What is the larger issue behind this recent push?

Is there something going on that we should know about?

If so, disclose that information or that related to it, but to try and take a broad brush stroke to every public official is ridiculous.

If all of this in question is public information let those who are truly interested spend their time acquiring it. What would be fodder for some worthless conversation is just how much the advocate pays its team of wanna-be reporter/journalists whom fill our only city newspaper with the junk they think will somehow make them famous. Instead of exploiting those paid by our tax dollars who actually put in a days work whom may not make as much as they deserve, try following around for a few days those who make more than they are worth and put your findings in your column. Then maybe (if you dont put your personal spin on it) you could have a story worth reading. Someday when the advocates snotty nosed reporters grow up they will see what happens in the real world. Some of these people you are considering exploiting are private people. Some may be in a situation or form of employment they didnt plan on being in(back in high school.) I got a better idea, go down to the welfare office and find out what the average non-worker gets in benefits. Dont forget to break it down by race and gender. Then you will get plenty of attention.

here is an example of a public record...looks like a funded entity missed out on $5.9million bucks a few years ago.

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Perf_Rvw_P...

Watchdog! Will this be analysis or just a mindless list of numbers?

I happen to work for a state agency and trust me, I am NOT an overpaid employee. When I first started there, the starting pay at WalMart and HEB was more than what my starting pay was here. Something that MUST be taken into consideration is the fact that I may be paid more than another person in the same job, but then I have been here 10 years and have received raises whereas the other person may have just started last month. I go back to the fact that this is public record so if someone really has to know what I make, then let them request the information. I do not want everyone in the world to be able to just look at it and then be judge and jury as to whether I am over paid or not.

Its a shame that some people actually think this is a good idea. It has the smell of Big Government and one world government written all over it.
First everyone agrees that this is a good idea. So we as a democratic society give up some privacy because 'it's for the good of the community'.
Then whats next? Private corporations, Medical records, your Walmart purchases ?

By saying yes to this only opens the gateway for something larger to happen later to everyone in the population.
Just because your a state, city or federal employee does not give the right for people to know their private income. Remember when African Americans, Native American Indians and women had no rights or privacy. This idea is just a new method of segregation.
Once you allow an entity whether it be the government or a group of people to put their claws into something. Expect your rights as a United States citizen to dwindle.
Pretty soon there will be a group asking all State and Federal employees to have a chip inserted into their arms. And there will be a group of delusional people who think this is a good idea. Only they will fail to see that this 'chip' could be what Christians call the Mark of the Beast.

Don't be a sheep. Don't ever allow anyone to tell you its a good idea to give up your personal private information because its for the good of everyone. Once you do that. We are no longing living in a Free country

Mr. Sleaze: I beg to differ with your "everybody" statement. While the majority of our citizens were being "stimulated" last spring, I was writing a check paying for approx 20 of the other folks "stimulation". I hope you enjoyed being "stimulated" by your government. I know I didn't enjoy it a bit.

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/...

scroll down to the bottom - in the box is some advice

To avoid becoming a victim:

Don't discuss personal finances or share information with strangers.

In today’s age of big government everyone receives government money. If your true interest is government spending, compile a list of all welfare recipients, people receiving social security, veterans receiving benefits, etc. In fact let’s compile a list of our children’s grades and names. We all contribute property tax and I want to know who is under-utilizing my money.

All of your example databases have advertisements on their websites. This “public service” from the Advocate is nothing more than an amateur financial maneuver to help raise profits. The Freedom of Information Act should not be exploited by the Advocate for profit.

I truly hope no one has escaped an abusive relationship only to have the Advocate publish their names and work to aid their attackers. This so called public service is nothing more than the Advocate moving closer to the tabloid/gossip section of the news rack.

If Chris Cobler has no problem with his wife’s salary and name being released maybe he should start with hers. I just hope his wife thinks it as swell an idea as the Advocate.

You can forward this last part to your PR and Finance departments. You just lost a subscriber. Keep up the good work.

"Why should I be paid less than someone in the private sector?"

Been to get your car tags renewed lately? Take my advice, do it online and pay the extra two bucks. It's worth it.

'Course it's not much different going to the tag office than to most of the local "convenience" stores where they have six employees "working" while nine customers stand in line behind the ONE register that's open. (I can do that at WalMart.)

So I suppose your point does have some validity.

But I'm getting a little sick 'n tired of everyone ragging on the Advocate. Yes, they're in the newspaper business. Yes, they are expected to make a profit. To do that they have to sell papers - and advertising. Duh!

Nevermind. I'll rant about this on the editorial page where it's more appropriate. Except to say that that thinksalot (who obviously doesn't) should be more appreciative that the paper's staff is trying to do the right thing and to serve it's readership better by finding out what that readership wants and thinks.

But I understand that it makes some egos happy to rip someone else a new one. It does so much for one's own character and standing in the community.

Ernie

That is all a matter of public record anyway. I can go on the internet or to the local library and find out what any govt employee or public official is paid. I agree with an earlier comment. This is just another way for the Advocate to boost sales and interest in accessing the website. After all "Inquiring minds want to know".

