A County Employee Has Been Fired For Sharing Racial Disparity Data


The streisand is strong with this one...
She was sharing the information at a data conference, where the topics are specifically, and solely around data and using the specific software (Tableau) to analyze data. The focus was not on the content of her data, but rather the analysis itself. That said, you don't usually get to get up and speak at these kind of conferences - it is planned months in advance and you usually have to submit an application or some other kind of form, etc in order to do so. I highly doubt that no one at the County knew she was going to present this content at this conference.
I don't even know what to make of Amanda Lamb. Extreme racism bordering on legal slavery is prevalecor in every part of Portland from the arts, to tech, to the city, and without a doubt the corrupt public defenders, DA and most definately Multonmah judges. (And those are just the areas I am familar with. ) Portlanders can't even view death or violent racism as morally wrong. Though Lamb's actions show steps against a strong racist system in her mind she is just rebelling against dad dy , not a racist system. Because its not possible to be white and not racist in Portland, only mentally off.
Information created by local government agencies in Oregon is presumed to be public information unless it can be justified as confidential under a specific exemption. ORS 192.410 et seq.

Unless the County can show that the information was allowed by law to be kept secret, Ms. Lamb was sharing information that the public is legally entitled to have.
So now she is fired, but we still have an actual Nazi who retailiated against a female coworker on the force, I am sure getting rid of her will fix the problem... http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index… http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index…
Euphonius said it all: It's public information. If the governing authority doesn't want it to get out, it must either seek and get an exemption under carefully prescribed rules, or not collect it in the first place. We the people pay the cost of collecting these stats. We the people should and do enjoy unfettered access to them--whether particular public SERVANTS like it or not.
It's public info, just like Chloe Eudaly's "private" Facebook page where she continually interacts with her lobbyist friends and discusses public policy.
If this employee reported public information, how can it possibly be legal to fire her? Shame on these corrupt judges.
HatedHispanicWoman ummm what? Honestly, perhaps you have such a jaded view of white people in Portland is because you share nonsense like this out loud. "It's not possible to be white and non-racist in Portland." "She is just rebelling against daddy." OK, whatever.
#9: Uh, yeah no, it's not just like that. Eudaly raises a legitimate question about whether her personal fb posts are public information. In this case there's no dispute.
the system is so fucked. How are people even arguing that it's justifiable to fire somebody sharing data that should be public. This is a step towards having any information property of the government and punishing transparency.
I attended grad school with Amanda. She has a reputation as professional and skilled.

Since this is data pertaining to our justice system here in Oregon, I would presume it consists of public records. Given the public policy interest in this topic, I believe the County has an obligation to explain why, exactly, it needs inter-governmental agreements in order to share this information with the public. Is it exempted from public disclosure? If so, why?

I mean, if they wanted to discipline her for speaking on behalf of the county without authorization, or for poor work / quality of analysis, that would be one thing. But they are saying the discipline is for the unauthorized sharing of information. Because of that, they have an obligation to us, the public, to tell us why that information shouldn't be public to begin with.
@ #12, not really, the case law is extremely clear, and Eudaly is acting completely counter to it. She will be sued for her stupidity, and cost us taxpayers even more money.
@15 yep, Eudaly's violations are clear, but instead of owning up to it, changing her practices to comply with the law and moving on, her response is more like what you see from Trump. In the long run she will be held accountable but in the short run some people are taken in by the vehement nature of her denials and distracted by her personal attacks on those who disagree with her in any way.