AG Bill Schuette using his office as a right wing political tool
Wisconsin Democrats submit more than 1,000,000 signatures to recall Gov Walker
Asking for democracy is democracy in action
‘Choose Life’ plates would fund Right to Life through the Secretary of State
Report shows Shiawassee unemployment rate downColor me really, really mad.
I stand with the State of Michigan employees who just had their information published in the LSJ database. (No, I’m not linking it because I don’t want anyone to use it)
Basically, you can go to this database, enter a name, and get the employee’s info. Salary, work location, title, date hired.
I’m disgusted.
Before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I’ll admit … I’ve blogged about the salaries of our elected officials and some non-elected employees. I’ve talked about George Pichette & Margaret McAvoy … but always in the context of the budgets of their departments. And notice that they are the ones in charge of their own budgets.
I have also published a document that had salaries of the Health Dept administrative staff, to show that the administrative salaries were not cut, when Pichette cut 1/4 of the HD workforce.
I have never published information about our other civil servants.
Everything LSJ published can be obtained by FOIA. So, fine, let people FOIA it. Stalkers don’t like FOIA because it creates a paper trail.
The LSJ database is a total violation of privacy. I hope everyone cancels their subscriptions to this newspaper, and I hope no one uses that database.
Disgusting.
Update: According to one state employee, State of MI employee names are not considered public record. Public records are here and here.
Technorati Tags: lansing state journal, state of michigan
This is pretty disgusting. I’m sure they will get a hefty amount of blowback for this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good stuff, Christine, and many thanks for posting this. I added your link to the piece I just put up on MichLib.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree 100% with your opinion and sent the following to LSJ
To: candrews@lsj.com
Subject: LSJ Publication of Employees information
The theory of “No Publicity is Bad Publicity” is certainly evident in your newspaper’s publication of employees salaries and leaves the LSJ and Mickey Hirten with as much credibility as Paris Hilton. It’s very clear now that my $.50 a day is way too much for you to be entrusted with.
Too bad, I enjoyed reading the LSJ.
Bye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Being a State employee I didn’t care about my name being published and linked to my salary. This is not to say it was right, I know privacy concerns are there for some and I whole heartedly respect their feelings on the issue. However what bothered me the most was the complete lack of investigative reporting. I mean, where was the comparison between a State employees salary and that of a worker in the private sector? What about a little info on hiring practices and initial wages/benfits? Absolutely no leg work was done on this article. This leads me to believe that State employees are once again just meant to be a target. It’s sad. These employees are hardworking, tax paying Michigan residents just like everyone else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@sideshow, I deleted the comment that looked like a dupe of the other. I’m not a state employee, but I would be horrified if my info showed up like that. what good can come of publishing someone’s name with that information? Maybe it’s legal, maybe it doesn’t bug everyone, but I think it’s awful.
@Ed, thanks for stopping by, I’m going to be writing to our papers to encourage readers and advertisers to stop doing business with the LSJ. It might not make a difference but it seems like the right thing to do.
@LL good coverage on this issue today.
and the LSJ is going to do MSU next?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks Christine, great post. Thanks for the support. I am a state worker, which apparently means that I must be a parasite on society. Silly me, I thought I was making a contribution to my state. Seriously, there is nothing much I can add to what everyone else has said. Just two things: (1) We need to hit them where it will hurt. Anyone who believes this is wrong should simply never buy another LSJ. In addition, the LSJ’s advertisers need to hear from us. (2) Even though state workers continue to be maligned, you can trust that I will continue to serve this state as best I can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am urging fellow state workers: Don’t get mad, get even!
If you are angry with this, the best thing to do is contact the advertisers and tell them how you feel. THEY are really the LSJ’s bosses! They pay the bills!
Almost all the advertisers have “Contact Us†email forms on their websites. Just get OFF this website, and go to the advertisers’ websites, find the “contact us†area, and then fill out a form and email it to them, directly from their websites.
For starters:
Staples.com
BestBuy.com
Kroger.com
Meijer.com
http://www.dunhamssports.com (Dunhams)
I had a Smart Source magazine filled with coupons in my paper from last Sunday (the LAST Sunday LSJ that I will ever buy), and I had to actually send them an email: info@smartsourcellc.com
Take your anger and put it to good use! The LSJ won’t listen to us, but they WILL listen to their advertisers.
Has anyone contacted Gannett?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a former contract worker with the MI Department of Community Health and I am mortified that the LSJ had the audacity to publish the salaries of my former co-workers and other state employees. I have heard that some of this information is incorrect, but I also know for a fact that these numbers in black and white are positively misleading! The state public health employees I worked with put in countless hours of their personal time to improve the health status of Michigan residents. Most would be making much more money if they were working in the private sector.
