Atomic City Talk

In the open records bill currently before the Legislature, a key provision requiring that state employees be notified when someone requests information about them has been dropped.

According to WATE, it was because supporters fear that the cost of the notification requirement might kill the bill this year.

This just seems wrong to me. Anyone can request information about any state employee, but no one has to inform that employee that someone has pulled a record with their home address in it?

Not sure why they would pull or accumulate records on citizens, except in the course of performing their jobs. But if you have information to the contrary, please do share.

Yes, they do in the form of a release of information signed by the citizen, or say as in a traffic stop pulling D.L. information, in their presence.

There are some State Employees that have sensitive jobs that would cause the general public to not need access to their home address, telephone number and the like for security reasons.

There have been several news inquiries seeking this information for no real reason but just because they could. This costs untold dollars compiling the information for no reason, it is not a simple push of the button at a data base. The test should be a need and a right to know. Pulling records because they want to is not exactly at that standard. Should an address of an undercover officer, CPS worker, or a Parole Officer get out then that persons family could have a major security problem.

Just another example of a news media wanting to make news, not cover it.

AW, you don't read very well. By in their presence I mean the officer takes the license (it has all that information on it already, duh!). Running the license and tag is secondary to this issue. Clueless.

Again, the question is why should news media need a State Employee's address? They are not allowed to talk to the media in an official capacity, if they do something wrong that information will be on police records, so exactly what is the necessity for a media outlet to access immediately every state employee's address. Salaries, I have no problem with that, personnel files regarding write ups, and discipline, no problem. Personal information in the day of i.d. theft, yes.

If the state follows the guidelines of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), then personal information like home addresses needs to be redacted from any documents provided.

Also, state employees will be entitled to information as to whom is requesting information about them. But they'll have to ask, rather than the information being provided to them automatically.

Actually after reviewing this particular bill, it only applies to elected officials, not State and Local employees. Gov. Bredesen has already signed a bill into law this session closing State Employee records.

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=8261990

As an elected official I really don't object to that information being made public.

Ok. Elected officials' information should be public; I was afraid that the bill would allow open access to state employees' personal information, and without so much as even letting them know.

Believe it is now illegal to release State Employee information. I think that was a good move. Most of the grunts aren't that important anyway to the media, why they would want it is beyond me. I agree that salaries are ok, disciplinary actions if really bad, and such but not address, phone numbers, or SS# (which in the past have been released). Because one is a State Employee does not make them immune from I.D. theft, stalking, and violent/disgruntled citizens created because the employee was simply doing their job.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think all the State and County payroll records are public information as long as the SS numbers are removed. I am not sure if the employee has to be made aware of the fact that someone has inquired.

Public employee's salaries have always been public, and should be public because it involves public moneys. My objection is setting up a public employee to be harrassed by people at their home because in the performance of duties the employee did something they perceived as wrong. That is reserved for the work place AND supervisors to decide not a citizen or the news media.