Dear Editor,

While reading the April 3 issue of the Milpitas Post, I came upon the section, "City of Milpitas Employee Salaries for 2007." It was certainly a comprehensive list of every position on the city payroll. What struck me from the beginning, though, was that not only was the position and salary listed, but also the name of each and every employee. I saw this as quite an invasion of privacy. Certainly elected officials, city appointees and maybe department heads could be named, as they hold positions for which they are directly accountable to the city. However, to name rank and file city employees, such as recreation leaders, maintenance workers, lifeguards, and student interns, who hold necessary positions within their respective departments, but are far from the forefront of accountability to the city at large, seems like nothing more than an invasion of their privacy.

To know that Milpitas' chief of police, Dennis Graham, with total pay of $225 839.24 was the highest compensated employee in 2007 is perhaps relevant, but to see the name of the lifeguard with total pay of $26.25 was the lowest compensated, is certainly not.

Interestingly, as I scanned through the list, I came upon my own son's name. For the past three summers, he has worked for the Department of Recreation Services. As a lifeguard, he was trained in lifesaving and CPR so he could teach swim lessons to young learners and be lifeguard on duty for mature swimmers. This is a dream

summer job for many teenagers. He did not, however, take the job so he could have his name and earnings from his job published in the Milpitas Post. He does not recall signing any waiver allowing this information to become public record. I do not know if simply being an employee of the city allows for this information to be made public.

I recall reading in the Milpitas Post a listing of Milpitas Unified School District employee salaries. It listed every position in every department and in every school and the salary for each, yet no names were attached to the positions and salaries. So why were names printed along with positions and salaries for the city? Are employees of the city not worthy of the same respect for privacy as employees of the school district? Certainly, we, the taxpayers of Milpitas want the city to be accountable for how our tax dollars are spent, and knowing what kinds of monies are paid to city employees is part of that accountability. I do not believe, however, that we need to have every employee, permanent salaried and seasonal hourly alike, reveal to all residents of Milpitas (and anyone else who reads the Milpitas Post), by individual name, just how many of our tax dollars they received as compensation for providing services to the rest of us. That should remain a private matter for the vast majority of the city's employees.

By the way, my son earned $4,108.06 of the city's tax dollars last summer. He could choose to retire, but is likely to return as a lifeguard, once again, this summer, earning more tax dollars while providing service for residents of the city of Milpitas. He needs gas money for his car.

David Zirkel

Pacheco Drive

Editor's note: Thank you for your letter. An important court ruling was made in August 2007 that affirmed that all government employees' salary information was public record, and that names needed to be released with the data. We did not print all names in earlier city and school district surveys because the courts at that time were engaged in on-going lawsuits, and cities and special districts refused to release names with the data. We feel all employees' information is relevant, since everyone's benchmark for what constitutes a "high-paying" job is different. (Is it just $100,000 and above? Or $75,000 and above? $50,000? Or something else?).