Arnold G. York
The public’s right to know
As you can see in the guest editorial by Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, the California Supreme Court has made a clear and definitive decision on the public’s right to information about public employees. The salaries of public employees are public information, discoverable under the California Public Records Act, and now available to the California public. I’m not just talking about generic information about pay categories and such. It means that the public has a legal right to know exactly what every public employee in the state of California is paid, by name. That includes state employees, county employees, city employees, sheriffs, police, firemen, paramedics, school administrators, teachers; in fact, just about every public employee.
I’m a board member of the California First Amendment Coalition and we were watching to see what the Supreme Court would do in this situation. No one was sure which way it would go. There were a number of large, strong organizations that were adamantly opposed to releasing this kind of information to the public. The employee unions argued that the release of this information would be a violation of every public employee’s right to privacy. The California Supreme Court rejected that argument. The police unions argued that releasing the salaries by name would make the all police and sheriff’s deputies vulnerable and amenable to lawsuits, and make it more difficult for them to do their jobs. The California Supreme Court also clearly rejected that argument.
I know that this court decision is going to shock and outrage some public employees. Many, I’m sure, will be surprised to find out that this information has been public for years. In our Sacramento newspaper, the Capitol Weekly, we routinely publish information by name of all new state employee hires, all promotions with salaries listed by name. Also the salaries of everyone who works for the state Senate, the state Assembly and the executive branch (meaning the governor’s office), and all the executive agencies workers are published by name.
I’m sure many people will wonder why the Supreme Court decided the way it did, and did so forthrightly in an opinion written by the Chief Justice Ronald M. George.
I can speculate about some of the reasons.
First, the state of California is by far the largest employer in the state with 235,000 employees. When you add to that the county, city and school district employees you can begin to appreciate the impact of public employee pay and benefits on the state budget. One of the problems the government agencies-state, county and local-face is the impact of the pensions and ` lifetime medical guarantees to retired government employees. There was speculation at one point that Orange County and San Diego County could go bankrupt. Much of this is being driven by demographics. People are retiring and living much longer. At the same time that the percentage of retirees is growing, there are fewer, younger workers currently employed to help pay for the retired workers. We’re facing the same demographic challenge with Social Security, which is why the age at which people can receive benefits is creeping up.
There are also many instances of people gaming the system. The California Highway Patrol had a surge of chiefs retiring on disability during the last few years of service. It was known, not too affectionately around the Legislature, as the “chiefs’ disease.”
Some of these issues are very tough. Legislative bodies are going to have to try and balance the promises made to former public workers against the needs of the working population. Ultimately, these decisions are going to be made in the public arena either by the Legislature or by initiative, if history is any predictor.
I suspect the California Supreme Court decided to put it all out there, so that the information is in the open, and then let the political process take its course. The chief justice said, “Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy.” He obviously meant it.
In keeping with both the letter and the spirit of this decision, over time, we are going to be making public records requests, which we intend to publish in The Malibu Times and put online as soon as we receive it. For those agencies that don’t comply, and I suspect that a few will try their hardest to circumvent the decision, we’ll keep you abreast of the battle, blow by blow.