Should OKC withhold name of disciplined employee?
My colleague Bryan Dean has been following the fallout of a reorganization of Oklahoma City departments, which has apparently unearthed some questions about a federal grant program.
The city recently moved its Weed and Seed Program, a federally funded urban crime and quality of life initiative, from the now defunct neighborhood services department to the police department. (Read Bryan’s stories here and here.)
The City of Oklahoma City has put two employees on leave after an investigation into Weed and Seed grant funds. Officials claim they accidentally gave the newspaper the name of the first employee, and they’re refusing to give the name of the second employee disciplined.
Meantime, the city also refused to release the date of birth of the first employee, Ed Martin. The newspaper is seeking his date of birth so it can find out more about Martin’s background. But with nothing more than a name, verifying public records we already have makes it virtually impossible to find out which of the seven Ed Martins in Oklahoma City is a city employee.
In a rather bizarre twist of logic, the city attorney said releasing Martin’s date of birth would be an invasion of privacy because it’s listed on his drivers’ license.
Before we go any further, let me ask you the last time you were asked to show your drivers license to a stranger? I do it an average of 3 or 4 times a week at a variety of retail establishments. I hardly consider my date of birth to be super-secret, private information.
Legally, city attorneys do have a point with certain drivers license information being closed to the public. But as Oklahoma State University journalism associate professor Joey Senat points out, that federal law governs the state Department of Public Safety, which issues drivers licenses. It does not govern the disclosure of city personnel actions:
The federal statute doesn’t explicitly list date of birth among the personal information on a driver’s license that should not be disclosed.
‘Personal information’ means information that identifies an individual, including an individual’s photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information.
The fight over public employee records and dates of birth also has been brewing in Texas, where the Legislature has been trying to close access. My friend and former coworker, Ryan McNeill, has more at the Dallas Morning News Investigates blog.
Further afield in Washington state, former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels asked that state’s attorney general to make a ruling on closing access to city employee records and dates of birth. After researching the issue, Attorney General Rob McKenna said there was no basis for such a decision:
I have looked carefully into this matter and have concluded that public employees’ dates of birth should not be statutorily or categorically exempt from disclosure, for three main reasons. First, dates of birth are already widely available on the Internet and elsewhere, including state voter registration records that are publicly available. Thus, for practical purposes, there is simply no privacy interest left to protect. Second, dates of birth are an important tool to help keep government accountable. Finally, a more targeted and effective way to fight identity theft would be to allow consumers to freeze access to their credit histories to prevent identity thieves from opening credit accounts in their names.
One of the most cited reason for closing public records, identity theft, is largely a red herring. When asked, our local police couldn’t name an instance of identity theft from public records. Most identity theft comes from old-fashioned thefts, lost wallets or a wayward relative with easy access to credit cards or mail, according to the latest research report by Javelin:
Despite the hefty blame – largely perpetuated by the media – placed on the Internet and cyber-crime, online identity theft methods (phishing, hacking and malware) only accounted for 11% of fraud cases in 2008. The truth is, most known cases of fraud occur through traditional methods, when a criminal has direct, physical access to the victim’s information. These instances include stolen and lost wallets, checkbooks, or credit cards, or even through the simple act of a criminal surreptitiously eavesdropping into your conversation as you make a purchase.
For more on the issue of public records, privacy and ID theft, check out my previous blog posts here and here.
–Paul
Pro athletes and pay
After my two fantasy football drafts at the weekend, I’m finding myself paying a lot more attention to the fall sports season. So I was interested to see this short story in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.
Apparently, it takes the average American almost four years to earn $100,000. But for NBA superstar LeBron James, all it takes is 21 minutes of playing time in an NBA game. Tiger Woods? Just 11 holes on the links. The New York Yankees’ Alex Rodriguez earns $100,000 for every six pitches he sees at the plate. More from the story:
Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers may have him beat. If you include his signing bonus, Mr. Roethlisberger brought in 100 grand for every 3.6 snaps he took in 2008 (many of which were hand-offs). But at least he helped his team win a Super Bowl.
–Paul
Auditing school district transparency
If you’re interested in how much information is out there online about your local school district, take a look at this report released today by Oklahomans For Responsible Government. Overall, it’s not a flattering portrait of online transparency among the state’s school districts. From the report:
There are districts that have good websites, but lack information
taxpayers need. If the football schedule can be posted, surely the
board meeting schedule can, too. We found districts that have
Twitter accounts, but nothing about a budget or how to contact
board members.
OFRG earlier took a look at county Web sites, an area that also was part of the state and local government focus of this year’s Sunshine Week in Oklahoma. (Read the national report here; Check out the Oklahoma survey data here.)
