It's a "personnel" issue

When public servants are dismissed or reprimanded, little information about the dismissal or reprimand is made available to tax payers.

Certainly, politicians and public servants enjoy the same rights to privacy as citizens; I have argued that premise many times.

It can also be argued, the people have a right to know what is being done with their power and their resources. Indeed, at some point, citizens have the right and ultimate responsibility to hold politicians and public servants accountable for their conduct and competence within their public service.

For example; we hold hold the County Manager accountable for his conduct and competence indirectly. If we think he is doing a bad job, we fire (at election) the County Commissioners who appointed him. If the County Manager keeps secret, the details of his conduct and competence (claiming; it's a personnel matter,) how are we to hold him accountable through the County Commissioners who appointed him and continue to support him.

The line between privacy and the right to know is unclear.
More importantly, it is unexamined.

Consider the recent dismissal of our Inspector General, Janet McHard, link.

If ever there was a position of "champion of the people" the position of Inspector General would be in the running. According to the city's website, link;

Accountability is key to maintaining public trust in our democracy. Inspectors general at all levels of government are entrusted with fostering and promoting accountability and integrity in government.

Our champion apparently enjoyed the support of the City Council and Mayor Berry.

Never the less, she was dismissed this week by the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations.

The Office Director, Carmen Kavelman offered that she was dismissed because she could be; she was in a probationary period and "... had no protection against termination." Beyond that, it is all a big mystery; "Kavelman said she couldn't provide details on why McHard no longer worked for the city. "

As far as we know, McHard may have been terminated for investigating one of Kavelman's friends. I am not suggesting that this is the case, only that we have no idea what the truth is, and therefore conjecture is a reasonable remaining alternative.

It is time for a public discussion of the boundary between "right to know" and "right to privacy". The line needs to be drawn clearly and unequivocally, and reflect the interests of those whose servants are being hired and fired without their input.