That's great privacy thanks!   

Burn baby burn.... I don't think it will take much to get them on the ropes begging for mercy!

Circuit City, , Tmobile, Macy’s, , Big Five, Coldwell Banker, Valassis, Compusa, Gottschalks, Longs Drugs, Comcast, Les Schwab Tires, Thunder Valley Casino, Lowe's, News America, Orchard Supply, Best Buy, Kragen Auto, J.C. Penney, Rite Aid, Pep Boys, Sports Authority, Kohls, Target, Safeway, R C Willey, Home Depot, Centex, Lennar, KB Home, Centex, Lennar homes, Autonation, Frys, Beazer Homes, Verizon, Cingular, Cost Plus, Walgreens, Carmax, Nordstrom, Petsmart, John Sullivan Motors, Future Ford.
This too, is info in the public domain. You know what to do.

I found it useful to google " company name + CEO + Board of Directors + Email + Contact

If you find one address google just the CEO's name + @company's name.  

example:  Michael Eisner   @disney.com

Please try to find the rest of these.  I have to travel out of town for a few days....

advertise@sacbee.com,ahains@mbayaq.org,ahallock@ckr.com,albertsonscustomercare@albertsons.com,alewis1@searshc.com,APUZDER@ckr.com,arollin@sacbee.com,arthurl@petco.com,Avid.Modjtabai@wellsfargo.com,avoisin@sacbee.com,awilson@sleeptrain.com,barbe@petco.com,Bbeckwith@cachecreek.com,bchase_at_elkgrovetoyota.com@mmserver.com,behlert@sacbee.com,bjohnso9@searshc.com,bloomberg@bloomberg.net,Brad.Bradshaw@nissanusa.com,briand@PETCO.com,c_simon@lexusofsacramento.net,canderson@sacbee.com,Carlos.Ghosn@nissanusa.com,catherine.scott@rcbank.com,CCOONEY@CKR.com,chroniclewatch@sfchronicle.com,cindy.blount@albertsons.com,clark@att.com,clientservices@moodys.com,clientsupport@standardandpoors.com,clientsupport@standardandpoors.com,corporate.communications@nestle.com,invalid@email_address.com,craigp@petco.com,cte@sierracollege.edu,customer.service@mervyns.com,customersatisfaction@petco.com,customerservice@tillys.com,customerservice@sleeptrain.com,customerservice@partsamerica.com,customerservice@sleeptrain.com,dale@sleeptrain.com,dale@sleeptrain.com,danderluh@sacbee.com,daves@wincofoods.com,david.mccreight@landsend.com,dcarlsen@sleeptrain.com,debbie.cantu@kp.org,debi@merlotmarketing.com,dgermano@kmart.com,dlaughl@searshc.com,dmcnamara@sacbee.com,donc@petco.com,dwalters@sacbee.com,dwong@raleys.com,ehausken@attnews.us,elintecum@mcclatchy.com,FinancialServices@sierracollege.edu,folsomchevy@smartwebcrm.com,gbenjamin@sacbee.com,gbourtayre@sacbee.com,giving@usfca.edu,gmanto@searshc.com,gregj@saturnofroseville.com,humanresources@tillys.com,hyoung@sacbee.com,info@calcsea.org,info@vistaresearch.com,infodesk@csus.edu,James.Morton@nissanusa.com,jamesm@petco.com,jchiodo@sacmag.com,jchow4@searshc.com,jeagan@costco.com,jforward@herburger.net,jhilt@searshc.com,jhilt01@searshc.com,jpaquette@sacbee.com,jterhaar@sacbee.com,jthrede@sacbee.com,jvodak@usfca.edu,jwong@sacbee.com,jyounglo@searshc.com,kaustin@searshc.com,kchavez@sacbee.com,kenneth.lewis@bankofamerica.com,KEVINHIGGINS@DKATZ.COM,kim.diguido@safeway.com,kjeffries@mbayaq.org,kmckenna@sacbee.com,kpeterson@mbayaq.org,larryc@petco.com,Lars.OLOFSSON@nestle.com,leanne.furman@mervyns.com,letters@sfchronicle.com,lheyamoto@sacbee.com,lritchey@tillys.com,macmillan@usfca.edu,mbodourian@sacbee.com,mbreton@sacbee.com,mediarelations@officedepot.com,mgannon@sacbee.com,mgood1@searshc.com,michael.wallen@mervyns.com,mikeg@goldcountrymedia.com,mikeob@sacmag.com,Mknowles@sleeptrain.com,mmcneal@sacbee.com,modell2@searshc.com,msaltzman@sacbee.com,msill@sacbee.com,nettiep@petco.com,newstips@sacbee.com,OutlookNews@sierracollege.edu,outreach@csus.edu,Paul.BULCKE@nestle.com,paulj@petco.com,pdinsmore@sacbee.com,preps@sacbee.com,ptira@mcclatchy.com,publiceditor@sacbee.com,pwhitset@searshc.com,questions@jillianmichaels.com,randys@times-supermarket.com,ratings_request@standardandpoors.com,ratingsdesk@moodys.com,rblomster@sacbee.com,rdetter@searshc.com,research_request@standardandpoors.com,RFORTMAN@ckr.com,Richard.Kovacevich@wellsfargo.com,rick.leto@mervyns.com,rluse1@searshc.com,RPatterson@cachecreek.com,rrodell@lexusofsacramento.net,sallys@petco.com,sbernard@sacbee.com,scott.silvestri@bankofamerica.com,sdeegan@sacbee.com,service@folsomchevy.com,ses_customerservice@standardandpoors.com,shawnu@petco.com,slacha@petco.com,slebar@sacbee.com,smoffitt@ckr.com,stan.sigman@cingular.com,stan.sigman@att.com,swiegand@sacbee.com,swilliams@sacbee.com,tbrophey@searshc.com,terrig@petco.com,terrig@petco.com,timm@goldcountrymedia.com,tmurphy2@searshc.com,tnegrete@sacbee.com,Vanessa.Castagna@mervyns.com,Vicki.Shamion@kohls.com,vmina@sacbee.com,webcomment@sierracollege.edu,webmaster@NissanUSA.com,wsj.service@dowjones.com