Here’s what Oklahoma State University journalism professor Joey Senat said back in March on local transparency and technology:
“I don’t know of anyone still using a typewriter,” said Senat, who organized the Oklahoma Sunshine Week surveys. “All of this information is being created electronically, which is the first big step to getting it online.
“We need to expect our public officials to learn how to provide us access online. Taxpayers already pay for the records; putting it online certainly seems to be a minimal cost. There are enough counties and cities and school districts who are already doing it to show that it is doable.”
Of course, sunshine and open records are year-round issues, so it’s nice to see groups like OFRG taking a look at online transparency.
–Paul
The best-paid state employees
In case you missed it, I had a story on Saturday about the $433,000 payout to the former dean of the Oklahoma State University medical school. The university paid Dr. John J. Fernandes the payout in June for the final two years of his employment agreement, which came to more than $400,000, and his regular monthly salary of more than $32,000.
That June payout made Dr. Fernandes the state’s highest-paid employee in June. Here’s the list of the Top 100 for June:
Normally, when I download the state’s monthly payroll, it’s coaches like Bob Stoops and Mike Gundy who are at the top. But because of his payout, Fernandes took the top spot in June. Looking at the Top 100, it’s also interesting to note that all but one of the state employees is from Higher Ed. The list is dominated by doctors on the professional plan at OU’s hospital.
To check out more state payroll information, you can go to the state’s Open Books site. There’s a link from our Right to Know page under the “Data” column.
–Paul
The cost of raising a child…and the benefits
You can’t really put a price on a child’s love and happiness, but the government is trying anyway.
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released its annual report on the estimated costs of raising a child to adulthood. The 2008 estimate for a middle-income family clocks in at $221,190. (Read the AP story here.)
Before you wonder why the government is in the child-care expenditure business, here’s why the figures are important:
Issued by USDA each year since 1960, the report is a valuable resource to courts and state governments in determining child support guidelines and foster care payments. For the year 2008, annual child-rearing expenses for a middle-income, two-parent family ranges from $11,610 to $13,480, depending on the age of the child.
For the typical family in Oklahoma, the costs are slightly lower than the total estimates, most likely reflecting our lower costs of living. To raise a child to age 17, the USDA estimates that families in our region will spend between $149,610 to $346,320, depending on family income.
Here’s what the USDA estimates a typical family will spend their money on during the first 17 years:
The numbers also differ by income level. This chart shows that the highest-income families spend more than twice as much as the lowest-income families on child-rearing expenses:
In a somewhat understated aside, the report notes that it excludes expenses after age 17, with the largest being college or university education:
The expenditures also exclude costs made on children after age 17. One of the largest of these expenses is the cost of a college education. The College Board (2009) estimated that in 2008-2009, annual average (enrollment-weighted) tuition and fees were $6,585 at 4-year public colleges (in-State tuition) and $25,143 at 4-year private (nonprofit) colleges; annual room and board was $7,748 at 4-year public colleges and $8,989 at 4-year private colleges. For 2-year colleges in 2008-2009, annual average tuition and fees were $2,402 at public colleges.
Of course, the naked economics of quantifying a child’s life is alternately alarming and distasteful. So I’ll leave you with a few links to some recent psychological studies of how much children enrich their parents’ lives.
This report from a pair of British psychologists looks at the pleasures and rewards of time spent on daily activities:
In terms of pleasure, the results confirmed earlier findings, suggesting that we spend an awful lot of time doing things we don’t find pleasurable, including “work” and “shopping”. Out of 18 key activities, “time with children” and “sex” both came in around mid-table, far below “outdoor activities” and “watching TV”. However, consideration of the ratings for “reward” (as opposed to pleasure) told a rather different story, with “work” now the top scorer, and “time with children” not far behind.
Meanwhile, this report attempts to explain why children bring happiness even though everyone knows being a parent is hard work:
It is, on the other hand, much more likely that we as parents will end up spending a large chunk of our time attending to the very core process of child care such as ‘Am I going to be able to pick up David from his school in time?’ or ‘How do I stop Sarah from crying?’ Most of these negative experiences are a lot less salient than the positive experiences we have with our kids, which is probably why we tend not to think about them when prompted with a question of whether or not children bring us happiness. Nevertheless, it is these small but more frequent negative experiences, rather than the less frequent but meaningful experiences, that take up most of our attention in a day. It should therefore come to no surprise to us that these negative experiences that come with parenthood will show up much more often in our subjective experiences, including happiness and life satisfaction, than activities that are, although rewarding, relatively rare.
–Paul
