Marin Employees Union Argues Against Public Pay Disclosures

By: A state appeals court is considering whether a government workers' union filed an improper complaint when it persuaded a trial judge to block the release of public employee salary information to a newspaper.

The California Court of Appeal heard arguments Thursday from lawyers for the Marin Independent Journal and the Marin County Management Association, which represents about 300 middle managers among the roughly 2,100 county employees.

It's likely Marin County will soon have to make the salary information public because of a recent high court ruling favoring disclosure. So Thursday's hearing was largely limited to whether the union's intervention in the case qualifies as a "lawsuit" under a California law that punishes legal filings designed solely to stifle free speech.

If the appeals court rules against the union, it could be on the hook to pay the newspaper's legal fees.

The Marin County Board of Supervisors in March 2006 approved the release of the county workers salaries to settle a lawsuit the newspaper had filed after the county initially refused to divulge the information. But the union sued, and convinced the judge to block the disclosures as an invasion of the workers' privacy.

In August, while the issue was being litigated in the appeals court, the California Supreme Court ordered Oakland to release the names and salaries of police officers who earned more than $100,000 annually. That ruling has been widely interpreted to include all local government workers, regardless of salary.

Union lawyer Don Ramsey argued in court Thursday that the organization didn't seek damages from the newspaper when it intervened in the case, nor were its intentions frivolous.

"The union wasn't trying to stop the (Independent Journal) from asking for the information," Ramsey said. "In no way were we trying to penalize the IJ for asking for this information."

But the newspapers' lawyer, Roger Myers, argued the union's participation in the lawsuit was meant to stifle the newspapers' access to public data. It was clearly attempting to block the newspaper from getting the salary information, Myers argued.

The court has 90 days to rule.