Slashdot Mirror


City Fights Blogger On Display of Public Information

rokkaku writes "When the gadfly blogger Claremont Insider went searching for information about employee compensation on the city of Claremont web site, they never expected to find scans of pay stubs for all the employees. Nor did they expect the city attorney to demand that they remove copies of those pay stubs from their web site. They found it especially odd since, according to California law, the compensation of public employees is public information."

17 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Pay stub != compensation by winkydink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Rokkaku:

    You are very confused. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

    Yes, a California judge has recently ruled that the compensation of public
    employees is public information. But all of the pay stubs that I have
    seen in, oh, the last 20 years have more information on them than that.

    Many pay stubs have the employee's social security number on it. Is that
    public information?
    Are all of one's deductions for various benefits also public information?
    What about the ones dealing with health care?
    Or one's marital status?
    Or amount of tax withholding?

    In fact, an employee's pay stub probably has enough information on it
    to steal that employee's identity. Yes, the public has a right to know
    what a public employee earns. The public doesn't have a right to steal
    a public employee's identity.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Pay stub != compensation by DavidShor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nice straw man, did you bother to actually look at what he scanned? There was no information about any of the things you mentioned(Except marital status, you could tell whether a girl was married by the Ms or Mrs.). All it had was a dollar amount of benefits given, Salary, and name.

      See http://claremontca.blogspot.com/2007/09/labor-day_07.html

    2. Re:Pay stub != compensation by jasonditz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When is it ever not "post a counter assertion without any effort to actually provide some backing" day at Slashdot.

      If we didn't have 20-30 posts that make no sense and 5-10 replies each that amount to RTFA, these comment sections would be damned short.

    3. Re:Pay stub != compensation by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative

      The posting I read (before posting) said:

      Until all this can be sorted out, we're posting the text of our Labor Day post minus the images in question. We maintain the city claims of confidentiality for the information posted on their website are baseless.

      It does not mention if the text posted is the entirety of what was readable in the scans prior to their removal. Nice attempt at weaseling, but if you RTFA it mentions what information they contained:

      "there were no Social Security numbers, no dates of birth, no personal identifiers. The documents only contained name and pay information"

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  2. Except... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ..."public information" != "information that must necessarily be accessible instantly, on-demand, via collection or aggregation by a third party" (regardless of how or from whom they were obtained, and it's also not clear whether images of the actual pay stubs themselves are completely "public information", even if they were accessible for a time)

    (And love how the article is tagged "censorship"...)

    Also, there is a lot of "public information" that isn't online and instantly searchable and accessible en masse. There are other issues here, which I'd hope someone who stops to think about it for a few moments can imagine.

    And the bottom line is that anyone can still determine the compensation of a public employee if they wish to do so.

    For example, the University of Wisconsin System made its budget summaries, including compensation - known as the Redbook available on the internet. However, now the personnel salaries are only accessible via computers with UW System IP addresses. Else,

    Print copies of the Redbooks are located in the main library at all UW System institutions and the central public libraries in Madison and Milwaukee.

    Salary information can be obtained by contacting the Human Resources department of any UW System institution. A CD of the Redbooks from fiscal years 2000-01 to 2006-07 can be purchased for $10.00. To file a written request for salary information or to purchase a CD, contact: [...]

    Why? Because it was being abused. So now it's not universally available and publicly searchable on the internet. That doesn't mean the information still isn't "public". And before you say that the government's job should be to use technology to make access to such information easier, e.g., via putting on the internet, ask yourself if you'd want all information about you that is technically "public information" aggregated and made quickly and easily searchable by anyone on the internet on a whim, or if you'd rather that people have to actually have a legitimate need for specific pieces of information, and be willing to go through the processes to get it?

    Would you want anyone to see images of your entire pay stubs, even if you work for a public agency and your compensation is "public"?

    When things like the Redbook and Wisconsin Circuit Court Access became more restrictive, most of the complaints I heard over time were from people who could no longer do the essential equivalent of casual stalking of individuals' salaries and civil, criminal, and traffic court records. Persons who still have a legitimate need for it can still easily get access to the information, and any member of the public can easily obtain any information they might need.

    Further, this case seems a little odd...if all of the pay stubs were available on the city's web site, why did they have to aggregate them all? They were already publicly available, right? Obviously the city didn't intend for them to be displayed or obtained the way they were, and regardless of how much "their fault" it was, how incompetent they were at running their web site, or whether it was a data leak, even if it it is "public information" doesn't mean it needs to be, or should be, aggregated en masse on a third party internet site.

    Also, while the individuals' compensation may be public, actual images of pay stubs may not be at all (and probably isn't). Again, even if the city had this out in the open through their error, that still doesn't mean it should be fair game for everyone until the end of time, regardless of whether some of the content of the image is "public information". A mistake is a mistake. The city isn't filing charges against someone for "hacking"; they're asking that images of pay stubs of city employees be removed from the internet. The public can still discover the compensation of the employees if they wish,

    1. Re:Except... by torkus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Public information means what it says ... information that is freely available to the public. Period. If you think there is security in making it more difficult to obtain you're delusional.

