Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras
Subscribe

Breaking News:

KOPEL: Privacy concerns at Post

By Dave Kopel, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 14, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

If Gladys Kravitz, the obnoxiously nosy neighbor from the TV series and movie Bewitched, had to choose a favorite Denver paper, I suspect that she would pick The Denver Post. Last week, the Post published on its Web site the name, job title and compensation of more than 37,000 state of Colorado government employees, as well as employees of the University of Colorado and community college systems. The information is in searchable databases in the "Data Center" at denverpost.com.

Advocates for domestic violence victims quickly objected, arguing that the database could provide a tool for abusers to find victims who are in hiding. In the comments section of the Post Web site, many state employees worried that the database would facilitate identity theft.

The Post's managing editor for digital media, Mark Cardwell, wrote an online response stating that similar "databases have been published in other states with no identity or safety repercussions." I contacted the National White Collar Crime Center, which is an investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, and was told that the limited information in the Post database would not create a risk of identity theft. Thus far, the Colorado critics have not pointed to actual examples from other states of domestic violence victims, correctional officers or other persons being harmed as a result of similar databases.

Legally speaking, state employee salaries are public records. But although the Post did not violate legal privacy rights, I think that the database violates the reasonable privacy interests of state employees. For example, if you are trying to decide whether state employees are underpaid or overpaid, you might want to know that someone engaged in maintenance for the Colorado Department of Transportation makes $59,638 (a figure which includes salary, stipends, per diem and overtime). But you don't need to know that person's name.

I asked Cardwell why the Post didn't just publish the compensation data without the names. He explained: "By attaching names to the salaries, we make our government more transparent. This allows the public to identify abuses and inequalities in a way publishing classification information would not. We discussed a cutoff for a minimum salary, but we believe that this would be arbitrary. In another state, there was an issue around school janitors making more than the school's principals - and there was also a chronic problem around 'no-show' workers. Putting salaries to names is the best way to uncover these sort of issues."

Cardwell is right that a salary cutoff for naming names would be "arbitrary," but so is any line-drawing. For example, the legal age of adulthood is, in most cases 18 years, but it's arbitrary to say that a person who is exactly 18 is significantly more mature than someone who is 17 years and 11 months. Any line chosen for a privacy cutoff - such as $40,000 or $60,000 - would be arbitrary. But that doesn't mean that no effort should be made to protect the privacy of lower-level employees.

To identify some disparities (such as the principals-vs.-janitors example Cardwell cited), one needs only job titles, not employee names.

Moreover, while transparency is an important value, it's not the only value. After all, the Post does not publish the salaries of its own employees, or a full record of all the investments of Post publisher Dean Singleton, even though the Post has every legal right to do so, and publishing the information might identify unfair inequalities or conflicts of interest.

As a legal issue, the clerk who works for the Post is different from the one who works for the Colorado Historical Society. But as an issue of good journalistic judgment, my view is that both clerks have privacy interests that should be respected by not publishing their compensation online.

Commendably, the Post opened up an online readers poll about the database. With more than 3,700 votes, 73 percent said that the publication was "really wrong," and another 14 percent said it was "wrong." Only 5 percent said it was "not wrong" and that they were "glad to have that info." Another 5 percent said there was "nothing wrong."

Cardwell attributed the landslide negative results to the intense feelings of state employees. But even if many of the "wrong" votes came from angry state employees, the small number of "glad to have that info" votes (under 200 readers) indicates that public interest in pushing salary transparency to its legal limits may not be very great. In regard to privacy, I think the Post's readers showed better judgment than did its staff.

Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute, an attorney and author of 10 books. He can be reached at kopeld@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • June 14, 2008

    10:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RJS07 writes:

    If there is a problem with posting the salaries, it is with posting the people's addresses. I don't consider that necessary information. What I am entitled to know is how many of my tax dollars go to that state employee that I just dealt with. With upcoming union organization of state employees that Ritter is promoting, I think the info is even MORE important.

