Jackson Free Press

Ask, and ye shall receive. Here is Police Chief Shirlene Anderson's Resume. I'm afraid it takes a bit of effort to read, as it is a copy of a copy, but zoom in a bit and it's legible.

And since those same thieves at a certain right-wing Web site have posted them anyway, I thought I would post our requests for this information.

(By the way boys, even if the files were "freely visible" on our Web site due to a security oversight, that doesn't mean they were free for you to steal and post on your own site. That's like walking into a man's back yard, stealing his bike and then saying, "But he left the gate open!" However, these are requests for public information, and we have nothing to hide.)

The JFP first requested Anderson's resume in July 2005, when she was appointed by Melton. The last chief provided reams of information on his qualifications, education and job history. All of that information should be freely available to the public for a city administrator as important as the chief of police. Unfortunately, the city ignored this written request and other oral requests.

We made our first formal information request through the city clerk's office in November 2005, as part of a request for information on several city employees. To clarify our interest, we requested Anderson's resume again, Resume Please in December, 2005. The city refused, No Way on the basis of the personnel exemption to the Public Records Law.

No one can say for certain whether this is an appropriate interpretation of that exemption, because the exemption itself is maddeningly vague. What counts as "personnel" information? The public has no right to medical information. But can the city withhold the chief's educational background and job history because that is "personnel" information? That strains good faith interpretation of the law.

We also wrote Anderson directly, Pretty Please?, but she never made any response.

Previous Comments

ID

172350

Comment

For anyone interested, the JFP has just posted JPD Chief Shirlene Anderson's resume online.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-05-17T15:34:05-06:00

ID

172351

Comment

30 years of experience in MBN is pretty doggone good, but where's the section on her formal educational background, and why is her training record presented as an unsorted two-page list? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-17T15:42:20-06:00

ID

172352

Comment

Ummmm.... Resume says her home address is leland, MS. Ok, so the Jackson Chief of Police is in violation of Jackson City Ordinance Sec. 2-166 (Residency Requirements). Go figure.

Author

Rex

Date

2006-05-17T15:52:06-06:00

ID

172353

Comment

Rex, that's her personal business...stay out it or else feel the wrath of Tom and others.

Author

JSU

Date

2006-05-17T15:53:20-06:00

ID

172354

Comment

So, um, I'm not saying anything by really "saying" this....but, she was in charge of destroying the illegal drugs seized by the MBN when Melton was in charge?

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-17T15:56:11-06:00

ID

172355

Comment

I noticed that too Ali! Also, where is her actual "Educational Bakground" as Tom asks? If that is the type of resume that passes the muster of City Council to become Chief we have bigger problems then just Melton. I mean come on. Did Chief Moore's resume look this bad and have little information on it? The other past Chief's. Heck, the Chief of Flowood probably has a better looking resume!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-05-17T16:03:28-06:00

ID

172356

Comment

They could have presented a better PDF than that one, they deserve to have that crap thrown back at them.

Author

JAC

Date

2006-05-17T16:11:06-06:00

ID

172357

Comment

PDF quality aside, where is the logical layout of the resume? The bolded headers and bullet points? Or a narative that touches on her career and then the list? And the list! How about a smaller font and double column that stuff! Just trying to help in case she needs to refresh it for her next job. 8-p

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-05-17T16:18:03-06:00

ID

172358

Comment

I ask the same question as Tom.........where is her educational background? The seminars and classes that she took are okay, but where is the education? This is the top law enforcer's position of the capitol of the state of Mississippi. This resume` looks as if she may have been cleaning oout her desk and listed some functions that she has attended. And for the record has anyone seen Melton's resume`? Education is essential for the functionality and sucess of these leadership positions. Has anyone seen the fire chief's resume? It's a joke at best. It is clear why we are having so many problems in the city. These people have not been educationally prepared for these positions. I also question their experience. Chief Anderson dosen'r display the confidence that you look for in a department head. She is too willing to let Melton step forth. When she has to answer questions, her inexperience and lack of confidence is evident.

Author

lance

Date

2006-05-17T16:26:54-06:00

ID

172359

Comment

JAC, I do apologize for the quality of the PDF, but the city of Jackson did not provide us with the resume. We had to take a copy provided by a member of city government and PDF that. As for Chief Moore, the Johnson administration provided a full dossier trumpeting his achievements when they brought his appointment before the City Council. His resume, along with reams of other materials, were freely available to the public. In the case of Anderson, from the time the JFP first requested her resume, in July 2005, to the present day, the city has refused to provide even the most basic information about her, such as where she went to school and her job history. That's just not going to fly when we're talking about the chief of police.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-05-17T17:01:33-06:00

ID

172360

Comment

Did anyone else see that on her resume (and I use that word advisedly), Chief Anderson is credited with a course titled *Power of Communication Skills for Women*? She musta been out on one of those fabled *interdictions* during the course. No attempt here to be mean or nasty but to borrow one of my favorite Donna-isms: I'm just sayin'!

