AgdaPkt 2007-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9B Page 13 �eg�� Decisions Ciarify Questions Regarding the Disclosuw�af Rubiic Ernpiayee and Peace Officer Information ln companion decisions issued earlier this week,the Califomia Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Gatifornia Public f2ecords Act(CPRA)regarding fhe discfosure of name, salary,and other personneF infarmation related to public employees and peace officers. Tne state Supreme Court ruled in /ntemationa!Federafion of Professiona!and Technical Engineers, Loca/29 v. Superior Court,that the names and salaries of public employees,including peace o#ficers,can be disciosed under CPRA. In the second case, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Courf,the state Supreme Court determined that certain peace officer employee information(names, employing departments,and hiring and terminatiort dates)that is stored by the commission,may also be disclosed. The decisions cl�s�the open Isgai quesfidn of whether this type of information is subject fo disclosure,or whether its disciosure would violate any privacy interest the affected employees may have. Lit'rgatian Deta[Is In Infema6onal Federatiorr of Professiona!and Technicaf Engineers, �ocal 21 v. Suparior Court, newspaper reporters,relying on CPRA, requested that the city ofi Oakland provide them with the names,job titles, and gross salaries of a11 city employees who earned$100,000 or more in a fiscal year. The city disclosed the saiary and overtime information for each jab classiftcation,but did not disclose individual names and corresponding saiaries based on the belief that such disclosure was improper under CPRA. CPRR's fundamentaE precept is that gouernmental records shall be disclosed to the pubiic, upon reqvest,unless there is a legat basis nat to do so. 'fhe empioyees'group argued the salary information was could nat be disclosed because it feli within the Ac:t's exception for"[p]ersonnel, rr�edica!or similar frles,the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invaslon of personal privacy." The state Supreme Court ultimately conduded that disckosure afithe information wouid nat con$titute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Although some employees may prefer to keep their salaries priva#e,this preference does noi outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. The purpose of CPRA is fo give the pubiic access#o infarmation that enables them to monitor the functioning of their go�emment. !r�its dacision,the state Supreme Court said,"It is difficuit to imagine a more critical time for public scrutiny o#i#s governmental decision-making process than when the latter is determining how it shail spend pubEic funds." For this and other reasons,fhe state Supreme Court conduded the information was suhject fo disclosure. Although the specific ruling addressed the disciosure of individuals earning$10Q,000 or more,the state Supreme Court's reasoning would seem to apply broadly to all public empfoyees. In the second opinion, Commissian on Peace Offcer Standards and Training v. Superior Cour�, a newspaper reporter asked the commission far the narrtes, employing departments,and hiring and termination dates af California peace afficers that are listed in the cammission's database. The newspaper wanted the information in order to determine why and how often peace officers ieave one agency in order to serve in another,whether particular agencies are better able to retain more experienced officers, and whether officers who are dismissed from one or more agencies nonetheless are hired by another. The state Supreme Court concluded,in general,the"snformation is subject to disciosure. Although it was acknowledged, however,there may be instances in which disc#osure is not proper. In its ruling{he state Supreme Court said"If the duties of a particuiar officer, such as one who is operafing undercover, demand ananymity,the need to protect the officer's sa#ety and 5