Police privacy more important than democracy

A federal judge in Columbus decided last week to make it easier for people to find personal information about police officers.

The judge has the misguided support of many Ohio media organizations because they feel restricting the public's access to these facts would hinder information gathering.

But we disagree.

With the exception of county sheriffs, officers are not elected officials, so there is no need to have open records.

Some citizens feel police have mistreated them. Opening personnel files to the public offers these slighted civilians the opportunity to act inappropriately in retaliation. It is unsafe to allow everyone to know where a specific officer lives or how many children are in the officer's family.

Police, especially undercover officers whose lives could be at risk if their identity is revealed, deserve a respite from their job.

Police authority figures, including chiefs, are held accountable for the actions of the entire unit. These high-ranking officials should be accessible to the public via phone. Other personal information such as addresses should remain private.

These limited amounts of public information about several supervisory officers should be the exception, not the rule for all members of the police force.

Personal safety is more important than a journalist's right to personal information that could be found through other means.

A good journalist should be able to locate and contact any source — including those not listed in conventional databases. An average journalist just will wait until the officer's next shift and call the department headquarters, even if there is only a brief window of time to make contact.

Either way, a police officer's safety is paramount and must be protected.

Musician's request for special fame is somewhat twisted

Most people request at least one outlandish birthday gift each year just in case the wish comes true.

Chubby Checker, inventor of "The Twist" and self-proclaimed "King of the way we dance since 1959" asked the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to place a statue honoring him in the courtyard of the Cleveland museum.

He claims he will not accept his membership in the Hall of Fame unless the statue is created. The museum, however, has not yet invited Checker to become immortalized with other musicians.

These desires, listed in a full-page advertisement in Billboard magazine, seem to be a publicity stunt.

What better way for a man who turns 60 today and is still on tour with his band, to regain the limelight than by making a very odd — and public — request?

But Checker's arguments became ridiculous when he also asked to be considered for a Nobel Prize for influencing all styles of modern dance.

Even if Checker's wishes were justified because someone thinks "The Twist" is crucial to the development of rock 'n' roll, Checker did not approach the issue correctly.

Essentially, Checker paid thousands of dollars to promote his cause, but he seems to be begging the Hall of Fame for acceptance. He could have asked a lawyer, friend or fellow musician to say a few words on his behalf.

Checker's dance is immortalized in the minds of many music fans so Hall of Fame officials should not let his letter affect their decision to extend or withhold an invitation to Checker. And if Checker is initiated one day, he should not expect a prominent statue.