2005-01 Disclosure of Exact Salaries OIP Opinion 05-03

Home

Thus, the salient inquiry is whether, on balance, there are more relevant factors favoring public disclosure of this information, or more factors favoring protecting the privacy interests of our employees. Simply put, we need to weigh these personal privacy interests against the public's right to know. Some privacy interests advanced by employees include (1) a general sense of security in knowing that the whole world does not know how much money they earn, (2) a desire to keep all financial information private so as to avoid familial conflict, (3) a desire to keep salary information private so as to avoid conflict with fellow co-workers, and (4) a desire to keep exact salaries private so reductions in pay or failure to obtain step movements due to disciplinary reasons do not surface. OIP Opinion No. 05-03 does not mandate, as a general matter, that the exact salaries for civil service employees be disclosed. In fact, although OIP Opinion No. 05-03 may have supplanted former OIP opinions concerning the issue of whether the UIPA prohibited disclosure of records, HRS Section 92F- 12(a)(14) remains the law of the land. As cited previously, this provision of the UIPA essentially provides only that a government agency may choose to withhold the exact salaries of civil servants, but must nonetheless release the salary ranges for these employees. Thus, it logically follows our County may choose to withhold from the public the exact salary information for civil service employees. On February 3, 2005, 1 conferred with Leslie Kondo, director of the Office of Information Practices, concerning OIP Opinion No. 05-03. According to Mr. Kondo, with respect to HRS Section 92F-12(a)(14), he believes, and we agree, that the fact the Legislature has chosen to specifically exempt the exact salaries of civil servants from public disclosure is a strong indication that the personal privacy interest of these employees outweighs the public's right to know. Thus, Mr. Kondo is of the opinion that on balance, public disclosure would not be warranted. Mr. Kondo further stated that our County's practice of providing a separate, detailed accounting of the projected and budgeted salaries for civil service employees under confidential cover (separate from the budget worksheet which is required to be a public record pursuant to our Charter) is an acceptable and preferred practice. In fact, Mr. Kondo commented that this is the practice of the State of Hawaii. Mr. Kondo further commented that he could not understand why Kauai does not follow this practice of providing their Council detailed information under confidential cover, and transmitting the official document intended for public consumption under a separate cover.