This whole thing reeks of sensationalism. What was the point? Isn’t our collective morale low enough? When I’m irate about cuts in state aid to public schools, should I blame the single mom secretary who has the audacity to make a living wage for her family?
As a taxpayer, I’d much rather have the Journal report on which lobbyists are picking up the tab for my legislator’s lunch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Carol & Rosemary, thanks for the comments. I’m going to write a follow up in the next day or two. I am still outraged that the LSJ published the names of state employees, and their places of employment.
I also understand that our state workers are doing more and more with less, and yet constantly get accused of making too much money. I’m sick of this whole attitude that our state workers are to blame for our budget problems.
Carol you are right, it is just sensationalism on the part of the LSJ.
Have they no shame at all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christine,
You ask “what good can come” from the publication of name-linked salary information.
A lot.
1) individual employees themselves can benefit by investigating, and using the database to prove, racial or gender discrimination claims.
2) individual employees can use the data to demonstrate to their boss that their relative compensation should increase since they have other individuals performing similar work to compare to
(indeed, some on the left have advocated requiring corporations to disclose salaries routinely for these reasons)
3) the public can compare the donations listed in campaign finance reports to these reports and determine a number of important things it couldn’t do without the names.
4) no harm comes to public employee. People may “feel hurt,” but that’s part of democracy. A person’s name is hardly a “private fact” – we use names to identify people. Even in the situation of law enforcement where I heard a wife complain about the “physical threat” now to her husband, there is no threat because the right to face your accuser and legal discovery already give defendant’s access to all the information about their arresting officers – this FOIA database adds nothing to their information and doesn’t change any grudge they might hold.
A person’s salary may only satisfy the “curiousity” of the public, but so what? Public curiousity – aka participation – is a good thing. If we can’t identify the most basic information – the size of government, who’s in government, and how much they are paid, we might as well just throw in the towel and burn the whole FOIA.
LSJ deserves praise.
While I understand that employees may be caught off-guard or “feel hurt,” and there should be sensitivity to that, slight discomfort is no reason to avoid disclosure or publication of public information. To call it “disgusting,” threaten boycotts, etc., is grossly out-of-proportion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chetly, I couldn’t disagree more. As a survivor of a stalker, I understand how important it is to not throw names & locations out there. Fortunately, (I think) the danger for me has passed. But if you have a disgruntled ex-something who knows you work for the state, now s/he has your current work location.
Also, what about people who work in areas like protective services? The people they interact with can be dangerous. It’s not difficult to track someone down once they know what county you work in.
To your last part about knowing the size of govt., who is in it, etc., I don’t fundamentally disagree. However the names of people in government do not have to be directly linked to their salaries and titles. Furthermore, in this case, the we have state troopers and other people identified, who really shouldn’t be, for their own safety.
I can appreciate what you are saying, but I think the danger far outweighs any possible public benefit.
Furthermore, many of the people who should be listed are exempt from the FOIA. Maybe that’s where the focus of the LSJ should be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Writers at Michigan Liberal posted a diary with a number of interesting comments taking exception to the publication of the database. One blogger has called for people to cancel their subscriptions to the paper. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The fact that other employees (Executive office and legislators) should not be exempt but are shouldn’t be a criticism of LSJ for publishing what they can get, it’s a criticism of the governmental process that lead to the exemption of those employees. I’m sure LSJ would prefer no exemptions (of the type you refer to, which, are indeed, bogus). Criticizing LSJ for that failing seems very odd – indeed, its an attempt to change of “focus” away from the issue here.
I sympathize with you regarding stalkers and ex’s and protective services types, but you haven’t made a case that this release of information increases their danger one iota, let alone “far outweighs” the public benefit (which you don’t dispute in the form I laid out, and that was only a tiny amount of the possible uses). Let’s start with the “disgruntled ex” – first, why should the law-abiding public be punished for his threats to you? You have recourse against him – a PPO. Call the police – even without a PPO – if he comes anywhere near you. And I can’t imagine a disgruntled ex not finding you because FOIA linked your name to your salary – very likely he already knows exactly where you are and if he doesn’t there are plenty of other public and illegal means to that information. You can’t and shouldn’t hold FOIA accountable for the rare chance of lawless behavior. The danger is not attributable to the release of this information – the danger is attributable to the personality and willingness to do anything of the stalker. The same is true of protective services, like the issue of police officers, but more particularly, those who “interact” with them already know the County of operation because well, they interact with them. Knowing their salary hardly changes anything in the risk equation they face, for similar reasons above. It’s about “assignable risk” – the risks you cite are not assignable to the FOIA, they are to the nature of the jobs. If you want to argue that corrections workers or protective services are underpaid due to the risks, that’s a better argument (I think the real issue here is that workers are concerned the public will “misread” the data and there will be an assault on salaries, but, quite frankly, that’s up to the public and is the purpose of FOIA – to let them decide).
