Posted on 08/27/2007 11:39:29 AM PDT by SmithL
The salaries of government employees in California, including police officers, are a public record and must be available upon request to "ensure transparency in government," the state Supreme Court ruled in a decision released Monday morning.
The right to privacy of the information that employee unions argued "is not a reasonable one," the justices wrote, ending a lawsuit the Contra Costa Times filed more than three years ago against the city of Oakland.
Even if disclosure of the information "may cause discomfort or embarrassment" it must be released, the decision states.
The justices wrote that police salaries must be disclosed except in narrow circumstances "if an officer's anonymity is essential to his or her salary." The justices affirmed that police cannot use broad claims of officer safety to make blanket denials of salary information.
The decision is a defeat for the public employee unions that had appealed a 2004 decision of an Alameda County Superior Court judge who ordered the records released.
"Despite the wrong-headed and persistent opposition of public employee unions, the court has reaffirmed a basic tenet of American democracy. that public business must be conducted in public," said John Armstrong president and publisher of the Times.
The Times attorney Karl Olson said the decision upholds the long-held premise that salary information is public and it overrules a 2003 appellate court decision that governments have cited to blocking access to salary data.
"I think this is a landmark opinion affirming the public's right of access to information about how the government is run and how tax dollars are spent," Olson said.
The decision ends a case that began more than three years ago when the Times sued Oakland after the city changed policy and refused to no longer release the gross salaries of its employees after years of making such information public.
Two lower courts sided with the newspaper. Two unions representing Oakland employees appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court appeal drew wide interest. All of the daily newspaper's in the state and the New York Times filed friend of the court briefs siding with the Times. The ACLU and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association and a union representing University of California employees also filed such briefs.
Unions representing law enforcement groups, including the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, filed briefs in opposition.
Police have long held that any records of an officers employment is confidential, even salaries. State law does grant greater restrictions on police records than those of other government workers. Police are the only employees to which the public does not have a right to right to disciplinary records, for instance.
But until the decision involving the Palo Alto Daily News in 2003, most government agencies released police pay records
February 2003 - The Palo Alto Daily News files routine California Public Records Act requests with 10 San Mateo County cities for the names and yearly salaries, including bonuses and overtime, of all government employees. Two employee unions object and five cities - Atherton, Belmont Burlingame, Foster City, and San Carlos reject the request.
April 2, 2003 - San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Rosemary Pfeiffer grants an injunction stopping the release of the salary data, ruling that employees right to privacy trumps the public's right to the salaries. The Daily News soon appeals. The San Jose Mercury News joins the suit.
Oct. 29, 2003 - The California First District Court of Appeal rules in the employees favor, upholding Pfeiffer's decision. The decision says employees salaries are held in personnel files, which are off-limits to the public. The case becomes known as the "Priceless decision" for the name of the Daily News' owner.
May 21, 2004 - The newspapers settle the case by allowing the cities to release a list of all employee salaries and separate list of all employees names. The lists don't associate a specific employee with a specific salary. The newspapers' attorney, James Chadwick, says an appeal with the Supreme Court was not filed because the unions initiated the case and media would prefer to settle the matter through a case of its own choosing.
June 7, 2004 - Oakland, which has released employees' exact salaries with names for at least a decade, announces it will no longer make them public. The City Council cites privacy concerns following a closed-door session and bases the decision on the Priceless case. Employee unions advocate for the move. City Attorney John Russo says he will recuse himself if the decision faces legal challenges.
June 28, 2004 - The Times reports that some cities and government agencies are now citing the Priceless case in announcing salaries will not be released. They include BART and Richmond. Other cities soon make similar announcements.
July 22, 2004 - The Times sues Oakland in Alameda County Superior Court, demanding the names and exact salaries of the city's employees. The state's newspapers quickly rally to the case on the side of disclosure. Public employee unions join the case on the side of the city.
Nov. 8, 2004 - Alameda County Superior Judge Steven A. Brick orders the disclosure of the salaries, writing the information is needed "so that citizens can effectively monitor the activities of the government." The data shows that 74 of the cities 100 highest employees are police and fire fighters and that some increased their yearly gross by more than $100,000 through overtime.
Dec. 1, 2004 - The Oakland Police Officers' Association and Local 21 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers appeal Brick's ruling to the state appellate court.
