Apr 12, 2008

Legislation would cloud government transparency

Editorial

A newly amended bill in the state Legislature would undermine important rulings from the state Supreme Court that declared the salaries of government employees - including police officers - are public records. The legislation should be rejected.

Assemblyman Anthony J. Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, offered a bill amendment that would make an exception to this rule for police, keeping their salaries a secret to the taxpayers, which would be a giant step backward. If that were not bad enough, the bill also makes their badge numbers and identities privileged information. We urge state legislators to reject this attempt to hide matters that should be open to public scrutiny.

There are a number of problems with Assembly Bill 1855 as amended. It would make it harder for the public to monitor the salaries for excesses, particularly overtime abuse and nepotism. Keeping officers' identities secret also makes it harder to discover patterns of misconduct among officers, particularly if they switch departments. Admittedly these problems are rare, and the best way to make sure they stay that way is to keep such information available to the public.

The legislation was offered in the wake of high court rulings last year that caused a stir among public employee groups. The court concluded in separate rulings that the salaries of all government employees are public records, as were the names and basic employment information of police officers.

The justices were very specific in the case of police officer salaries, declaring that information can be withheld only in narrow circumstances such as if the officer's anonymity was vital to his or her safety. Translation: A broad claim about the need to protect officers does not justify a blanket refusal to disclose their salaries.

The high court's rulings help promote a healthy transparency in government and should not be weakened by the legislative branch.