Author

Kacy

Date

2006-05-17T23:40:09-06:00

ID

172361

Comment

Good job, Brian. It's remarkable, really, that in their petty hatred of us that the Alan Lange gang does not understand that we had not made those PDFs live yet because we were giving the city the chance to do the right thing before we embarassed them publicly. Leave it to the dumba$$es to go, er, sleuthing, steal files that do not belong to them that were NOT plainly visible except for someone snooping our database, and then show the world -- OK, seven angry, stupid people -- that the city has no idea what's in the Freedom of Information Act. And if they are stupid enough to convince themselves that telling a media outlet that the chief is not going to comply with a legal documents request because, er, "she doesn't like you" somehow indicates a legal response to the requests, then they are more stupid than they play on the Internet. Gentlemen: stop stealing shit from our Web site. We are not a government outlet, and you are going to have trouble if you keep up the petty thievery and game-playing. Believe me. You people disgust me with your lapdog stupidity. Meantime, though, show everyone how in volation of the law the city is. So much for our polite grace period. Idiots.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-18T12:45:13-06:00

ID

172362

Comment

Here's an appropos excerpt from my Melton Interview #3, in which the mayor says right out that we are entitled to the chief's resume. Enjoy: Now a major disagreement I have with you is over that idea of releasing the crime stats regularly. I don’t have a problem with that. Well, are you doing it? No. Well, when are you going to do it? Nobody’s asked me. To release them? Yes. I asked if you were going to release them and you said … Oh, yes, if you ask for them, I’ll give them to you. I told you that when you asked me last time. Well, no, you didn’t really. You said that they … I’m going to put it on a computer. And all that kind of stuff, but if you want them, I’ll give them to you. Well what’s the plan for that? You have a perception problem, too, right now because I think that a lot of people think that you’re not wanting to release the crime stats. OK, well, we’ll release them. I don’t have a problem with that, and I’m kind of pleased to release them, Donna. Because, again, the media is going to get slapped in the face because the numbers are pretty darn good. But here’s my beef, OK, and I hope you understand where I’m coming from. I’m damn sure not just going to give them to The Clarion-Ledger. I hope you’re not just going to give them to The Clarion-Ledger. But do you understand, you understand what I’m saying? Yes. Now if I’m going to release them and make a copy available, I’m going to make it available to everybody. But they acted like they had ownership of it, and I resented that. And you’ve talked about releasing them only through SafeCity Watch. See, that makes me uncomfortable. Why? Because I think that group is perceived as a political organization. I think you’re wrong. And I used to be chairman of it. I know. And you can easily get that perception because of the people who are there, and I don’t know who any of them are anymore. I meet with them generally. But let me tell you what my motive is, and maybe you might be able to give me a better solution. I wanted a third party who is respected and reputable to keep the numbers. I don’t want the numbers coming from the police department or the City of Jackson. I want some integrity in the numbers.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-18T12:50:39-06:00

ID

172363

Comment

Well, here’s what I would say to that if you asked me. Is that you release them, I mean give them to them and give them to everybody else, too. But the answer is, if I’m not comfortable releasing them through the city, then I have a problem in the city, Donna. Well, that’s right. That needs to be dealt with. And SafeCity’s not going to resolve that. I mean it might make some people feel better, but it would make me feel suspicious though because I’m like, “Well why is he putting them out through (a group he used to chair)? Well, I can tell you this because you asked a question, and I want to answer this. I know of no information or any activity within the city that I would be uncomfortable disclosing other than personnel issues. And I still feel that I need to even talk about those sometimes. You understand what I’m saying. We might not by name, but we might by position because we are making these changes, and there might be some questions. By you know certain legal things I can’t do. But I can by position. You can give somebody’s resume, though. Yes. Right. Like Chief Anderson’s (which the city has, to date, refused to release to the Jackson Free Press). Yes. I just think she doesn’t like you. Well, you know. You have to work that out. And you’re getting better at it. She doesn’t have to like me, though. She should still give it to me. Why? Because it’s the law to give public information. And? Well—and? She might have some personal information on her resume. No she doesn’t. I’ve seen it. (It was provided to the JFP through a different source.) But I don’t have any problems with you. I mean, and you know I hear what you’re saying to me, why go through the ropes in having to file for something that’s public anyway. And the salaries, obviously that’s a matter of public record; mine’s very public. So …

