One week after Californians Aware and the online investigative news site Voice of OC filed suit against Orange County for release of a politically controversial letter, the county on Friday released a redacted version to local media generally. But, as noted in the report by Voice of OC Editor Norberto Santana, the release will probably not halt the Public Records Act lawsuit.
Sander v. State Bar
BRIEF SUMMARY: Academic researcher denied access to Bar records of examination pass rates. MORE INFORMATION STATUS:
Vargas v. City of Salinas
BRIEF SUMMARY: Citizen watchdogs exposed to ruinous SLAPP fees for challenging city’s election spending. MORE INFORMATION STATUS:
McKee v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District Board of Directors
BRIEF SUMMARY: MORE INFORMATION: Opinion STATUS: CalAware may be substituted in as plaintiff in this case
Californians Aware v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
BACKGROUND: MORE INFORMATION STATUS: CalAware challenges nonpublic discussions between board and Governor Brown over prisoner transfer impacts under Governor’s “realignment” plan. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION: Brown Act Demand for Cure and Correction Response to Demand for Cure and Correction Petition for Write of Mandate
Californians Aware v. LACCD
BACKGROUND: In or about 2002, the District entered into a “Master Benefits Agreement” (Agreement) with unions representing its employees concerning hospital-medical, dental, vision group coverage, group life insurance coverage, and the District’s employee assistance program. The unions are referred to in the Agreement as the “Exclusive Representatives” of the employees. Pursuant to the Agreement, the District was to convene, and the Exclusive Representatives were to participate in, the JLMBC. The JLMBC’s purpose was to “contain the costs of the District’s Health Benefits Program while maintaining and, when feasible, improving the quality of the benefits available to employees.” Prior to adoption of the Agreement, the District’s six bargaining units each had a separate article in their collective bargaining agreements that addressed health benefits. Those articles were inconsistent, resulting in coverage disparities. One of the Agreement’s purposes was to ensure common benefits throughout the District. Under the Agreement, the District’s health benefits program consisted of “group benefit plans recommended by the Joint Labor/Management Benefits Committee and approved by the Board under which eligible District employees (and their eligible dependents) receive hospital, medical, dental, and vision care coverage. The purpose of the Health Benefits Program is to provide quality health care to the District’s employees, retirees, and their eligible dependents and survivors.” The JLMBC was composed of “one voting and one non-voting District Member” (District Members); six “Employee Members,” one from each of the Exclusive Representatives; and the “Chair” who was to be nominated by the president of the Los Angeles College Faculty Guild and confirmed by a simple majority of the regular voting members. Each Exclusive Representative could appoint nonvoting members in proportion to the size of each bargaining unit. The JLMBC had authority to: “1. review [...]