Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public advocate urges transparency in county police personnel matters during public comments
Summary
A public commenter alleged possible misconduct and financial irregularities involving county police employees and demanded transparency; the chair and staff cautioned against naming county employees in public comments and advised confidentiality rules constrain what can be discussed at the mic.
During the public-comment period on Nov. 24, a county public advocate raised allegations about the conduct and possible misconduct of two county police employees and called for an impartial review and broad disclosure.
Arnie Deanoff told the council there were "major issues of honesty, trust, accountability, responsibility of two police employees" and suggested state and federal investigators and a special prosecutor should review the matter. The speaker asked for personnel records under Chapter 610.021 of the Revised Statutes and for "100% transparency."
The chair interrupted the remarks with a point of order and reminded the speaker that county employees who are not elected officials are generally not to be discussed by name in public comment where personnel matters are confidential. Staff and the chair directed that confidential employment matters cannot be aired by naming employees at the public microphone and that legal limits apply to disclosure.
No adjudication or formal staff response was offered in the meeting record beyond the procedural ruling; the speaker said he would pursue a public-records request under the cited state statute.
What’s next: The chair instructed staff to clarify rules on public comment and confidentiality; the council requested a review of what topics are permissible during public comment at a future meeting.
