Just because we can, does that mean we should?

That’s the real question. Few dispute that the name of each employee of the City of Colorado Springs, and his or her salary, is public record. When it comes to principle, I don’t detect much disagreement: It’s public information.

When it comes down to practice, the debate begins. It’s one thing to support the idea of public information. It’s another to actually see that information in public. And when we published the names of 2,300 city employees, their job titles and salaries, we caught a good deal of flak.

The criticism came in a few varieties.

First critique: Publishing the names violates employees’ privacy. Represented by:

. . . Not saying this isn’t public information, but by providing it in a searchable database and by releasing individual names, I think you stepped over the line.

There is much about an individual that remains private when they work for a government agency: Age. Weight. Phone number. Insurance policy number. Social Security number. Race and ethnicity. Direct-deposit account information. Pension contributions. Marital status. All of it private, and appropriately so.

Salary, however, is not private. It can’t be, really. One can hardly call himself a public employee if he doesn’t permit the public to examine what makes him an employee: his paycheck.

Anything less specific than a name-by-name accounting is permitting the city to escape ultimate accountability. Suppose the list contained only each job title and salary, with no names. How do you know that the salary figure for each job is correct? Do you take the city’s word for it? If not, who are you going to check it with? By attaching a name to each salary, the city has no choice but to be utterly truthful with each individual’s salary amount.

Same is true for, say, the supplies budget. Only when the city releases a copy of every last invoice it paid for office supplies can its supply spending be verified, because you can double-check each invoice with the supplier: Did the city really pay you this amount for these supplies? By attaching an invoice to each supply purchase, the city has no choice but to be utterly truthful with each individual purchase amount.

And if the city is is truthful with all the individual amounts, it is by definition truthful with the sum of those amounts — the total supplies budget that it publishes in its city documents. The city can say it spends $1 million a year on supplies. But only if it provides the individual invoices that add up to $1 million can that figure be trusted as accurate.

In other words, only by demonstrating accountability for the parts can the city be regarded as accountable for the whole — whether you’re talking about supplies, or salaries. The necessary ingredient is demonstration. And it can’t be demonstrated unless it’s actually done. The city can’t claim its payroll amounts per person are accurate unless it actually reveals them when asked. Given the tax measures on the city ballot and the intense debate over city spending priorities, it seemed to us to be a very good time to ask.

Second critique: Publishing the names of employees puts them at risk. Represented by:

Now with all the first and last names of city employees ready available, easily retrievable, and complete and organized, everyone that wants to can pick up a phone book or browse property records or perform other searches and can find out where the city employee lives along with their phone number.

True enough. But also true already. The names of public employees already are public information. Police officers wear badges with their names on them. Administrative staff have their names on their desks and cubicles. They put their names on public correspondence; state their names in public meetings; announce their names at school assemblies; list their names in government directories; publish their names on city websites.

My name, too, is in the phone book. And it’s published every day of the year, on page A2 of the newspaper. Anyone with the motivation can put 2 and 2 together, as easily as they could with the database we published.

Third critique: What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. Represented by:

. . . What are YOUR salaries?! Dare you to publish them side by side … nah, you won’t. You’re like bullies, you dish it out but can’t take it.

We won’t reveal salaries of Gazette employees because the Gazette is a private employer.

You are free to withhold your financial support from The Gazette. Residents of Colorado Springs, however, are not free to withhold their financial support from the city. If you decline to pay the Gazette, you receive no newspaper. If you decline to pay the city, you end up in front of a judge.

This is a fundamental, profound difference. It is not trivial. It is something every applicant for a job in government understands: If I take this job, I trade away some information about me that otherwise would remain private.

Would Gazette employees like it if their salaries were published? Of course not. Do city employees like it? Knowing them as we do as our neighbors and friends — folks just like us — I’m pretty sure the answer is no, they do not.

I don’t wish to inflict discomfort on any city employee. I wish to give citizens the information they need to hold their public institutions accountable. A measure of discomfort on the part of public employees is an inescapably necessary part of that equation.

Fourth critique: Publishing salary data is only making an already bitter public debate more nasty. Represented by:

Way to go, gazette- you got the response you were hoping for. Let’s whip everyone up into a froth and pit people against each other. Instead of trying to find ways to work through this mess, everyone’s knifing each other in the back.

The online comment threads at gazette.com are, at best, a funhouse-mirror reflection of public opinion. Even by that measure, however, the online discussion today took a noticeable turn toward the analytical. Given a large dose of plain old facts, many readers have begun to debate the merits of the arguments in favor and opposed to 2C, based on some actual data about what city employees are paid. The visceral tone of the argument, characterized as “the untrustworthy city needs to get in touch with reality and cut spending” vs. “you all want services but aren’t willing to pay for them,” has changed. It has taken at least a slight turn toward the rational and dispassionate — at least in the early hours since the data were posted. That is a positive development, however meager, in my opinion.

In an opinion column submitted to the Gazette for publication this weekend, the executive director of the Colorado Springs Police Protective Association had this to say about the debate on our opinion pages surrounding 2C and employee pay: “The authors of these articles have played to the lowest common denominator using inaccurate, incomplete, and, at times, false information to argue their points.”

“The correct data and information,” he said, “will show that the employees of this city have not been fairly portrayed.”

Correct data and information. Just what the PPA ordered. Now we’ve published it. And now you get to decide what to do with it.

Okay, I’ve had my say. Now it’s your turn: