SNEK POLICY
Government Immunity Should Depend on the Conduct
Government officials should not face personal ruin for every reasonable mistake. They also should not receive blanket protection for intentional or reckless abuse.
Reasonable conduct deserves protection
Officials acting reasonably and in good faith within legitimate duties should have meaningful legal protection and government-backed defense.
Abuse deserves accountability
When an official acts recklessly, corruptly, dishonestly, retaliates, or knowingly violates someone’s rights, civil and professional accountability should become available.
Apply the rule consistently
The title on someone’s business card should never matter more than what the person actually did.
READ THE FULL POLICY
Why SNEK thinks this
Government employees need room to make difficult decisions without fearing personal ruin every time someone disagrees with the outcome. They also should not receive a blanket shield for reckless or intentional violations simply because the misconduct occurred while wearing a badge, holding an office, or acting for an agency.
How it would work
Reasonable good-faith mistakes should generally be defended and paid for by the government employer. Reckless, malicious, knowingly unlawful, or intentional conduct should be capable of producing personal liability after a fair adjudication. The standard should focus on the conduct, the information reasonably available at the time, and the seriousness of the violation.
Where we’re flexible or still working it out
Different government jobs involve different pressures, so the same factual test will not always produce the same answer. SNEK is not eliminating all official protections. It is replacing blanket immunity with a case-specific approach that protects reasonable public service and exposes serious abuse.
Related SNEK policies
A Right to an Attorney Has to Mean a Real Defense • Better Police. Higher Standards.