Contact
Subscribe


If You Comment Here On Popehat, Kiss That Sweet City Job With Bozeman Goodbye

Jun 18, 2009
By .
Irksome, Law

Here at Popehat we talk a lot about how the government — through design or through bureaucratic inertia — sticks its nose into your business. It's easy to forget that the government can be even more of a bizarre, ineffectual nuisance when you work for it.

Case in point: the City of Bozeman, Montana. Say you want a job with Bozeman. You'd expect to fill out an application. You'd expect to disclose your education, and almost certainly your criminal history.

But would you expect being required to disclose every internet forum and social networking site you use and every web site you comment upon?

The requirement is included on a waiver statement applicants must sign, giving the City permission to conduct an investigation into the person's "background, references, character, past employment, education, credit history, criminal or police records."

"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.," the City form states. There are then three lines where applicants can list the Web sites, their user names and log-in information and their passwords.

Yes. In other words, Bozeman wants you not only to list every web site on which you have a username, but wants you to turn over your password. Presumably Bozeman does not plan to get into the sock-puppet business, so I can only assume that they want to have an easy way to search for every comment you have ever made under your various usernames.

Bozeman officials think this requirement is narrowly drawn. Said City Attorney Greg Sullivan:

We're not putting out this broad brush stroke of trying to find out all kinds of information about the person that we're not able to use or shouldn't use in the hiring process.

Well, actually, Greg, you are. You're demanding a broad swath of information that is completely unrelated to the applicants' qualifications, and that demands disclosure of speech activity that the state cannot use to deny employment. A state "cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 142 (1983). Evaluation of retaliation against public employee speech involves a balancing test taking into a account (1) whether the employee was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public interest [as opposed to speaking as a government representative], and (2) whether the government had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently based on the speech. Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563 (1968). Bozeman might be able to fire — or refuse to hire — employees for some internet conduct that could serve to disrupt city business, but cannot justify demanding not just identification of, but control over all forums on which an employee comments, whatever the content. Moreover, the City has no possible, let alone adequate, justification for limiting what employees say under anonymous usernames like WootILoveMontana on YouTube. This leaves aside the entire privacy analysis, which is another problem.

How could Bozeman get away with such a ludicrous and patently illegal policy? The same way the government always gets away with sticking its nose in people's business: cowardice and indifference.

No one has ever removed his or her name from consideration for a job due to the request, Sullivan added.

The government will always get away with bad behavior if nobody stands up.

Last 5 posts by Ken

13 Comments
Tags ,

13 Comments

  1. GregS  •  Jun 18, 2009 @9:16 am

    While they're at it, why doesn't Bozeman also require you to give them a copy of your house key so they can send someone around to look through your underwear drawer and those boxes at the back of your basement? After all, that stash of Japanese bondage magazines that you've got rolled up in the back of your closet is probably no less "relevant" to your suitability for employment than are your personal details on that dating site you belong to, or your wall comments on facebook.

  2. GregS  •  Jun 18, 2009 @9:18 am

    Most social networking sites, in their terms and conditions, prohibit you from sharing your login details with third parties. So Bozeman is making violation of a contract you signed into a condition of employment.

  3. Robert  •  Jun 18, 2009 @9:53 am

    This is why I never use my real name on blogs!

  4. Russ  •  Jun 18, 2009 @10:31 am

    I think it is time that this was challenged in a court of law. Evidently, they have been doing this for several years. Why are we just hearing about this now? And are other fascist-city-states doing this?

  5. Max Power  •  Jun 18, 2009 @10:31 am

    Good point GregS. And in doing so they may be guilty of a federal crime thanks to the Lori Drew case. Huzzah!

  6. CyberLizard  •  Jun 18, 2009 @12:22 pm

    How did you know about my Japanese bondage mags?!?

  7. Roberta  •  Jun 18, 2009 @12:29 pm

    Bozeman also requires you to have an individual log in to every computer you use so that they can track your internet usage while working for the city.

  8. Ken  •  Jun 18, 2009 @12:30 pm

    That's interesting, Roberta. Do you mean a separate log in for every City computer you use, or any computer period?

  9. Linus  •  Jun 18, 2009 @2:52 pm

    "No one has ever removed his or her name from consideration for a job due to the request, "Sullivan added. "At least that we know of. I mean, we don't probe too deeply into reasons people don't call us back. And I'm not counting all the people that we decided we didn't want anyway after they told us they wouldn't work for us. Because those people were not technically 'in consideration'."

    This is what I actually read when someone makes such a bullcrap claim.

  10. Susan  •  Jun 19, 2009 @4:52 am

    Wareham, Mass. has an interesting little scandal going on now, in which the selectmen ordered an audit of all town computers in order to find out who's been posting on sites critical of the administration. There's all kinds of drama — alleged Open Meeting law violations, accidental web casting/illegal bugging of an executive session, citizens escorted out of meeting by police — but my favorite so far is one selectman calling a reporter an asshole and a hit man for daring to report that the selectman owes over $180,000 in tax liens.

    I think they're trying the same thing as Bozeman but after the fact. Silly selectmen.

  11. Charles  •  Jun 21, 2009 @5:51 pm

    Update: apparently Bozeman has a sense of shame or, at least, electoral fear.

  12. susano  •  Jul 12, 2009 @1:40 pm

    Uh, there's some law, US Code to do with civil rights, that could be used to sue and punish this little commu-fascist prick, city attorney Greg Sullivan. Though I can't recall what it is, it requires something like a 10,000 fine and 10 years in prison for anyone depriving of you of your civil rights. It's aimed at government workers. A lawsuit should be initiated to put an end to this.

    I'm stunned this flies in Montana, the same state that just told the feds to take a hike on gun laws. I would have pegged Montana as one of the first states to seceed, when THAT starts happening. How they allow this little twerp to get away with this is very odd.

    Fire his ass and everyone involved in coming up with these intrusive and unconstitutional requirements.

  13. susano  •  Jul 12, 2009 @1:42 pm

    Oh, and, BTW – I just found your site through a forum link. "Popehat" – ROLF!