Redacted

There are two very interesting articles in the T&G today. First, there's the initial report of what the T&G got from the Worcester Police Department. Heavily redacted to remove the names of those who made complaints against officer Rojas, and even the transcripts of eight 911 calls, ...the 1508 pages from WPD indicate a very high level of scrutiny to, ostensibly, protect various people's privacy and not stray from that, not even in the slightest.

On the other hand, this article appears to be an example of exactly the opposite, reporting no "redactions" in the release of a city employee's case specifics (Worcester firefighter). In fact, the City Dictator is even quoted about how diligently cases like this are pursued. How did the paper get all that information?

The glaring inconsistency of what is or is not a "public record" tends to be revealed between these two articles. My bullshit detector is still clanging away like crazy... I'll be patient, though.

Maybe the City Council will want to ask the City Dictator how such a profoundly inconsistent release of city employee information can possibly occur?