I do not mean this as an insult and I believe many of the people making these points are well-intended or genuinely “hurt” – the risks you cite are red herrings. They’re not real or if possible represent extra-ordinarily tiny probabilities, and in any case the proximate causes of the risk are the people, the stalkers, and the FOIA issue merely makes those at risk more aware of something they should always be aware of. In this sense, LSJ has done you a service by raising your awareness of a pre-existing problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let me add, I think the LSJ did a boneheaded job in the method of posting, making it mostly a name-search. I would have (indeed, I’ve been considering with U-M and MSU, which I receive annual listings of) posted them in list formats – to show interrelations. For example, the top 1000 employees in order of highest salary to lowest. The ability to sort any department by salary (two category search – that is, department plus salary rank).
The tool they offer, though it at least gives you departments, is focused on the name (indeed, its hard to use without a name). In that sense, LSJ did bring some of this on itself in its presentation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well I wasn’t criticizing the LSJ for those FOIA exemptions, as much as I was just adding to the commentary on the subject. I think the interesting numbers would be in the positions that are exempt.
I don’t disagree that the items you listed are benefits of having this information. However, no one has made a good enough case that it is necessary to match names with title and salary, etc., to achieve the benefits listed in the first 2 items you mention. Certainly someone could look up title, salary, and date of hire, to see if his own wage was comparable. If something was out of whack, then he could request an investigation that would uncover discrimination, or demonstrate that a pay increase is appropriate. There would be no need to release the names to the public.
Sorry but I’m not clear on where you are going with #3 … if you’re thinking of a scenario where a person is giving $100K in political donations, but only making $30K from the state … (I’m just guessing here) … I don’t know what to say to that. I suppose it would be nice to confirm that political donations are reasonable given the person’s salary. But I’m not sure that state workers should be singled out for that. Why not scrutinize all of us who give political donations? I work for a private company but most of our revenue comes from public funds. Ultimately, my salary comes primarily from tax dollars. Should my salary be listed too, so we can determine if my giving is appropriate.
Also, who decides what’s appropriate giving? Assuming I haven’t violated any laws, why is it up to someone else to determine that I should be giving 2% instead of 5%? (Just for the sake of throwing out some numbers) There’s a church down the road that asks their members to donate 15% of their salaries. That’s unreasonable to me, but not to those who abide by the request.
(If I’ve misunderstood your meaning on that, please clarify)
#4 I disagree that no harm comes, and I do not think they are red herrings. It’s possible that the only thing someone knows about his ex-whatever is that she works for the state. Maybe she moved away to get away from him. Or in the case of a CPS worker, perhaps he’s been transferred out of the area. Also, CPS workers have taken on so much work now that they often are working outside of their home counties. I think Shiawassee now has 2 other counties that send in CPS workers to help with case loads.
There are a number of scenarios here that are probably very low risk to most people, but very high to a few. So why risk it, when there’s no demonstrable need for it? With the exception of #3 in your list, I just don’t see the justification to attach the names to the titles, locations, salaries, etc.
I really don’t have a problem with the release of title, salary, location, etc. And I don’t think I would even have a problem with them releasing the names of employees, if the names did not have the other information attached directly to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chetly, I agree with you on that point you make about the presentation … if the LSJ had changed the search function so that it wasn’t focused on the individual, that may have made it less offensive to so many people.
ETA: less offensive and probably more meaningful
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You write:
“Why not scrutinize all of us who give political donations?”
We do. Every single person, public employee or private employee, that gives to a candidate has their name and city/zip published online by the State. Any person giving more than $100 to a cause has their employer listed.
FOIA has been interpreted not to extend to private contractors that receive most of their funds from government contracts (those cases have been argued) because the funding comes from the contractual performance of services. Of course, records of the contracting, the bids, and whatever works its way into government files related to your company are public records (possibly subject to certain exemptions).
As to applying FOIA-principles to a wider universe, there’s room for discussion on that, although the issues are immensely complex.
