Unfortunately in the CPRA guidelines there is a specific line that states that employment contracts are not exempt from disclosure and must be provided. The employment contract is what contains your pay, job location, and personnel action history if transferred. Unless this CPRA is repealed our information can be accessed anytime anyone wants it.

The specific section in the Act is 6254.8

#
6254.8.  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 and 6255. 

6254 and 6255 are exemption descriptions

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analysis is outdated, that opinion is of no assistance here.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

The Bee's circulation and revenue are down according to this, part of McClatchy's SEC filing.

2007
Daily: 270,697
Sunday: 312,706
Revenue: 211,035 (dollars in thousands)

2006
Daily: 283,561
Sunday: 323,271
Revenue: 254,741 (dollars in thousands)

I also saw someone report that Ms. Sill makes over $200k/yr, but I can't find that in McClatchy's Investor Relations section.

A little bird told me that the Sacramento News and Review might be looking into this. If I get a list of questions or find out what they're looking for, I'll post it here.

I sent a note to the editor at the Bee, but I did not get a response other that her "out of offcie" reply.

The salary database is very insecure.  I was able to pull every record in their database without using names.  There are 365,571 records in the database.  If I could do then a lot of scammers will be able to just download every record in the database and do with it as they please.

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"

Please feel free to start a new thread here w/ that information if you wish to keep it separate from this thread