  • June 14, 2008

    12:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    Job title, state agency, and salary are all that people needed to know. Who cares what the name of the janitor in the Veterinary Science dept. at CSU, or the name of the administrative assistant to the undersecretary of mining deeds at the Secretary of State's office is? Dave Kopel is right. There is a privacy concern here.

  • June 14, 2008

    4:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    The amusing thing is that the Post HEAVILY CENSORSHIPS all the comments on the news; Since you like naming names here is one to chew on...Robert Gift ( the GODERATOR ) is NO GIFT to anyone who supports the freedom of speech the way the Post does!

    I suspect that this " Gift " is a pseudonym; no one could be as narrow-minded as he is.

    I like the free-wheeling expressiveness that the ROCKY has. I DON'T care for the pecksniffs at the Post. Or it's sister rag, the San Jose Mercury News out in the SFBA. ( AKA La Prensa Norte )

    So it appears that the Post is an example of HYPOCRISY at it's worst. The editors should be ashamed of themselves..

    This just may be one of the reasons the Post and SJMN readership numbers are falling into the toilet....

    An idea: why not print the Post and the SJMN rags IN SPANISH?

    That would be aligned with the slanted news the Post and SJMN publish....

  • June 15, 2008

    10:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    yaakovwatkins writes:

    If Bush had published this information about Federal employees, the Post would scream about police state tactics.

  • June 15, 2008

    4:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    nonayerbsns writes:

    DID ANYBODY ACTUALLY EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE LIST IN QUESTION? Thanks to Kopel, a lot of people will now.

  • June 16, 2008

    10:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    I guess Kopel and the folks out at the Indendence Institute don't like gov't transparency.

    I respectfully disagree.

    Oh well...no surprises from the far right.

  • June 20, 2008

    1:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    While I sympathize with the people who had their names published, I agree with the poster who wants to know the salary of the government employee he or she just had to deal with!

    Government transparency is essential for a healthy democracy, and I'm afraid a certain loss of privacy is a price you have to pay if you choose to work in a capacity paid for by public dollars.

  • June 24, 2008

    9:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    KittyMama writes:

    You want to know the salary of the government employee you just dealt with? Well, first off, you were always able to get this information - it's always been available on request. All the Post has done is make our names and financial information available to every felon, lunatic, hacker, stalker and identity thief who can click a mouse. Tell me again, how does this benefit you?

    Second, WHY do you think this information helps you? If the employee you just dealt with was rude or incompetent, you should report him. It doesn't matter how much he makes. That shouldn't enter your decision, though you might be surprised at how little we make compared to our counterparts in the private sector.

    In the last several years, the State's benefits have fallen to well below market rate. The salaries are low, and because the legislature adopted a flawed "pay for performance" plan, there is no way for workers hired in the last decade to work their way through the pay grades. People who have worked for the state five years and more are still languishing at the bottom of the pay scale.

    In addition, public employees have too long been the easy target for politicians looking to make hay with budget cuts, self-righteous media looking to create a "scandal" without regard for presenting a balanced story, and private citizens who feel free to abuse us because "I pay your salary."

    The low pay and the morale-busting attacks are costing you money. The State is not attracting and retaining newer workers - there's more than a 50% turnover among employees in the first five years. Studies suggest it costs you more than a year's pay to train a new employee to full productivity - and that money is going to waste more than half the time because employees are leaving before you get the benefit of that training. And guess what? Some estimates say that 30-40% of State workers, those who've been around MORE than ten years, are planning to retire in the next 5-10 years. When they go, who will be ready to replace them? What will you do when your bridges are inspected, your prisons guarded, and your water quality monitored by people who are unskilled and inexperienced?

    So tell me again, HOW do you benefit from knowing my name and income? What does this tell you, really, and do you think it offsets the negative impact of the Post's database on public employees' morale and financial security??

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints