Monday, December 15, 2014

Public servants and private lives

A number of questions will be asked during the upcoming campaign for school board seats.

In nearly every circumstance, questions will be allowed only limited responses.  The Journal will insist that we explain how we would fix what's wrong in 25 words or less; 50 if it's a slow news day.  In forums, answers will be limited to two minutes.

I cannot explain in 25 words or less, nor can I explain in two minutes, how I feel about important issues.  Therefore, in those circumstances I will refer interest holders to a blog post on that subject.  I will endeavor to write, candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

1.  Public servants' rights to a private lives.

I'm going to start with that, because the nature of politics seems to be personal destruction in place of civil discourse; it's where campaigns begin, stay and end.

It will be politically "disadvantageous", but I refuse to surrender my privacy in order to get votes maybe, from people who forfeited my respect when they expressed their interest in invading my privacy in the first place.

I, and anyone else who is running for any office any where, enjoy a Constitutionally protected human right to privacy.

Because I, and they are citizens of the United States,

our privacy cannot be invaded except by warrant.

Public service does not create a warrant to invade private lives.  Running for public office does not create the warrant.

The invasion of privacy is not only unwarranted, it is manifestly unsuccessful.  We have long invaded private lives and still haven't managed to elect and hire enough people we can "trust".

When it comes to protecting the public interests from corruption and incompetence,  trustworthiness falls a long distant second to actual accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence.

If politicians and public servants found it impossibly difficult to hide their incompetence and corruption, there would be less public corruption and incompetence.  If they were actually accountable (punished) for their incompetence and corruption, there would be less public corruption and incompetence.

It is possible to make it virtually impossible to hide public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS.

It is only a matter of (their lack of their) will.

I, am willing.

Though I stand resolutely opposed to the invasion of private lives, including my own, by anyone who is not a stakeholder in that private life or, who is not carrying a warrant from a court of competent authority,

I do stand in favor of transparency
in public service limited only by
an ethical interpretation of the law.

Transparency, like you have never
seen before.

Actual, honest accountability to
meaningful standards of conduct
and competence,
like you have never seen before.

photo Mark Bralley


Anonymous said...

While public servants have a right to privacy - the public has a right to know if a conviction (a public matter) has occurred - apparently in your case one has occurred, your choice is to respond with details or not (as you have - let the chips fall where they may). I respect your stand - anything of a conjectural nature is not someone's business - domestic violence, domestic disturbance police calls all are a matter of public record - anything else is of a unsubstantiated nature.

ched macquigg said...

Actually, I was not convicted, the charges were dismissed.