GRAND JURY ON PHYLLIS HOPE LEAK


“b. Breaches of confidentiality

Sometimes ethical blind spots are revealed not by actions taken but by actions not taken. For example, recent news reports detailed how a website run by a former Board member published confidential background information about a sitting Board member. The information concerned a confidential document that contained a notation that suggested it came from the District’s Special Investigation Unit. Though the breach apparently occured back during the 2006 election cycle, it only came to light in October 2010.

Given the Board’s penchant for micromanaging in other areas we are shocked to see that the Board has taken no action to direct or ask the District to determine who was responsible for the breach; how or why such a breached occured; what policies, if any, were violated; what policies need to be created or strengthened to prevent such a disclosure in the future, and perhaps most importantly–given the regular practice of Board members bypassing chain of command to speak directly to District personnel–whether the breach was the result of Board member action.

This failure to act is either another example of nonfeasance or a failure of the Board to even recognize a serious breach of ethics, if not outright criminal conduct, possibly by one of their own. It may ultimately turn out that there is no misconduct by anyone on the Board or at the District, but the failure to even inquire and demand answers is inexcusable.”

Advertisements

One thought on “GRAND JURY ON PHYLLIS HOPE LEAK

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s