05-10-09, From the Publisher of the Vanguard Weekly News, “The City Manager Keeps Secrets from the City Council”

The City of Glendale has a policy of secrecy regarding the performance bonuses given to city employees. Even the Council is out of the loop according to one of them. It really isn’t the money, a $200,000 a year worker could only get a $10,000 performance bonus and bonuses are limited to 20% of the employees in a given year, it is the secrecy involved or as the City Attorney stated, a “specific basis for non-disclosure is that the release of the information may likely spur unhealthy comparisons among employees and thus breed discontent and/or discord in the workplace.”

That statement is disingenuous. If co-workers thought that the bonus recipient was worthy, they would applaud the fact that Management acknowledged their good performance. Maybe, instead, the awards were used as political payments or as hush money to silence whistle blowers. It is time for the newly constituted City Council to demand the City Manager come clean and avoid the conjecture of why this money was spent, who got it and why.

The City Attorney needs to provide the information requested because those records are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

Below is taken from City of Glendale Administrative Procedures Manual section 4.2 updated January 2002 MERIT BONUS PAY (MBP)

1. Definition Merit Bonus Pay (MBP) is defined as a management tool to encourage and reward excellence among Executive, Management and Mid-Management employees.

2. Purpose Among the City of Glendale's Executive and Management/Mid-management staff are certain employees who achieve an exceptionally high level of excellence in their performance for which formal recognition should be made. To both recognize these employees and reward them for their efforts, the Merit Bonus Pay Program has been established. This program is specifically designed to recognize outstanding performance.

Guidelines

a. Eligibility

The MBP Program is limited to only those individuals or teams of individuals who are classified as Executive, Management, and Mid-management employees.

b. One-Time Payment

To achieve the maximum flexibility and responsiveness to outstanding employee achievements, the awards under the MBP Program are one-time payments which may be awarded at any time during the fiscal year.

c. City-Wide Limit of Awards

The MBP Program is limited City-wide to no more than 20% of all eligible employees who may receive MBP during any fiscal year. This limit applies to the City as a whole and does not affect a specific division (this means a division may award MBP to more than 20% of its eligible employees).

d. Individual Awards

The amount of MBP awarded to an employee shall be a range of 1-5% of his/her base annual salary less appropriate taxes. Full use of this range is encouraged.

“Because of its desired impact as a management tool, it is essential that the awarding of MBP be kept confidential between the City Manager, the Division head, the MBP recipient(s) and any other appropriate individuals involved in the process.”

Vanguardians made a timely request for the CM29 documents to: “Provide all the CM29 forms for calendar year 2005 through and including April 20, 2009. Provide documents and writings evidencing the support for bonuses.”

The City Attorney responded: “The information you requested is exempt from production pursuant to Government Code, Section 6254(c), in that it relates to personnel records, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the subject employees. It is further exempt from production pursuant to Government Code, Section 6255, in that the City’s interest in keeping private the personal information regarding job performance outweighs any interest the public may have in disclosure of such information. One, but not the only, specific basis for non-disclosure is that the release of the information may likely spur unhealthy comparisons among employees and thus breed discontent and/or discord in the workplace.”

Researching the California Attorney General (AG) opinions, Vanguardians found this:

Question to AG: Are records of the amounts and reasons for performance awards granted to executive managers of a city subject to disclosure under the Public Record Act?

Conclusion of AG: Records of the amounts and reasons for performance awards granted to executive managers of a city are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. Citation: 68 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 73 Opinion No. 84-1204

In support of his conclusion the AG wrote this: "... Salaries and other terms of compensation constitute municipal budgetary matters of substantial public interest warranting open discussion and eventual electoral public ratification. Public visibility breeds public awareness which in turn fosters public activism politically and subtly encourages the government entity to permit public participation in the discussion process. It is difficult to imagine a more critical tie for public scrutiny of its governmental decision-making process than when the latter is determining how it shall spend public funds. With ever-increasing demands on public funds which have dwindled so drastically since the passage of Proposition 13, secrecy cannot be condoned in budgetary determinations, including the establishment of salaries.

We do not believe that public disclosure of the total cost of the bonus incentive program and the amount of the average bonus is sufficient here to meet the public need. Additional information is necessary to determine whether the program is being properly administered.

Moreover, the "public embarrassment" incurred by those receiving lesser bonus amounts must be weighed against the benefits of public recognition given to those performing exceptionally well. Public disclosure may indeed provide an incentive for those receiving lesser amounts to be more productive.

In sum, any interest in not disclosing the amount of and reasons for a performance award pales in comparison with the substantial public need for disclosure. Hence, we conclude that the requisite showing could not be made under section 6255 for the withholding of the records at issue.

Since we have concluded that the disclosure of the subject records would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under section 6254, subdivision (c), the test in considering the constitutional right of privacy has also been met in favor of disclosure.”

Barry Allen