Court Opinion

ID: 9761909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:59:13.554204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:48:40.905369
License: Public Domain

Grimes, J.,
dissenting: The legislature in my view has indicated, not only in section 5 but also in section 3, that it intended to exempt the compensation of public employees from the disclosure provisions of RSA ch. 91-A(supp.). In 1969 section 3 was amended, not to provide greater dis*165closure, but to provide exemptions from disclosure for records of actions when “divulgence of information would be likely to affect adversely the reputation of any person” and when the action involves the “compensation of any public employee”.
Section 5 exempts “files whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy.” It would certainly be an invasion of privacy to publish the salary of a person not a public employee. There is nothing to indicate that the exemption in section 5 was intended to extend only a limited right of privacy to public employees. In this respect our act significantly differs from the federal act, which exempts only a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 3A.22 (supp. 1970). Our act also differs from any of the acts construed in the State cases cited by the court none of which exempt records of compensation or mention the right of privacy.
When sections 3 and 5 are read together it seems clear to me that it was intended that public employees were to be protected against the indiscriminate disclosure and publication of their compensation and thus to preserve their “right of privacy”. Cf. City of Carmel by the Sea v. Young, 2 Cal. 3d 259, 466 P.2d 225, 85 Cal. Rptr. 1 (1970); Brents v. Morgan, 221 Ky. 765, 299 S.W. 967 (1927).
Granting that section 4 should be construed in favor of disclosure, I see no reason for giving such preference where we are construing an exception protecting a fundamental personal right. That some may boast of their income and some may have theirs revealed by statute does not lessen the embarrassment to these teachers of disclosing theirs. Where personal privacy is involved I believe the initial question must be whether there is any reason for this court to order disclosure. Because the school board has already made available substantial salary information, sufficient for all legitimate public purposes, there is no reason for requiring disclosure in this case. Cf. McMullan v. Wohlgemuth, 2 Pa. Commw. 183, 282 A.2d 741 (Pa. Commw. 1971); Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 425 F.2d 578 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
Modern society, as it diminishes personal privacy, makes *166that remaining ever more valuable. See Miller, The Assault on Privacy (1971); Symposium on Privacy, 31 Law & Con-temp. Prob. 251 (1966). I believe the legislature appreciates this trend and in RSA 91-A:3(supp.) and 5(supp.) intended to deny the public the right to know personal information, such as a person’s income, where the public has no need to know.