      It's like saying "free speech!!!" and then turning around and expecting someone to excercise that right only in their basement. At a whisper. When alone.

      If it's public information it should be readily available. Furthermore, if it's PUBLIC INFORMATION how can you reasonable claim copyright?! That's pure insanity. Who holds the copyright? The public? Go futher, it's information - *not* an artistic work of any sort. What will they try now, patent it?

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    2. Re:Except... by peretzpup · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it's public information & I'm a member of the public, that means once I get it I can do whatever I please with it. The government certainly isn't necessarily obligated to provide easy access to it, but I'm not sure why I shouldn't be allowed to do so. Now whether these stubs are in fact public information could, possibly, be a valid question. Bit suspicious of governments retroactively declaring information non-public after they've published it, myself.

    3. Re:Except... by Claremont+Buzz · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, you are right that there is more to the story than the subject line. However, you are incorrect in assuming that we at the blog aggregated the information. That was the form it was in on the city website - 283 paystub images bundled together in 1 .pdf file.

      Also, we did not post every one of the 283 images. We posted two, one for the Claremont City Manager, and one for the director of Human Services.

      Additionally, the laws governing these matters are particular to each state. Wisconsin is not California. Like it or not, in California, as a result of an 8/27/07 California Supreme Court decision, the information on the paystubs is public. That's why we did not think anything of it when we saw the images. We simply thought Claremont was providing that information on their website as they did with everything else - agendas, minutes, and city staff reports going back fifty years.

      A local newspaper, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, has been covering the issue and submitted the matter to several California public records experts, none of whom found anything exceptional in the images, other than the bank routing numbers, which were not discernable in our images. Here is a link to the Bulletin article:

      http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_6888125

    4. Re:Except... by jthill · · Score: 3, Informative

      "public information" != "information that must necessarily be accessible instantly, on-demand

      Sure: the government isn't obligated to go to any great length to make it convenient for the public to get public data, and they can even charge for what efforts they do make.

      So?

      That's not even remotely similar to the government forbidding a member of the public from exposing public information which he regards as scandalous to public scrutiny, which is what happened here.

      Would you want anyone to see images of your entire pay stubs[...]?

      Even the most slack-witted scan, which I just performed with about ten seconds' effort, reveals this:

      The city did not contact this blog, nor have we been told what information in the documents is confidential - there were no Social Security numbers, no dates of birth, no personal identifiers. The documents only contained name and pay information
      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  3. compensation != paystubs by Surt · · Score: 4, Informative

    The compensation is public. Pay stubs are not compensation. Pay stubs contain fun stuff that may lead to the compromise of the financial security of the individual. Requesting the takedown of the pay stubs was more than reasonable.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  4. They're just ignorant. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I deal with FOIA type stuff all the time, and the truth of it is, most government employees have no idea what is public and what is not. They fire off knee jerk threats, and withhold stuff all the time.

    Used to be the media kept them in better check, but if your local newspapers aren't suing the crap out of them every time they step out of line (and mostly they're not these days, because it's expensive), then they start power tripping and keeping secrets.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:They're just ignorant. by winkydink · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the California ruling came about as the result of the Contra Costa Times suing the City of Oakland.

      http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6732431

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  5. the yro scolor scheme sucks by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    let me repeat: the yro color scheme sucks. Particularly the part where comment titles are a slightly darker shade of red than the background box.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:the yro scolor scheme sucks by Pootworm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Agreed, now I have to read the actual text of the comment to know what's being discussed. That's just not the Slashdot way!

  6. Don't Give In by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't give in just because the city attorney says he wants it all back. He is not the law. Only a court can decide what's legal and what isn't. Taking legal advice from a city attorney, or the policeman who just arrested you, is some of the worst advice you will get.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  7. Public Information by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Generally you WRITE a REQUEST for this information, not snoop around and find it. Bad on the City to leave stubs lying around as that's just more stuff for identity thieves to pillage.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Public Information by Claremont+Buzz · · Score: 4, Informative
      You presume a number of incorrect things. First, there was no "snooping around" involved. The information was posted on a public, online City of Claremont archive designed to reduce the need for the public to make written requests for city documents. The site had been up for several years. We accessed the information while researching an essay on public employee compensation. We simply typed a search for the Claremont City Manager, Jeff Parker, together with the word "performance." We were looking for his latest performance evaluation, which was discussed in public at a city council meeting earlier this year. Up popped a .pdf with pay stubs for all city employees.

      Second, there was no personal information for ID thieves to use on any of the paystubs. No Social Security numbers, no dates of birth, no personal phone numbers or home addresses. Only the employee's name and payroll information. All of this information is public information in California - other states may have different laws, but this is the state of affairs in California.

      The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a local newspaper that has been covering the story, has a copy of the same .pdf file the blog used. The paper published an article on this topic today:

      http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_6888125