April 18, 2005 - The California First District Court of Appeal upholds Brick's decision in a 3-0 ruling. "Payment of public employees' salaries is a public expense, and the amounts and recipients of that expense are public records," the justices wrote. The decision sharply contradicts the October 2003 decision by a different panel of appellate justices in the Priceless case.
May 27, 2005 - The unions appeal to the Supreme Court, which grants review of the case on July 27.
May 30 2007 - The high court hears oral arguments in San Francisco. Justices indicate they believe salary records are public; they spend most of the hour-long argument grilling lawyers on whether information on police offers working undercover should be included in their decision.
Aug. 27 2007 - The Supreme Court rules that salaries are a public record.
I want to see them post their income tax filings right here.
Or, let's go to work and get a federal law that makes government employee salaries private.
Most people would be TOTALLY blown away if they could see these government employees salaries.
“Or, let’s go to work and get a federal law that makes government employee salaries private”.
It’s a “common sense” decision. The people pay the salaries of public employees and have every right to know how much they are being paid. If the public employees don’t like it they can always get a job in the private sector.
Ah, yes, and your position on security cameras on public streets?
In my opinion, I’d like to see government employees reduced drastically.
Hope pensions and benefits are also going to be listed so private citizens will get pissed off.
Well the Lansing State Journal in Michigan set up a web site so everyone could see what all state workers made. BUT the Governors staff was exempt. And of course the great retirement & medical benefits that our legislature gets was not published.
These government employees starting salaries would blow most people away. And like you said, throw in those benefits and pensions....Middle class America would be outraged.
Many county, local states already provide this information. I don’t think many are all that surprised at government wages. I think the most shocking wages and benefits are those provided to law enforcement, teachers and firefighters.
Who could possibly be opposed to revealing the pay of public employees, and why would they oppose it? This seems like a no brainer.
“I think the most shocking wages and benefits are those provided to law enforcement, teachers and firefighters.”
I don’t know about your state, but in Nevada, teachers make no where near what police or firefighters make. However, I really don’t begrudge that difference because their work is usually much more physically hazzardous than being a teacher (although that can be arguable depending on where you teach).
Teachers in Nevada start (right out of college with a BA degree) at around $28,000 a year. We do get medical insurance and money put into a pension for us each year by the state. Teacher salaries top out at 16 years at about $60,000. That’s if you have worked 16 years in the district and have earned a masters degree plus 32 hours of course work beyond that. If you still only have your BA degree, after 16 years you top out at about $50,000 per year. I’m not sure that I would call this “shocking”. However, I don’t know what other states pay.
After all, the government already knows how much we make.
Unions = shocking wages and benefits
If Joe or Jane Sixpack want to know, they are free to present themselves and ask, and should be told.
Government wages can be public and still afford privacy by not disclosing names. Of what good does it do to have your neighbor know your wages. Wages are based on classification and classifications can be made public. Disclosing names I believe is inappropriate and totally unnecessary. It is none of your neighbors’ business what a person makes. People who work for the government are not running for office. They are serving the people. Should private contractors of the government also disclose their wages?
I estimate the pension benefit in a lot of government jobs is more like 45% of the gross salary. They make it look lower like 15% by assuming incredible appreciation in equities like 11% after inflation a year forever. Right now the only 100% safe investment treasuries is paying about 1-2% after inflation.
Then there is the healthcare insurance for their entire family.. for life including in retirement. That may add another 40% or more depending on how high health care expenses go in the future, and it is for the employee and their spouse.
Then overtime, bonuses, some have personal vehicles, some have daycare.. etc..
I agree with this decision.. but in addition I would like the government to estimate what their pension and health benefits to government workers what the potential really is incase stocks don’t appreciate at 14% forever. Say they only manage 4% which is quite possible.
See Ford and GM’s pension and healthcare crisis to know whats possible.
I lived in Nevada for many years. I think like any profession there are good and bad employees. I certainly would never teach at a public school, not enough discipline and little help from parents. Teachers are not quite as well paid as police officers and firefighters, that is for sure (my brother is a police sgt with Metro). I think the wage is decent for teachers considering other benefits they receive. I think the pensions and insurance benefits would shock the general public. My husband is a government employee, he makes less salary than he would in the private sector but the pension and health benefits even it out.
Including local, state, and Federal, I've read that outside of the military, we now have about 20 million people on government payrolls.
They are serving the people.
Uh huh, and what exactly are these millions producing?
Well stated.
Want to take a shot at the last line of 18?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.