Dear Sir or Ma’am,

We feel it is only fair to warn you of actions we are taking that may significantly impact your company’s sales in Sacramento, CA.    Employees of the State of California are boycotting the Sacramento Bee newspaper, The McClatchy Company, and any business that advertises with them. 

We have identified your company as a Bee advertiser.  Until the Sacramento Bee meets our demands we will not purchase goods or services from your company.

Why are we doing this? 
The Sacramento Bee recently created an easily accessible online database that includes the personal information (Name, Salary, Department, etc) of every employee within the state.  This action places all employees at increased risk of identity theft.  In addition, the State employs thousands of law enforcement officers, agents, auditors, and investigators that are constant targets of retaliation.  We also note that some employees are worried that ex-spouses or other dangerous stalkers may be able to use this information to find them. 
Our demands
The Sacramento Bee must remove individual employee’s names from their database. 
The Sacramento Bee must publish a formal written apology to State employees for exposing them to this risk. 
The Sacramento Bee must agree to compensate State employees for any damages that result from this action.
What can you do?

We would hope that you agree with our cause and voluntarily remove your ads from the Sacramento Bee.  However, if nothing else you may find this is ample justification to ask for a significant reduction in your ad costs. 
 
Finally, I want to assure you that we don’t hold any personal animosity toward your company.  However, financial pressure of boycotting the Sacramento Bee and their advertisers is the only recourse we have.

Very respectfully,

Eric,

That is so cool!  Thank you.  Now all I have to do is figure out how to get contact info for all the advertisers. 

Posters I can do myself with a link to this forum. 

I just sent this to my union:

I realize you may not have legal standing to sue the Sacrmento Bee.  However, could you at least organize a boycott of the Sacramento Bee and their advertisers? 

Just print up one of your fliers with background information and contact information for the bee and their advertisers.  You could then ask state employees to cancel their subscriptions and email or call all their sponsors. 

Can someone make a simple webpage where we can post names, phone numbers, and email addresses of Bee Advertisers?   I'd also like to start hanging fliers around downtown that say  "Boycott the BEE"

Here is an excerpt from the Legal Opinion (see link in my post - #13).


