There's two listings for Armando Acuna in Davis on zabasearch (not sure if either one are the same)



 Armando  Acuna
Sacramento Bee
Public Editor
2100 Q St
Sacramento CA 95816-6899 US
Phone: (916) 326-5573
Cell: (916) 321-1109
Fax: http://www.sacbee.com
From: http://armandoacuna9.lyro.com/

He is an arrogant prick

This hack posted a new opinion piece where he kisses Melanie Sill's ass. It's so obvious that they keep bringing up this issue so they get more traffic to sacbee.com. It's freakin pathetic!!!

I guess I'm not as clairvoyant as you... I expected the same rights afforded to every other US citizen. But hey, maybe I should have asked you first.

No, I've never seen a Capitol Weekly newspaper and I'm sure 99% of those who used the SacBee's database haven't either. That's the point.

We're not mind readers - I think the vast majority of state employees didn't know or expect their information could or would be made public in this way. At the very least, I doubt anyone thought, going into state employment, "ok, my name, dept, class and salary will be added to a database and advertised in a newspaper so they can make money." I think some people are just now thinking, "it won't hurt me, so big whup."

And no, not all of this information is available to the public outside of the Bee's database. Capitol Weekly aside, though I'm sure the same would apply, you can have your information removed from the state employee telephone directory. You can also have your information removed from zabasearch. There is a lot you can do to protect yourself. You should be able to opt out of the SacBee's database. Other companies honor privacy, but now it's all about money. The Bee, literally, can't afford to honor any demands that might have an adverse affect on its advertising revenue.

I can understand the Bee's PRA request being honored if it were to be used in a true whistle blower fashion; however, I don't think they should be allowed to release all information to the public. The public can make their own PRA requests for the information. But there should be a legitimate reason. For example, labor unions can request payroll records from companies working on public works projects. But it has to be a legitimate request, meaning the average Joe can't make the request, and I'm almost 100% certain the information cannot be shared w/ the general public. Though, like state employees, pay scales have always been available, just not associated with an employee's name.

Rank and file workers have little to no impact on legislation or other important factors in how the state functions. They make so much less than those that were targeted in the Bee article. To put them in the database, as if it had any bearing on that article whatsoever, was pointless. Sure, find someone being paid in the high six figures, who gets a state car, uses a state credit card for personal expenses, and get reimbursed for travel from home. Then you have a story. This? As the editors stated, it's about traffic to their site, which equates to advertising revenue.

Wow. That's a sad commentary on California's education system. If the vast majority of state employees don't know that state records -- including their names and salaries -- are public information, someone needs to rethink the high school teaching plan. That's Basic Civics, not Basic Mindreading. And if the college-educated employees don't know the definition of prior restraint, then I fear for the future of the First Amendment.

You've got that backward. The Bush administration seeks to exercise prior restraint by denying access to information based on specious arguments. I, on the other hand, believe that true exercise of civil liberties begins with open access to all public documents.