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-18T12:51:10-06:00

ID

172364

Comment

Also, note in what I just posted that Melton told me that he used to be chairman of SafeCity Watch. I knew he told me. I had forgotten where. Are you reading, Ben? This organization cannot vet those numbers. Talk about bias and conflict of interest. Oh, and Lange is on the board. The man who posts documents stolen from private Web sites on this Web site. Yeah. That's going to work.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-18T12:52:50-06:00

ID

172365

Comment

To bring this full circle, isn't it delicious and sad irony that a man on the board of SafeCity Watch to root out crimes of violence and theft is stealing the copyrighted images off another Web site (or fencing them) and then posting them on his own site without permission? Oh, you silly petty thieves. And in the case of our PDF of the ComStat report, Lange even posted it on his Web site before we made it live and then claimed it as his own. It's about the image, stupid! You know, the image of the bicycle sitting in the yard with the open gate. We hope you can prove you own those images that you stole and published, gentlemen. LOL at your ignorance. It's remarkable that men who supposed "make a good living" off the Internet have no idea that you cannot legally steal an image sitting in plain view just because you can steal it easily. I hope the people they do work for understand that they have such a poor understanding of 101 Internet ethics or basic old copyright law—and how stealing from a private business' Web site has nothing in common with a public servant providing public information to a newpaper. This public meltdown is fun to watch.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-18T14:25:48-06:00

ID

172366

Comment

I'm not going to defend these people, but it's worth mentioning that-- You know, I'm really not going to defend these people this time. Never mind! :o) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-18T14:42:50-06:00

ID

172367

Comment

Well, I am not sure exactly what Tom was going to say, but I suspect that perhaps he was going to point out that there are several of us that read both sites, including Tom, Knol, and myself. I can't speak for them, but I am neither angry nor stupid, and don't really appreciate the implication otherwise. If you take issue with those that run that site or even those that post there, I recommend that you direct your epithets at them specifically and not group everyone that reads that site into the same boat.

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-18T18:46:23-06:00

ID

172368

Comment

Actually, I was going to make an anal-retentive comment about copyright law, but I emailed it to her instead. :o) I read the site, but half the time it's to see if they're saying something unkind about me or somebody I know. Which is an awfully silly reason, but there you go. One of the nice things about my new gig is that I get more interesting criticism. For example, one of the Easy Street Irregulars once called me a lying nihilist. How can that compare to someone who regards me as "a clear and present danger to True Liberty," and promises that he "will do [his] utmost to ensure that everyone is made aware of [my] subversive activity"? With that kind of competition, the Other Site is going to have to work mighty hard for my attention. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-18T19:44:23-06:00

ID

172369

Comment

Well, I read both sites in order to stay abreast of the happenings about town, since I am not there to experience them for myself. My politics are neither "progressive" nor "conservative," but instead small L libertarian. As such, there are issues that I agree and disagree with on each site. I just wasn't interested in being blindly included in the "angry, stupid people" grouping simply because I read the "Other Site" as you guys bizarrely label it.

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-18T20:56:39-06:00

ID

172370

Comment

You know, I'm almost a fanatic about free access to information, but something about this resume thing makes me uncomfortable. It really doesn't seem quite jake to take shots at this resume when the woman isn't here to defend herself. Even if she was on a discussion forum, it would be a little bit more fair to do this kind of thing face to face. Has she made some claim for her background and/or education that isn't on her resume? That would be very different of course -- that's a good reason to check it out publicly. There have been some notable resume issues in the news -- That "Brownie" guy for instance that was put at the head of FEMA as a political reward, and his resume revealed he was not qualified for it. But fancy resumes and impressive degrees and post-graduate degrees that look real impressive on paper can be misleading. There are people who would make wonderful Police Chiefs with no more than a high school education. Maybe I joined this late -- forgive me if I'm missing something.

Author

Prospero

Date

2006-05-18T21:46:26-06:00

ID

172371

Comment

"But fancy resumes and impressive degrees and post-graduate degrees that look real impressive on paper can be misleading." <-- Prospero Man isn't that the truth. I remember my first job out of college. I was hired as a Network Admin for this SAP consulting company. A couple of months after I got there, they hired this lady as our Training Department Director. She had just spent the last 17 years in college collecting 3 BS/BAs, 3 MAs, and 2 PhDs. Due to the fact that we were renovating our offices, I had to share an office with her and she may well have been one of the most clueless people I have ever worked with in my entire life. She was a really nice person, but was completely unequipped to work out in the real world. Needless to say, she only lasted 3 months. Her husband, on the other hand, was one of the smartest guys I've ever met. He was a great programmer.