6254.8--Public Employee Employment Contracts
The Daily News argues that section 6254.8 mandates disclosure of the information
sought. Section 6254.8 provides: "Every employment contract between a state or local
agency and any public official or public employee is a public record which is not subject
to the provisions of Sections 6254 [exemption for personnel files] and 6255 [catch-all
exemption]." The term "employment contract" is not defined. Significantly, the statute
does not refer to other documents that may reflect a term normally found in an
employment agreement.
Despite this lack of reference to other evidence of individual items or terms of an
employment contract, the Daily News contends that a public employee's name and
compensation are the kind of information that would be found in an employment contract
and are therefore subject to disclosure without regard to any exemption. It relies on
opinions of the California Attorney General regarding the importance of the public's right
to know how its business is being conducted and the argument that any information
relating to public employment is a public record that is not subject to exemption.
Little authority is available regarding the Legislature's intent in enacting the section
6254.8 exemption. Of the Attorney General's opinions cited, one [112 Cal.App.4th
1517] concerns disclosure of the name and salary of retired public employees. That
opinion predates the enactment of the CPRA and the addition of the right of privacy to
article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. (25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 90 (1955);
American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307, 424 [66 Cal. Rptr. 2d
210, 940 P.2d 797] [added by initiative adopted Nov. 7, 1972].) fn. 14 Because its
analysis is outdated, that opinion is of no assistance here.
Another opinion that cites section 6254.8 determined that the salary of a public hospital
administrator is part of his employment contract and should be disclosed by a public
agency even though the salary was set in a closed executive session. (63
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 215 (1980).) But that opinion concerns an administrator and not a
regular public employee.
We are aware of only one case discussing section 6254.8, Braun, supra, 154 Cal. App. 3d
332. The Braun court, without analysis, characterized letters appointing a city
administrator and rescinding the appointment as manifesting his employment contract
and therefore properly disclosed. (Braun, supra, at p. 344.) The issue of whether the
name of an ordinary public employee, coupled with detailed salary information, is
properly included in the Legislature's description of an employment contract under
section 6254.8, was not discussed in Braun or any other cited authority.
The Unions have supplied documents indicating the legislative intent behind the
enactment of section 6254.8. fn. 15 The legislative history of the employment contract
provision, especially when considered in light of the general law regarding public
employees, supports the Unions' construction of the statute. The Unions argue that the
legislative documents show the Legislature intended that the section apply only to highlevel
state and local officials who are, in some instances, employed pursuant to individual
contracts, and not to regular civil service employees.
An Assembly committee analysis of Senate Bill No. 1529 and a letter from the author
note that the bill was introduced as a result of a complaint regarding the employment
contract of a high university official. The analysis notes the intent to limit the application
to high public officials, but expresses [112 Cal.App.4th 1518] concern that the lack of a
definition of "employment contracts" could be construed to impact regular civil service
employees. The analysis also notes that the State Personnel Board reported that no civil
service employees were covered by employment contracts. (Assem. Com. on
Employment and Public Employees, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1529 (1973-1974 Reg.
Sess.) as amended Mar. 19, 1974, p. 1.) The Assembly analysis states that the State
Personnel Board does not consider any civil service appointment document to be an
"employment contract." (Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No.
1529 (1973-1974 Reg. Sess.) p. 1.)
Earlier versions of the bill analysis stated that the State Personnel Board considered a
civil service appointment document to be an employment contract. (Legis. Analyst,
analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1529 (1973-1974 Reg. Sess.) p. 1.) An amendment was added
that excepted state civil service appointment documents and stated: "For the purposes of
this section, a state civil service appointment document is not an employment contract."
(Author's Amendment 1, Mar. 5, 1974.) The University of California objected to the
amendment because its employees were not subject to civil service and might be treated
differently from other public employees. The University urged uniform application to all
public employees. (Material from the legislative file of Sen. Nejedly on Sen. Bill No.
1529.) The language referencing civil service was then deleted. (Assem. Amend. to Sen.
Bill No. 1529 (1973-1974 Reg. Sess.) Mar. 19, 1974.)
The State Personnel Board submitted an enrolled bill report explaining that it withdrew
its opposition to the bill based on the author's assurance that there was no legislative
intent to affect civil service employees. (State Personnel Bd., Enrolled Bill Rep. on Sen.
Bill No. 1529 (1973-1974 Reg. Sess.), Sept. 10, 1974.) Also, the Legislative Counsel
submitted a statement to the bill's author indicating that the bill was intended to apply to
contracts such as the one described in an attached newspaper article that was critical of
the withholding of the employment contract of the President of the University ofCalifornia. (Material from the legislative file of Sen. Nejedly on Sen. Bill No. 1529.)
The legislative history explains that the State Personnel Board dropped its opposition
because of assurances from the bill's author. The notation by the Legislative Counsel that
the bill was intended to affect employment contracts such as the contract of the President
of the University of California further indicates the intended application of the statute.
We find it instructive to note that the employment of most classified civil service
employees is by statute, rather than contract. [10] "In California [112 Cal.App.4th 1519]
public employment is held not by contract, but by statute. (Miller v. State of California
(1977) 18 Cal.3d 808, 813 [135 Cal. Rptr. 386, 557 P.2d 970] (Miller).) [Citation
omitted.] Relying on Miller, our Supreme Court has made it clear that civil service
employees cannot state a cause of action for breach of contract or breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. [Citation.] This same general principle of law
applies to civil service and noncivil service public employees alike. [Citation.]" (Kim v.
Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 164 [95 Cal. Rptr. 2d
10].)
[11] The legislative history, when viewed with common sense and in light of the law of
public employment, supports the conclusion that employees who are not parties to
employment contracts have no contracts to disclose. Furthermore, the cities in this action
have already agreed to disclose position titles, base salaries, bonuses and other details of
payment to the public employees. Whatever it means to disclose the employment terms of
these employees who do not have formal contracts, section