BigDog: Without this knowledge, how are we to know? You make my point. We know what the City Manager level jobs pay. And that of the elected officials. Bureaucrats? Professors? Assitant Principals?

Again, list their age, gender, ethnicity, tenure....leave that name out.

Hey, maybe my kid won't want to be a PHD college professor when he sees what it pays! But then again, maybe she will!

When I say benefits, I refer to health insurance, retirement programs, paid holidays,....essentially anything in and above the salary/hourly wage. Those of us in the private sector are seeing our insurance costs sore(and coverages cut), time off cut, and are lucky to have 401(k) programs with much employer participation.

Expense accounts are for "expenses incured" not benefits, although some abuses not doubt occur. Again, car allowances seldom cover the taxable deduction ($.58 per mile this year-try that with $4 fuel) and are actually a liability.

Any problem with giving out such info without your name involved?

I want to interject somehting here between allfired up and bighorn. You both make good points. However, before you start claiming that government employees are overpaid, do a fair comparison. Include educational requirements, level of responsibilty, job requirments, and anythign else to make a fair comparison of benefits earned versus benefits paid for. Don't match an executive level government job requiring a graduate degree with responsibilty for overseeing millions of dollars to that of a Wal-Mart Associate. Include length of service and all that other good stuff, and then you can say the public is paying top dollar if they truely are. Just because they "work for the government" doesn't mean that they don't work. I'd say that as taxpayers, we pay "top dollar" for a large number of folks out there who don't work at all (exluding those who really need public assistance).

I can't talk benefits...don't have any experience with benefits in the private sector to compare mine with. As a former small business owner, I purchased my own health insurance, when I could afford to.

I am a non-exempt paper pusher. I receive no car allowance, nor expense account. I do enjoy extended days off at Christmas time. That's my only "perk".

All: If such is true, then you shouldn't have an issue with the "stockholder", or "stakeholder", or taxpayer knowing what they pay for your job.
As pointed out by a prior post, perhaps we will find unequal pay between gender and race. And correct such through knowledge. Or find that your "meager" wage is in fact too low and that your demanding job mandates an increase.
Knowledge is power. And working in the public sector implies that the public have full access to that information.
As far as putting your name directly to the job, I have no problem filtering the specific name. But perhaps age, experience, gender, and ethnicity are relevant regarding said public jobs.
Care to address your benefits vs those in the private sector?

To Bighorn,
You said, *I still remember when working for the "government" was a lower paying job than the private sector, but offered better benefits, time off, and a guaranteed retirement. Now it appears that the taxpayer is paying top wages, plus all the added perks to our "servants". *
Why should I be paid less than someone in the private sector? Public "servant" does not mean public "slave".
My meager salary is not what anyone in the private sector would call a "top wage". A 3 percent annual "merit increase" hardly keeps up with the rising cost of living. 

Look at it this way, folks. If you or your kids find out how well these "servants" are paid, we'll have more competition for these "servant" jobs and get a better caliber of "servant".
I still remember when working for the "government" was a lower paying job than the private sector, but offered better benefits, time off, and a guaranteed retirement. Now it appears that the taxpayer is paying top wages, plus all the added perks to our "servants". 

If you weren't planning to publish this stuff, you wouldn't be going through these motions in the first place. Stop with the "soul searching" already, and get on with what you intend to do. You've got papers to sell!

I see no useful purpose in publishing names or age. General position descriptions and salaries are sufficient for watch-dog groups. Disclaimer: no one in my family are public employees in Victoria County.

" The Advocate wanted to learn how public money is being spent. It requested and received salary databases, as well as data such as age, race, gender, job title and tenure.

During the next several months,~~ - the Advocate will dissect this information and make the most relevant data available online."

Okay, if someone were wanting to do their own little search it might be desirable to be able to identify whether females were being paid more than males doing exactly the same job. Whether Hispanics were being paid more than Caucasians. Even to examine whether there is a discrepancy based on tenure.
All of that can be done without publishing the individuals names.

As with most questions of this nature, a compromise between reportorial responsibility and common sense must be determined.

The public does indeed have a right to know how its tax dollars are being doled out but public employees, while relinquishing a certain amount of personal privacy by the very nature of their choice of career, have a right to be *reasonably* protected from the vagaries of the less law-abiding of our society.

Positions and the salaries paid for them as well as the names of the people in those positions are, and should be, public information. It is one thing though to have the information available upon request to the taxpayer who has a "need to know" sufficient to motivate a trip downtown to gather the information. It is quite another to have all that information delivered to John Q. Public's front door and served up with his morning cup o' Joe.

Positions and salaries should be sufficient for the paper to publish. Should any information so disclosed be sufficiently eyebrow-raising, it's a minor matter to learn the name of the office-holder in question simply by making a trip to the Admin offices of the applicable entity.

On the other hand, any self-respecting identity thief with a lick of sense could simply request that same information from the same sources if he/she were so inclined.

Ernie

Has anyone really considered the implications of publishing the individual's name along with other personal information. This is a perfect opportunity for identity thieves to have a field day. Say, I have an idea! Let's put the social security numbers of all of the Advocate's departmental editors on a big billboard for everyone to see