 42.56.050.
Performance evaluations of a public employee are a “public record.”  However, they are exempt from disclosure. 

Courts have held that an employee's performance evaluations with no discussion of specific incidents of misconduct are exempt because they are both highly offensive and of no legitimate concern to the public.  Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 845 P.2d 995 (1993); Brown v. Seattle Public Schools, 71 Wn. App. 613, 860 P.2d 1059 (1993).  In Dawson v. Daly, the court held that there was no legitimate public concern in disclosure of the performance evaluations of a deputy prosecutor to a potential defense expert witness because it would impair employee morale if employees thought that their evaluations would be made public to anyone who requested them and because supervisors would be reluctant to write candid evaluations of their subordinates.  The requestor in Brown was a PTA president who sought access to an elementary school principal's performance evaluations. The court upheld denial of the request, citing Dawson v. Daly

An appellate court ruled that the performance evaluation of a city manager, however, was not exempt because it was of legitimate concern to the public.  Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn. App. 452, 994 P.2d 267 (2000).  Records describing specific instances of misconduct to be of legitimate interest to the public, despite the embarrassing nature of the disclosure.  See Brouillet v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wn.2d 788, 791 P.2d 526 (1990) (records of teacher certificate revocation records are of legitimate public interest); Columbian Publishing Co. v. City of Vancouver, 36 Wn. App. 25, 671 P.2d 280 (1983) (the investigative agency exemption did not apply to shield the job performance investigation of police chief).  The question is whether false allegations are of “legitimate interest to the public” and therefore disclosable. 

This exemption is not limited to an actual employee “personnel file” but rather applies to employee information in an agency computer system.  See Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wn. App. 205, 216, 951 P.2d 357, review granted and remanded, 136 Wn.2d 1030, 972 P.2d 101, amended opinion, 972 P.2d 932 (1998). The exemption also includes records in files for current and former employees, whether held by an employing agency or other agency, such as a retirement system. Seattle Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 27, v. Hollister, 48 Wn. App. 129, 737 P.2d 1302, review denied, 18 Wn.2d 1033 (1987).