McNeilly Case: The City's Answer

"Plaintiff had every right to criticize Dennis Regan’s pending appointment to whomever she wanted. She just did not have the right to include the confidential personnel information”





As promised, here's a link for you to read the City's response to Catherine McNeilly's lawsuit.
The Pittsburgh Channel is hosting a copy of the file, which I've annotated to highlight key points.

I'm not going to recap the coverage of the daylong hearing here in the blog. My interest is in offering items online that may not make it into the news of the day.

Among the key points argued by the city:

• "Plaintiff’s demotion was not based on her personal views towards the appointment of a candidate for a particular position in City government, but rather was based on her knowing and intentional violation of specific Pittsburgh Bureau of Police rules and regulations that prohibit the release of confidential employee information."

..and...

• "In Chief Harper’s initial notification of her demotion on November 28, 2006, Chief Harper cites to no less than eight separate rules and regulations that Plaintiff violated by releasing confidential information. In fact, Chief Harper’s final demotion memorandum, written on December 6, 2006, specifically reiterates that Plaintiff did not deny releasing the confidential employee information in contravention of numerous Bureau rules and regulations, some of which Plaintiff herself authored. Chief Harper further states that Plaintiff had ample opportunity to discuss the potential release of confidential information with the then Acting Chief of Police before doing so."

• "Plaintiff had every right to criticize Dennis Regan’s pending appointment to whomever she wanted. She just did not have the right to include the confidential personnel information from PARS and OMS systems when doing so."

• "Interestingly, Plaintiff alleges in her Verified Complaint that no other commander or police officer has been suspended for 'allegedly disclosing confidential information.'"

•"As evidence in the hearing will show, the reason no other commanders have been suspended pending an investigation into such circumstances surrounding a release of confidential information, let alone have been demoted, is because no other commanders or similarly-ranked superior officers have ever intentionally breached departmental confidentiality and security in such a fashion."

Now that I've figured out how to post and link to pdf files, I'm revising the earlier post so that the blog isn't cluttered with screenshots of court papers.