Will the ‘Leader’ be showing some balls now? (updated)

Last week the Leader ran an angry story about how Burbank quietly paid a large number of off-the-book ‘performance’ bonuses to more than half of its employees within the last year. Not being able to cite many specifics, they told us that they were expecting to receive the individual pay and employee data on Friday the 10th, per a standard public records request.

But in a Friday rewrite of the original story they only came up with this, and nothing more:

In declining a public records request by the Burbank Leader, the city attorney’s office argued that the disclosure would violate workplace privacy protections.

“Given that the merit pay awards are directly related to an employee’s performance, we believe that disclosing the actual individual amounts would violate the privacy rights of individuals relating to their performance or lack thereof,” said Juli C. Scott, chief assistant city attorney, in the response letter.

[Those are our italics-- because how does "lack thereof" even apply here? (hint: it doesn't)]

Oh, the Leader also had a hand-wringing editorial today that bemoaned the lack of transparency, but no indication whatsoever that even with the complete resources of the LA Times behind them they would soon be going to court to demand the immediate release of these salary records.

Does anyone think they actually will in the end? The Times has done so in other cities. The CA’s office is also being completely absurd (read, dishonest) in claiming that news of these bonuses somehow threatens the confidentiality of their employees in regards to performance. For one thing, aren’t they pre-supposing that they’re based on individual performance in the first place?

In other words, they’re claiming that it’s “merit pay” and not just bonuses or holiday pay of some sort, and then saying that because it’s merit pay it must remain confidential.

Nice try guys, but we’re not as stupid as the Leader. You’re begging the question, in that who says they’re even merit based to begin with? You do, so end of the story, eh…?

And aren’t many of them given out during the holiday season? That calls into question what they are really about. They sound more like end-of-the-year bonuses, which- because they vary in the total amount of funds available year by year– come off as dependent upon how good a year the city had and not the employee.

The crazy thing about these “merit” bonuses is that over 50% of all the city employees received one last year! That’s a pretty low bar for merit, we think— does any other local employer have this low a level of “exceptional” performance, what with this huge a number of total employees? Does that word have any meaning in this city?

What a miracle workforce they must possess indeed!

Actually, we think they are just general pay-raise bonuses that have only the most oblique connection to exceptional job performance, if even that. Just look at the ridiculous number of them– it’s a travesty.

What this city is really afraid of– meaning the real reason they don’t want to release the information– is that it will give their own employees an opportunity to see how much favoritism (read, nepotism) might have gotten into the process with these money treats.

The City of Burbank is deliberately trying to hide this information from prying eyes, and it has nothing to do with a concern for their own people. No, it’s management they’re trying to protect.

Even worse for them, the Supreme Court deliberately set a very high bar recently for this “confidentiality” claim, back when they ruled in favor of full disclosure to the press. Even narcotics officers weren’t necessarily guaranteed any secrecy on pay issues, and the Court went out of its way to cite this hoped-for exception as a counterexample to the secrecy fetishists. They ruled that confidentiality exceptions must be very rare and unusual in order to succeed in a public records turn-down.

Withholding pay records for 500 people is not what they were talking about.

Besides, if these Burbank bonuses are indeed based upon merit and not anything else, then how is protecting confidentiality even necessary at all? If they are such good employees then we should all be trumpeting their achievements to the high heavens! What’s there to hide?

So on Monday morning we’ll be sending the following letter/request to the CA’s office:

Mr. Dennis Barlow,
Attorney, City of Burbank
301 E. Olive Ave.,
Burbank, 91502

Dear Mr. Barlow:

We have read in the Leader about the large number of city employees who qualified for and received merit-based performance bonuses last year. According to the statistics mentioned in the article, over 50 percent of all Burbank city employees were awarded a merit-award bonus of some kind.

We wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the city on their outstanding achievement. You must be very proud to have such a wonderful group of successful employees working for you at this “exceptional” level, one that naturally warrants a very suitable accolade. A workforce like this is rare indeed.

In recognition of their achievements, and to show our appreciation for their efforts, we will soon be establishing a separate “Burbank Hall of Fame” honor plaque on the WordPress semichorus blog, where each of these outstanding employees will receive the kind of personal recognition that we feel they are due. Work performance of such a calibre deserves– no, requires– a strong public appreciation.

In light of this, and in accordance with the recent state Supreme Court ruling about public employee salary pay– as well as the regular open government statutes– can you please send us the complete list of all of these fine employees, as well as the separate amounts of merit pay that they received, individually?

We think good news like this has been long been overdue in the press. Thank you for your assistance here.

Semichorus

 

**UPDATE**

Want proof that these bonuses have little or nothing to do with actual “merit,” and thus not “performance,” and thus not “confidentiality,” regardless of whether they can legally withhold the information or not? Then just check out the very end of the Leader article, where Wilke foolishly torpedoes Juli Scott here (but confirms our own suspicions about this bonus scheme):

City officials also declined to give a dollar range for the bonuses handed out, although Wilke said employees can get up to 5% of their salary, excluding executives. Even if an employee receives an exceptional evaluation, the city is not obligated to provide a bonus, she said.

“Whether or not they are deserving of merit pay is up to management’s discretion,” she said.

Ought oh! You mean it’s discretionary, and that not all exceptional employees will necessarily get one? Then it’s not real merit pay– it’s something else instead, and that is exactly why they do not want anyone to know who or what.

Although there may have been a strong merit-based component at one time, it’s perfectly obvious to anyone now that this bonus scheme has since devolved into a giant, CM-controlled slush fund that’s being used to dole out cash awards to favored employees. By fully admitting that these bonuses are discretionary on the part of the city manager, Burbank has waived its right to claim they are based upon exceptional job performance – if indeed that was a valid excuse anyway for all the secrecy. And that was it.

Wow. So Judie Wilke just lost their own public records case for them in the pages of the local newspaper- and Juli Scott’s absurd defense wouldn’t have held up either way. Certainly not now, because Wilke just undid it for all to see– that admitted element of complete discretion changes things.

So just what the hell is going on with this extra money? Does the Leader care enough to find out? And exactly what kind of bonuses are they? That’s the real question…

We don’t take the city’s word for it. We’ve already seen that they have much to hide.