Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lots of possible issues. Not good in IMHO. Could cause issues for transplants if their new neighbors go online and see how much they make without going to work. Especially thosevwhongave moved to lower income areas for comparable jobs.
I was a state employee and am now a state pensioner. All expenditures of public funds by my state, including personnel costs, are open to public view under our Open Records Act, and have been for many years. I'm a bit surprised that this is a new thing in California.
I was a state employee and am now a state pensioner. All expenditures of public funds by my state, including personnel costs, are open to public view under our Open Records Act, and have been for many years. I'm a bit surprised that this is a new thing in California.
It's not quite. Employee names, positions, departments and earnings have been on-line for years. But this is a first for pensioners. At real issue for me is the lack of notice. I find that singularly irresponsible of the fund.
That data has been available for some time in NY. Teachers, however, sued to remove their info (guess they didn't want taxpayers to see their "peanuts" pay/pensions).
In my state, everyone who receives public funds (including public pensioners) is already on constructive (if not actual) notice that their information is open by virtue of the existence of the Open Records Act. Therefore, no individual notice is required to be given when information is disseminated pursuant to a request under the Act.
In California, if public pensioners' payment information has already been deemed a public record -- by the state Attorney General, the courts, or the language of the Act itself -- the method of its dissemination (paper vs. online) to those who request the information would seem to be immaterial.
In my state, everyone who receives public funds (including public pensioners) is already on constructive (if not actual) notice that their information is open by virtue of the existence of the Open Records Act. Therefore, no individual notice is required to be given when information is disseminated pursuant to a request under the Act.
In California, if public pensioners' payment information has already been deemed a public record -- by the state Attorney General, the courts, or the language of the Act itself -- the method of its dissemination (paper vs. online) to those who request the information would seem to be immaterial.
Legally it's immaterial vis-Ã -vis the Public Records Act. Morally I think CalPERS owed us the courtesy of notice of this batch disclosure. That's my gripe.
As TheShadow observed, the general public, especially those out for blood, are in for a surprise. We aren't really receiving all that much in most cases.
It's not quite. Employee names, positions, departments and earnings have been on-line for years. But this is a first for pensioners. At real issue for me is the lack of notice. I find that singularly irresponsible of the fund.
no has stated its already been cleared a public information. but I think they need to make all available and that its like a accident report; its public information but they can recover cost to personnel and printing that is reasonable. Why just some is also a question. It doeswn't make sense to publish when no one has requested it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.