Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (20916)	6/14/2006 9:32:36 AM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 541137

I hope they like bagels because they will be getting a steady diet of them.

To: mph who wrote (20916)	6/14/2006 11:27:02 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541137

I googled her name with "owners rights" and found a couple of stories (quoted and linked to below), neither one of which seems relevant. Do you have a link to a story about the decision? Letting the Orange County Board of Supervisors ... Letting the Orange County Board of Supervisors place a so-called anti-airport initiative on the March ballot, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs expressed "grave doubts" regarding its constitutional validity. Devised by a group named Citizens for Safe and Healthy Communities, the initiative would make airport, jail and hazardous waste projects near residential areas dependent on approval by two-thirds of county voters rather than a simple majority. Airport proponents wanted the court to bar the initiative as unconstitutional and illegal, because it requires an automatic referendum on public works projects that should be evaluated case by case. They consider the judge's doubts as a sign that the initiative is vulnerable to legal challenges if approved in March. 11/22/1999 smartgrowth.org Judge: Bonus specifics not the public's business LOS ANGELES (9/19/03) -- Exactly who gets exactly how much in the City of Claremont's employee bonus program, and why, is nobody else's business. So concluded Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs in Lissner v. City of Claremont, a California Public Records Act case. Jim Lissner and the Claremont Courier, both members of the California First Amendment Coalition, sued the city earlier this year for a variety of information on named employees' compensation and expenses, and in particular sought to learn who had been awarded how much in bonuses, and the particular performance evaluations supporting each award. The city released considerable data responsive to the plaintiffs' request, but withheld performance evaluations and bonus recipients by name, contending these were legally confidential matters of personal privacy. Moreover, the city contended, no compensation information on individual peace officers may be released because of prohibitions in the Penal Code. Judge Janavs agreed: "Given the extensive disclosures made, this Court finds that on the record before it, the public interest in disclosure of the withheld information (how public money is spent) does not outweigh the privacy interests of the civil service employees in their evaluations and salary/bonus information." As to the public interest running against disclosure -- which she found to outweigh the public interest in disclosure -- the judge stated: "In addition to invasion of individual employee privacy rights of a great number of civil service employees, (the City officials) have presented evidence that the disclosure of employee records (including performance evaluations) will undermine the performance evaluation system by discouraging candor and, potentially, constructive criticism (which promotes improvement and efficiency) along with it. "Another concern is that disclosure of employee records will damage employee morale and promote unhealthy comparisons and jealousy among co-workers." The plaintiffs have not yet decided whether to seek relief in the court of appeal. cfac.org