Am phoning this one in.
While the City of Oakland is in the news today after the folks at Anonymous posted the home addresses of some (not all) Oakland officials in response to Oakland police attacking some of Oakland's occupiers; I continue wondering when media will explore the lack of transparency in government in San Diego.
One ringy dingy
On occasion I telephone San Diego officials. Mostly San Diego judges. When I inquire to the judge's number the routine response is those telephone numbers are not available to me. When I ask why, am told "They're private."
Mirroring banks which began withdrawing their numbers from phone books in the 90's, (remember phone books) this routine response by clerks who seem to forget their job is to serve the public, I find troubling on a basic, citizenship level.
Transparency in government.
But the fact is telephone contracts for San Diego courts were awarded to SAIC.
I realized this when judges first began returning calls. Sometimes "SAIC" shows on the caller ID, and sometimes - a fake number.
Also not reported? In standard contracts Buyers are prohibited from disclosing SAIC was used for any "Publicity" without prior approval of SAIC. (Page 5 under Publicity.)
Am waiting for media ask why elected officials are following a path of secrecy, instead of transparency?
Could someone call me - with a real telephone number?
Comments