Civil Beat disclosed the salaries of more than 14,000 state employees this week, generating some debate over the propriety of disclosure and questions about their decision to put most of the data behind their pay wall.
In response to a public record request made several months ago, Civil Beat obtained a 334-page list of salaries in pdf format. The list includes the employees name, department, and job title. Salary ranges are provided for employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement, while exact salaries are reported for exempt employees. The two forms of disclosure are required by Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act (Chapter 92F HRS).
It’s the first time that data like these have been publicly reported in Hawaii, although similar reports have become much more common on the mainland.
While some state employees may find the public disclosure of their salaries uncomfortable, I’m all for this kind of transparency. It provides more than just theoretical accountability. This is the only way that salary inequities can be identified, potential favoritism highlighted, or errors flagged. Overall, such disclosure yields a tangible public benefit.
On Wednesday, Civil Beat explained:
Now on our site, in addition to a PDF of the document the state provided, you’ll find a searchable database (available to full members) where you can find how much the state pays by position and, in many cases, by individual.
Ah, there’s the rub.
Civil Beat does not allow viewers to download the pdf file, and somewhat cripples it by making it available for viewing only via a web service called Slideshare.
Blogger Ryan Ozawa points out that the decision not to simply make the original public record directly available to the public may seem to be a reasonable business decision, but it directly conflicts with Civil Beat’s own self-definition as a journalistic enterprise aiming for openness and transparency.
In a blog post yesterday, Ozawa wrote:
In short, I don’t like that Civil Beat acquired the data under the auspices of “public data,” but is then turning around and selling access back to that same public.
Yes, I know that many businesses depend on this very model (including my employer). Like Civil Beat, it’s usually not so much the data that’s being sold, but rather its presentation and interpretation. And the response to criticism is obvious: you can always get the information yourself.
What makes Civil Beat different, in my view, is that it’s a journalistic enterprise. And not just any journalistic enterprise. They explicitly distinguish themselves from conventional media by focusing on civic affairs, aiming to create an informed public via an online “civic square.” As they said in announcing the salary information, it’s public information acquired in the name of transparency. Crippling access to the information seems to go against this vision.
I don’t have a problem with Civil Beat’s decision restrict its searchable version of the data to its own members, although I question the wisdom of that choice. As a new enterprise still seeking to public recognition, this is the kind of item that has the potential to draw significant numbers of new viewers to the site. Crippling or restricting the data undermines that effort.
And any business advantage gained by such restrictions will be temporary. Ozawa has already put in a request for the same list provided to Civil Beat, and intends to make it freely available.
Ozawa notes, correctly in my view, that the “value added” by Civil Beat to the raw public data is in its context, data analysis, and commentary. That’s what it should be selling to the public, not transforming raw public data into proprietary data, even temporarily.
I’m going to be interested to see how those other autonomous parts of the state system, like the University of Hawaii and the DOE, respond to the salary disclosure request. And, of course, to see what sort of analysis Civil Beat provides.
Interesting times ahead.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ian, I understand that UIPA permits the disclosure of names, salaries, and much more than that disclosed on the CB site; but will aggrieved persons raise federal questions on the constitutionality of UIPA? The credit bureaus, collection agencies and the like will drawn to such data like rats to cheese.
ethics disclosures only require salary ranges (A, B, C, D, ect.)
seem a bit of discrepancy here between what is required for an ethics disclosure and disclosing actual numbers to the cent
while this shouldn’t be a devastating result for any one — it isn’t necessarily the only way it could have been handled
and now that the numbers are out —- we can all let out a big yawn
who did they request it from? you can make the same request and post it to your website for all of us who are too poor for Civil Beat.
Amen.
Such disclosure should be available for the little people too
Let’s include the city.
Good luck to Ryan! Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.
I have mixed feelings about this one. While I can understand the desire to ferret out favoritism and special treatment for those who are in appointed positions, I wonder about those in civil service positions whose compensation is determined by collective bargaining.
It’s not as if a supervisor can give a school custodian a $5000 bonus and hope no one knows about it.
I know some will say that it’s tax dollars and, therefore, there must be absolute transparency but you could make that argument with the private sector as well.
For example, with Civil Beat. Could subscribers who pay the salaries of staff demand to know the names and salaries of every employee? Could account holders at Bank of Hawaii demand the same?
You can’t make the same argument about the private sector. Private and public employment are vastly different, and if one wants to be a public servant, transparency of compensation should be part of the deal balanced by greater job security and the knowledge that you are being socially useful.
Oh, a final point. Is there a limit (or should there be) to what government agencies should respond to?
The recent law to limit the requests from “birthers” demanding to see a copy of Obama’s birth certificate is a case in point.