Here' s 50 people you can email if you want to complain about what the Bee did:

advertise@sacbee.com,ahains@mbayaq.org,arollin@sacbee.com,avoisin@sacbee.com,behlert@sacbee.com,c_simon@lexusofsacramento.net,canderson@sacbee.com,chroniclewatch@sfchronicle.com,danderluh@sacbee.com,dmcnamara@sacbee.com,dwalters@sacbee.com,elintecum@mcclatchy.com,gbenjamin@sacbee.com,gbourtayre@sacbee.com,gregj@saturnofroseville.com,hyoung@sacbee.com,info@calcsea.org,jforward@herburger.net,jpaquette@sacbee.com,jterhaar@sacbee.com,jthrede@sacbee.com,jwong@sacbee.com,kchavez@sacbee.com,kjeffries@mbayaq.org,kmckenna@sacbee.com,kpeterson@mbayaq.org,letters@sfchronicle.com,lheyamoto@sacbee.com,mbodourian@sacbee.com,mbreton@sacbee.com,mgannon@sacbee.com,mikeg@goldcountrymedia.com,mmcneal@sacbee.com,msaltzman@sacbee.com,msill@sacbee.com,newstips@sacbee.com,pdinsmore@sacbee.com,preps@sacbee.com,ptira@mcclatchy.com,publiceditor@sacbee.com,questions@jillianmichaels.com,rblomster@sacbee.com,rrodell@lexusofsacramento.net,sbernard@sacbee.com,sdeegan@sacbee.com,slebar@sacbee.com,swiegand@sacbee.com,swilliams@sacbee.com,timm@goldcountrymedia.com,tnegrete@sacbee.com,vmina@sacbee.com

I belive Melanie was also the one that wrote front page:  "It's a miracle - 12 Miners survive"

Unfortunately, only one survived - The whole nation was outraged over that one!

Here's the full legal opinion - If you skip down to the last half or so it clearly shows that what SACBEE did was ILLEGAL!

http://www.cfac.org/handbook/cases/Teamsters_v_Priceless.pdf

See item 6.  Looks like sacbee broke the law.

http://www.calaware.org/downloads/Top10_CPRAExemptions.pdf

Eric,

That was very very cool.  We really appreciate your support.   I think SACFORUMS might be a good place to rally the troops. 

SPREAD THE WORD!

We need to put more pressure on the Bee.  Cancel subscriptions, email and call their staff to complain, call all the Bee's sponsors and tell them you won't buy their products.   Start a lawsuit - who care's if we win, it will cost the be a lot of money to fight it and damage their reputation. 

We just need a way to coordinate this effort and stick it to the Bee as hard as we can.