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-18T22:13:20-06:00

ID

172372

Comment

Sorry, Dog. I wasn't trying to group you with with the angry ones. I'm surprised to hear that someone as smart as you even goes there. I quit a long time ago, but still get stuff e-mailed to me. I usually don't respond, and I certainly won't link to that trash here. Thus the "Other site" innuendo. However, now and then, they attack the hard work of my people so hard and with such lies that I feel I must say something back to them. And they spend much more time here than anybody here spends there. All that said, however, you do remind me that they are not worth responding to, even when they steal our work and claim it as our own. As for Shirlene, she's a public servant and, as such, people have the right to discuss her resume and background (too bad it's so far into her tenure). I don't agree that she needs a bunch of fancy degrees to be a good chief. However, her lack of obvious education, coupled with her seemingly miniscule leadership skills and basic lack of knowledge about criminology (including arrest rates vs. crime rates), make the education more pertinent than it would be should she be doing a great job. That doesn't mean fancy degrees, but it does mean that she needs to show an effort to herself up to speed on basic job requirements. And fast.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-18T22:53:29-06:00

ID

172373

Comment

I make it a point to hear all sides of an issue. Basically the same reason I read both Free Republic and Democratic Underground. I don't believe anyone is well served by hanging out in echo chambers where their views are never challenged.

Author

Liberty Dog

Date

2006-05-18T23:02:53-06:00

ID

172374

Comment

Oh, I read "all sides," too, especially Libertarian material (being that I'm almost one, too). I don't read trash sites, though. And, certainly, a site set up to trash this site and our people, that focuses more on personal attacks and lies about us, is not exactly the moral, political and intellectual "opposite" of the JFP! I couldn't agree more the about the echo chamber thing. But I don't "patronize" trash sites, no matter where they claim to be politically. And the site of which we speak is nowhere near real conservative. But you know that as a Libertarian. Now, I will talk about that no longer. We have work to do. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-19T05:07:33-06:00

ID

172375

Comment

Also, one thing I love so much about the JFP Web site is that is exactly not an "echo chamber." Great discussions happen here about issue nuances by conservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals and people all along the spectrum. You don't throw an issue out and everybody here repeats the very same memes. They discuss, they agree, disagree. Most think independently and never defend an elected official just because they voted for them. This is what great discussion is all about, and is the oppsite of "echo chmaber." Of course, the smart conversants here read widely; you can tell. And they have widely divergently views on variious issues. I salute you all. Other than that, gotta fly. Will be out for the day. Ta.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-19T05:26:09-06:00

ID

172376

Comment

"OK, well, we’ll release them. I don’t have a problem with that, and I’m kind of pleased to release them, Donna. Because, again, the media is going to get slapped in the face because the numbers are pretty darn good." - Melton talking about the crime stats. Did ANYONE notice he said the numbers were "pretty darn good." Ahem! What the hell is going on here? The mayor is obviously not being made aware of the same ComStat #s we saw or is boldly lying to the media.... Or both. Talk about morals, ethics, and respect.

Author

kaust

Date

2006-05-19T08:28:50-06:00

ID

172377

Comment

Yes Knol, Donna and I both found that very odd when we finally did see the ComStat report. Because of what Mr. Melton had said, I expected it to show flat numbers or maybe even modest imporvement. (I did not expect to see that crime had been eliminated in 90 days.) We wanted the ComStat report because we own the damn thing and they have no right to keep it from us. Lo and behold, crime had gone up substantially. The question you raise about the mayor's statement is apt. ComStat demonstrates why it is so important that public documents be available on demand from the city administration. If we hadn't gone out there and rooted around for these numbers, they would still be a secret and no one in Jackson would know that crime was up. How is that democratic? We've posted Shirlene Anderson's resume for the same reason: we should have had her resume over nine months ago. It was ridiculous that the Melton administration withheld it from the public. Forget the Open Records Law for a moment and just use common sense. Do we citizens of Jackson deserve to know nothing about the qualifications, training and work history of our chief of police? That's absurd. In any case, I believe the city's interpretation of the "personnel" exemption is incorrect. We will continue to seek and post public records here whether the Metlon administration wants to give them to us or not. We will never post truly private documents; we have no interest in invading anyone's privacy. Posting Anderson's resume does not violate her privacy because when one becomes a high public official, one must surrender some privacy. Part of this process is educating city administrators on their obligations under the law. But if they won't follow the law, we will proceed with releasing documents anyway.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-05-19T10:21:39-06:00

ID

172378

Comment

What Brian said. ;-D The PublicEye is here and wide open.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-05-19T21:25:09-06:00