What if 5000 members of the public requested the same salary information that Civil Beat got? I suspect if the University of Hawaii got this many requests, they would be deluged and pity the poor staff that would spend all day just responding.
I’m not smart enough to figure out what is the balance between the public’s right to know and the need for government to operate efficiently.
Thanks for the post, Ian. I was really curious about your take.
Charles raises a great point. I requested this information, and I can only suspect the other media outlets in Hawaii did the same. We wouldn’t have to, of course, if Civil Beat posted the document they got from the state, but they’ve decided against this for business reasons.
What if there were a way to have every response to an information request posted publicly for a period of time? So, if and when the Senate and House compile and deliver their salary information to Civil Beat, they also post it on the official website?
I imagine the results of a request will change over time, so the archive would only be useful for 60 or 90 days, but… it could save these departments and agencies a lot of duplicated effort.
Excellent idea, Ryan – if the information is requested and compiled, it makes very good sense to make it easily publicly available, possibly on the internet. And since some day this is very likely to happen (even though I’m cynical enough to believe it won’t be in our lifetimes) wouldn’t the first government department to do this deserve a lot of credit?
If I recall correctly, UH has reported salaries Or used to when I was there) in detail for administration (except in cases where collective bargaining restricted the information to a salary range) in an annual report to the legislature – usually in October? for the fiscal year ending the previous June 30.
The report was issued by position title, so you kinda had to know who you were looking for by what their job was.
The designated UH rep for UIPA inquiries also supplied detailed faculty salaries to other faculty on request to folks who, for example, were building their cases for promotion and tenure.
Bravo, Civil Beat for daring to venture where others fear to tread! Of course we tax payers/citizens have every right to the disclosure of salaries etc. to persons employed by us…or do people forget that it is suppose to be “government by the people for the people”. Civil Beat’s approach is refreshing!
I concur with Charles in his mixed feelings…
If I’m remembering correctly, legislative staff received notice this week that their salary information will be shared on Wednesday.
Ive been waiting to see if anyone would bring up the already-required UH report that they submit to the Legislature annually. Its currently on the LRB website for all to review. For free.
There should be a web site in which compensation for every state or county employee is clearly stated. This would be especially useful to monitor those employees who are paid for overtime. It is rumored, for example, that there are police and prison employees who are making more in overtime than they receive in regular compensation, but there is no way to verify this.
I agree strongly with Ryan Ozawa’s point: Civil Beat can only claim a proprietary interest in whatever value they have added. Public information is owned by the public and they should not be charged for gaining access to it.
Data might be a bit more complicated IF Civil Beat organized the data in a unique fashion, ADDING VALUE to the original public info.
Fortunately, Ryan’s request will make this moot IF the agency responds in a timely fashion.
I understand the reasons for the paywall. The economics of journalism have become extremely difficult in the digital age. I cannot afford to participate in their “town square,” and I suspect few people have enough incentive to buy their way into the discussion. Those who ARE willing to pay MAY constitute an interesting subset of opinion-leaders and the project MAY prove to have some, albeit limited, value. Time will tell.
But CB will have to avoid annoying those of us interested in an ongoing debate of public issues. It is relatively easy for someone to set up a free public site which tracks CB, cockroaches their ideas and carries out a parallel debate on the public site.
Just as CB cockroaches ideas from the S-A, the blogs and other media outlets.
Perhaps the problem here revolves around a definition of “journalism.” Sure, CB has a well-known editor on its staff, but he is serving only the members of the private club.
Without being able to be more specific, I feel that when most people use the terms “journalism” or “reporting” they mean something that the general public has access to, in a newspaper, on TV, or these days even on a website.
Now, if some organization commissions reports for its members or subscribers only, is that journalism?
I felt the urge to just request the same information and post it, but I knew that others would do that, and for me, it’s not something that is particularly critical to do. The data will get out, it seems. And the credit for making it public should go to who or whomever actually does that. CB chose to use the information for their profit rather than for ours, but as has been pointed out, the data is really free.
What they are selling, I think, is the conversation aspect of their site. The data was just a way to lure people into paying a bit to get in and experience the site. Too bad, but it is their business model, we have no claim on what they do.
But why expect “journalism” from it, either?
Actually, Wailau, there is a way to report OT of employees. I think it was done in the late 80s or early 90s, to huge headlines, too. Back then, they reported on the top OT employees, people making huge amounts of OT, too obviously abusing the system. Cant remember if it was a legislative report or a similar media request, but perhaps Ian or his wife may remember. Yes, this is a huge missing piece of CBs attempt towards transparency. As such, CBs report was half-ass, if you ask me.