You ask:
Also, who decides what’s appropriate giving? Assuming I haven’t violated any laws, why is it up to someone else to determine that I should be giving 2% instead of 5%?
“No one” decides – everyone does. It becomes part of the public debate for individuals to decide and weigh as they see fit. And there need not be anything “illegal” about what’s interesting and noteworthy – the information may or may not even be used by the public, but the public should have the option. There is no “appropriate” or “inappropriate” amount in an objective sense (there are obvious situations we can bi-partisanly agree on, like the one where a person donates more than they make, but the gray areas (where say, all “civil rights employees” coincidentally donate exactly $2000 to a particular candidate ala Fieger’s illegal scheme requiring his employees to donate to Kerry in exchange for a matching raise, and just to make it interesting, let’s say its a contested Democratic primary, or where a janitor making $18K donates $3400 — nothing provably wrong about either, but both suggest possible illegal underlying behavior — their are hundreds of other possible uses of such information)- that’s for the user/public to decide. The information presents more value to people on both sides like us – to research and cull and then present in meaningful contexts (don’t expect LSJ or any newspaper to provide most of the context – besides, that’s part of the duty of citizens), but there’s a value to presenting it without context so other people can easily find it and add meaning.
You write:
There are a number of scenarios here that are probably very low risk to most people, but very high to a few. So why risk it, when there’s no demonstrable need for it?
You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. In FOIA, as it should be, the presumption is that records should be open unless the risk is high and clear. Any other presumption leads to abuse by the government and unending objection to records being released – everybody who’s the subject of FOIA wants their records withheld because it could, theoretically, and maybe justifiably, “hurt” them. Most of the “hurts” are made or exaggerated because no one wants to admit that their plain-old self-interest is the real reason, and even if genuine, we must hold those reasons to an exacting scrutiny.
Why risk secrecy, even if I haven’t shown a “demonstrable need”? You haven’t shown a demonstrable risk, and if both sides are weighing “tiny” or hypothetical risks and benefits, then the presumption should be in favor of disclosure. The privacy exemption to FOIA, which offers legitimate protection in situations where there is legitimate need for it, requires that 1) there be an “invasion of privacy” 2) it be “clearly unwarranted.” The latter accepts that there are “warranted invasions”. The former limits the invasions to be protected from to be related to “privacy” – “privacy” requires that the information be “personal in nature”, personal meaning something that is an “intimate or embarrassing detail” of your “private life”. The issue we are talking about has already been long-since past litigated and won (or lost depending on your perspective) because a person’s activity in the public job doesn’t ven fit into the category of “private life”, hence you need not get to the “clearly unwarranted” or “invasion of privacy” parts because 1) your name isn’t a private fact (not even your address, unless it is linked to a private fact like gun ownership, undercover status, or special circumstances such as your PPO concern, which you can apply to your public body for removal or sanitization of your address but which require a burden of proof on your part) 2) your salary and job title are self-evidently not private. Besides, FOIA has a special provision separate from everything else that from day one said that every salary should be made public.
Your own request for Shiawassee police grievances is certainly more invasive than a listing of name and salary – yet clearly within the law and required to produce. I mean, attaching the name of a person who made a grievance to the grievance. It’s probably also more interesting, but that’s not the point, but your blog entry last week certainly could have subjected individuals to intense retaliation – yet I don’t blame you for the publication, I would punish those who’d even consider retaliating, if they did, which isn’t likely. Proximate cause and assign-ability are the keys here. None of the risk you cite to individuals for the name-salary is assignable to the FOIA release, and its not a proximate cause. You or those stalked were always at the risk and the FOIA has done nothing to change that.
And so what if neighbors investigate a nearby public employee – that’s another benefit. They presumably know more about the person (and certainly know how to find them and their name) and might be able to put pieces to a puzzle together that other members of the public couldn’t. “All politics is local.” They are entitled to criticize their local public officials and employees, and while that may be uncomfortable, it’s healthy for democracy. Unhealthy for a democracy is a situation where government tries to protect everyone from every discomforting thing or statement, and this cuts to the core of our First Amendment. Democracy is messy.
I think we agree that the say, Mary Sue Coleman, or the top 100 U-M administrators making $250,000 a year should be named. Why not the other 38000? Where do I draw the line? By the way, U-M is 38000 employee while the State is only 53,000. There’s some context for you. U-M’s bureaucracy is even more bloated than the state’s. By the way, I have U-M and MSU’s complete name-linked lists – should I publish them (I’ve held off for years because of the technical, bandwidth, and presentation difficulties, although I’ve consider the list ideas)? Where do I draw the line?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0