By Clayton Watch
Reina,
I respectfully disagree with your decision not to provide me with the requested information. I am once again requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records as they relate to all staff, all maintenance staff, and all administrative staff as they relate to vacation time taken, paid time off (PTO), and comp time off for the period January 1, 2022, through October 27, 2022. (Please exclude police department records.)
As per my research, you are making a serious error in your decision not to provide me with the requested records. See below:
The California Supreme Court has held that “the names and salaries of public employees earning $100,000 or more per year” must be disclosed under the California Public Records Act. Int’l Fed’n of Prof. & Tech. Engineers v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 319, 327 (2007).
In so ruling, the California Supreme Court expressly held that the exemptions cited by Clayton – the section 6254(c) exemption for personnel files and the like and the catch-all exemption in section 6255 – did not justify withholding the records. Id. at 329-38. While the California Supreme Court did not cite Dobronksi, it followed the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in holding that release of information showing how much public employees received in compensation paid from public funds “does not constitute an ‘unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’” Id. at 329 (quoting Gov’t Code § 6254(c)). And ‘[c] counterbalancing any cognizable interest that public employees may have in avoiding disclosure of their salaries is the strong public interest in knowing how the government spends its money.” Id. at 333.
While the California Supreme Court’s decision did not discuss the exact records I have requested, the requested records will show how the government spends the public’s money in compensating public employees for various forms of time off work. Lower courts and the California Attorney General have held that other forms of compensation to public employees must also be disclosed. See, e.g., Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement Sys. v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. App. 4th 440 (2011) (pension benefits of individual county employee retirees); 68 Ops. Cal. Atty Gen. 73 (1985) (amounts and reasons for performance bonuses).
Therefore, I see no reason why various forms of PTO, including vacation and comp time, would be any different. As noted, the public interest in disclosure would be even stronger because of the potential for abuse, and thus the public interest in monitoring for potential abuse.
I want to remind you, should I be forced to file a lawsuit to compel production of the records, and I then receive any portion of what I requested, the city will be required to pay my attorneys’ fees and costs. Gov’t Code § 6259.
On a side note: After listening to the past City Council meeting held on Tuesday, October 4, 2022, where the council agreed to form a Community Committee on Financial Sustainability, it became very apparent to me that members of this committee would have access to all of the city’s financial matters. Therefore, there is no other reasonable explanation for why my request for the same type of information would be denied.
I ask you to reconsider your denial.
Sincerely,
Gary Hood
Clayton Watch
We appreciate you for reading this article.
--------------------------------------------------------
Please support our cause with a small donation today!
