YOU ARE HERE: Glendale HomeCollections

Judge sides with the Leader

She rules that Burbank must release the amount of employee bonuses to the public.

May 20, 2011|By Gretchen Meier,

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Friday ordered the city of Burbank to release bonus amounts paid to individual employees, saying legal precedent clearly showed that the taxpaying public’s right to know the information exceeded any workplace privacy concerns.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Burbank Leader to obtain the individual bonus amounts after city officials refused to disclose the information.

In siding with the newspaper, Jones said the legal precedent established by previous court rulings “basically said, ‘man up, public employees. You don’t have any reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to your salary.’”


Recently elected Councilwoman Emily Gabel-Luddy, a former high-ranking Los Angeles city planning official, called the Friday decision predictable.

“I worked in local government for a long time, and my perspective comes from being a former city employee with the expectation that my salary was public because it was paid for by taxpayer dollars,” she said. “The decision does not surprise me because taxpayers should be able to see where the dollars are spent.”

Karlene W. Goller — an attorney for the Leader’s parent company, the Los Angeles Times — and Karl Olson of the San Francisco-based law firm Ram & Olson, handled the lawsuit, which was filed in January after Burbank officials refused to give the per-employee bonus information.

The city initially provided a lump sum for bonuses for fiscal year 2009-10, broken down by each employee bargaining group that totaled $1 million out of a budgeted $1.87 million. By comparison, Glendale paid out roughly $1 million in bonuses to mid-level department managers and their executives between 1999 and 2008 and made the per-employee information available on its website.

Jones, who called a 2007 California Supreme Court decision a “pretty radical manifesto of access of public information,” said there were no exceptions for balancing the public’s right to know with expectations of privacy in the public workplace.

“The only reasonable expectations of privacy a public employee might have is for your Social Security number, medical records or the co-pay from your heart surgery,” she said. “It sure as heck isn’t [your] salary.”

Glendale News-Press Articles Glendale News-Press Articles