Tanner's gag order assaults rights of employees, citizens
EDITORIAL, Vallejo Times Herald
August 24, 2008
City Manager Joe Tanner is affected by Vallejo's bankruptcy action. So, by the way, is the guy who sweeps the City Hall steps.
As are the guys who trim the trees, fix the broken water mains, the women who dispatch emergency calls, and even those guys who race into burning buildings to save lives.
But apparently Tanner believes he's one of a very select few who should be able to publicly talk about how bankruptcy affects him and Vallejo's public employees.
He's wrong.
Tanner couches a new sweeping directive to city employees in disingenuous terms, but the underlying message is transparent: If a reporter asks you about bankruptcy and how it affects either you or the city, you'd better clam up.
We can only guess what the unstated or else might be, but we are told any unauthorized statements to reporters could wind up in your personnel file.
We wonder, for instance, what will happen to police union head Steve Gordon, whose letter to the editor about bankruptcy appears below. Stay tuned.
Tanner's order is intended to ensure the city speaks with one voice about ongoing litigation that challenges the bankruptcy petition. That litigation, we might add, was brought by many of the very employees this order seeks to stifle.
"Citizens and employees have all been living in a state of uncertainty, and in times of uncertainty, rumors and facts can easily get twisted and blown out of proportion," Tanner says. "Because of this, I am advising each and every department in the city that all non-routine media contacts be forwarded to JoAnn West, who is serving as the official spokesperson for the city.
"This is not meant to restrict the First Amendment speech rights of employees as private citizens," Tanner explains lamely, "but the city has an interest in regulating the flow of information to the media by public employees to prevent misinformation being disseminated (about the bankruptcy case)."
In short, when you're on duty you have no right to utter any thoughts to a reporter about how bankruptcy affects you, your department, family, or colleagues. This might suggest that city employees have no angst about a situation over which they lack control - or that they should have any.
If you're a police officer, for example, and feel a bankruptcy-induced exodus of officers endangers citizens, yourself and fellow officers, well, then, just keep it to yourself. Same with firefighters.
Tanner offers a weak exception that if you're an off-duty employee, you may discuss bankruptcy, but only after first making it clear you aren't speaking for the city, that you're off-duty and your opinion is "as a private citizen."
Tanner knows - or should know - full well that reporters and the general public can clearly distinguish between a so-called official city view of things, and what a guy in Public Works might say about the same issue.
In case he doesn't, we invite Tanner to cite a single case in which a city employee has declared himself/herself either as an official city spokesperson or is presenting the city's official view. Other than Joann West, his designee, we'll bet he can't.
One clear problem with Tanner's gag order is that many employees just happen to disagree with the official voice. That said, the Times-Herald and other media outlets have made it clear countless times that there is not only an official city position, but that the City Council unanimously backs it.
Another, more insidious problem with Tanner's ploy is that the taxpayer-paid public employees could be subjected to post-media interview inquisitions along these lines:
When were you contacted?
Were you on-duty or off-duty at the time?
Did you tell the reporter you were off-duty?
Did you tell the reporter you weren't speaking as an official city spokesperson?
Did you tell the reporter you'd be fired, dressed down or subjected to water board torture if you spoke while on duty?
OK, maybe the last one wouldn't happen, but the chilling implication of Tanner's muzzle is that all bankruptcy-related comments appearing in media accounts will be scrutinized if they don't emanate from his office.
As far as rumors, if you don't trust what's written or said about the bankruptcy proceedings, you can read the transcripts of the court action on line.
Efforts such as Tanner's have been tried before in Vallejo. Just a few years ago, then schools superintendent Gladys Phillips-Evans demanded that every press contact be screened through her. As a consequence, certain things were concealed, teachers and administrators feared voicing their opinions, and disclosures such as a huge deficit that led to her ouster came too late to prevent a state takeover of Vallejo's schools.
We have no issue with West; she's always had our respect as a former Vallejo Police Department spokesperson. But, with all due respect to her , she only speaks for Tanner and not for the hundreds of other rank-and-file employees who might share an opposing, or even slightly different view.
Tanner's directive is nothing short of intimidation of already nervous city employees.
We can sympathize that responding to what Tanner calls "twisted" or "blown out of proportion" facts or rumors may take more effort than he's willing to expend. But free speech is a right, not an inconvenience. If rumors exist or facts are twisted, Tanner or his designee, if they're willing, can dispell or untwist them quickly.
Until now, the bankruptcy debate has been multi-sided, both from within and outside City Hall. Driving part of that debate underground as Tanner's directive surely will do, is not only an assault on open government, but also an unwarranted slap at the intelligence of Vallejo residents.
