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.