Our view on the disability retiree battle

Attorneys with the Gilroy’s legal firm of choice, Berliner-Cohen, and the city administrator are penning their way around state law and holding up multiple efforts by the Gilroy Dispatch to obtain the names of six public safety retirees who claimed an industrial disability within the past five years.
Months have passed since last September when, spurred by a Grand Jury report, the Dispatch took a hard-line stance with the City of Gilroy in diligently—and oftentimes openly—challenging the assertion that the information should remain hidden.
At a cost of more than $2,700 taken from Gilroy’s General Fund paid to Berliner-Cohen—taxpayers, that’s your money—certain Gilroy officials continue to gnash their teeth by asserting the names of six public servants are not public information.
It’s interesting how this newspaper received the names of the City of Bell’s disabled retirees in February after the exact same request was denied in Gilroy. Remember in the late 2000’s when Bell’s officials were indicted on charges of misappropriating public money? Those highest up the former command chain in Bell are, right now, sitting in prison serving 12-year sentences. Things must have changed over in Los Angeles County. When will they change in Gilroy?
City Administrator Tom Haglund suggested, in his formal response to the Dispatch’s administrative appeal, that a Dispatch reporter did not, by legal means, obtain information from the City of Bell relative to its disability retirees seems counter-intuitive. It is not within the city’s purview to allege any illegal wrongdoing on the part of another city. It’s a thinly veiled attempt to shut this effort down completely. First it was stonewalling—and now they’re throwing stones.
For more than a month, Gilroy has been trying to find out from Bell officials what the legal basis was for the release of the names. That’s not how the Public Records Act works. All of this back-and-forth beckons the question: how can one set of information be made public in one California city and the same information be deemed confidential in Gilroy?
Haglund writes that “California law, not city policy or desire, prohibits the city from identifying the disability status of any retirees.”
If it’s legal for Bell to release the information and it’s illegal for Gilroy to do the same, perhaps it is “city policy or desire” for Gilroy to assert the information is confidential “personal data.” If so, let’s close this loophole.
Haglund’s letters reads: “Unfortunately, Bell officials indicated that they are not aware of a Dispatch request for such information and that they have no record of having provided such information.”
Evidence shows the contrary, and the Dispatch provided Haglund with the paper trail as soon as his response was received. In an email received Feb. 11, the Bell City Clerk provided names of eight retired public safety officers claiming work-related disability.
Readers, this is your money Berliner-Cohen and some Gilroy leaders are playing with. Bell is in the right—and Gilroy, it’s time to follow suit.