Dear Editor,
At the Oct. 21, BOC called meeting, the board adopted Section 2-54 of the county’s Code of Ordinance, entitled “Confidential Information” or as many are now calling it, the “Code of Silence.”
In essence, this new code specifies that if any “confidential information” is released to the public by a commissioner or county employee, then that individual is subject to be censured and potentially fined up to one month’s compensation.
What’s wrong with this, you might ask.
First, what is the definition of “confidential information?” There’s nothing very specific listed. Secondly, the commissioners get to act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury, with no rights to appeal. In other words, with as little as a false accusation and an intent to harass, control, or silence, it would be possible for three commissioners to vote to fine another commissioner one month’s pay.
When asked, the county attorney stated a code of ordinance of this nature was an “absolute morass” from a legal standpoint. Yet, they proceeded to adopt it anyway.
Which commissioner(s) initiated this code change?
We know Commissioner Wooten’s name was on the agenda item, but the county code for making changes requires two commissioners or the chairman to add it to an agenda. If it were not the chairman who approved, then who was the second commissioner? In addition, in his opening remarks to describe this agenda item and to justify the approval of the new code section, Commissioner Wooten accused a “candidate” of inappropriately using, I guess, confidential information, which as it turns out was not true.
Could comments such as this, in a public meeting, be classified as election interference? And yet, the Chairman allowed that comment to go on the record.
In one of the fastest code additions in my memory, and with no public hearing, the new “Confidential Information” Code was added to the county’s ordinance by a vote of 3-1, with Dr. Steve Hersey being the “No” vote.
Some of the comments made during discussion to justify the lack of specificity in the new code were, “it’s a living document” (meaning, I suppose, we can add specificity later), and we can “try it out” (meaning, I suppose, let’s get something on the books). Is this really the manner in which we want our Code of Ordinances to be adopted?
Confidentiality is appropriate when done right, for the right reasons, and in a lawful manner. Does this code addition meet that criteria?
Billy Webster Putnam County