Protecting police personnel information

Staff Reports
Article Launched: 03/26/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT

It appears the Norwalk Police Union has a legitimate beef that access to officers' personal information wasn't taken away from a city employee who reportedly made not-so-veiled threats to cops making a drug bust at her home last month.

Police say Personnel Department employee Donna Parker told an officer that she worked in the department and said "I know you. I know your name. I know who you are," when police came to arrest her son.

A grievance filed by the union complains that Ms. Parker continued to work in the department after they informed the police chief, mayor and the city's personnel and labor relations director what she had said.

The personnel director has said he does not believe Ms. Parker to be a threat, and that she would not be removed from her position.

We agree that, in all probability, Ms. Parker's words do not mean that officers are or were in danger. We're sure people say all kinds of terrible things to cops who enter their homes. Obviously, having police raid your house is a heated event. And it should be noted that Ms. Parker filed a complaint charging officers with "verbal brutality" after the incident.

But her behavior, if the report is accurate, was absolutely inappropriate, a clear violation of her responsibility as a personnel employee. And it is understandable if officers are concerned for their safety. Ms. Parker's 22-year-old son, Trayson Stevens, was arrested on drugs and weapons charges as a result of the investigation which, according to the grievance, included a wiretap that shows Ms. Parker was aware of her son's dealing and that he had guns in the house.

Police Union President William Curwen has said this case raises questions about the Personnel Department's ability to oversee highly sensitive information, such as officers' telephone numbers and addresses. We're not sure if we'd go that far, and we can't second the union's call for police records to be removed from City Hall. It's simply a fact of life that, unless you are self employed, wherever you work, someone will have access to your personal information, including financial information. That's why it's so important for the city to come down hard on an employee who abuses the trust inherent in that position in any way. But having a department designated for handling payrolls, benefits and other employee matters is the most efficient and economical way for any professional entity, in the public or private sector, to operate.

Would removing police files from City Hall require setting up a separate operation at police headquarters? Not doable at taxpayers' expense.

Police Chief Harry Rilling last week said officials are "in discussions trying to come up with a resolution that will provide protection for the officers and with which everyone can be satisfied."

It's a bit of a brain twister to imagine what that might be. We're interested to see what officials might come up with, but suspect there may not be a solution in this case that pleases everyone.

At the very least, however, the city should make sure that employees with access to sensitive information know that the city will not tolerate any behavior that suggests they are not serious about protecting it.