Not to belabor a point, rather to extend the discussion. One of the concerns for journalists and the public seeking public records in the recent past has been that public officials conduct their business on private emails, using for example cox.net instead of sweetwaterschools. There was an important ruling in California this year that says those emails, even if they are on private email addresses, belong to the public:
Judge plugs ‘private email’ loophole in CA public records law
(March 20, 2013) Peter Scheer–In a big victory for open government, a Superior Court judge in San Jose has ruled that the state’s Public Records Act applies to government officials’ emails and texts about government business–EVEN IF those messages are sent or received using the officials’ private email or text accounts, rather than accounts belonging to the government.
The decision by Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg rejected San Jose’s argument that local governments can’t be held legally responsible for digital messages that reside in computer servers that they don’t own, lease, use or control. Judge Kleinberg reasoned that government officials, when emailing and texting about government business, are functioning as agents of the city. The officials’ ownership and control of the messages is imputed to the city.
The decision is consistent with FAC’s 2012 suit against the city of Auburn. That case ended in a settlement in which Auburn agreed to adopt policies requiring city officials, when emailing about city business using their personal email accounts, to “cc” the emails to a city mail server where they would be stored in a searchable archive.
In recent years more and more government officials have turned to personal email accounts as a back channel for official communications, believing that those communications are shielded from disclosure under the Public Records Act. The new decision, Ted Smith v. City of San Jose et al., suggests that belief may be misplaced.
- See more at: http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/03/judge-… — September 8, 2013 12:25 p.m.
Chula Vista parents protest switch to Common Core State Standards
Here is an article from Huffington Post about concerns some parents and teachers have about the English component of the curriculum. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/common-c…— September 20, 2013 9:03 a.m.
Chula Vista parents protest switch to Common Core State Standards
Stjorres, Will the test be harder or easier? Mr. Millican told me yesterday that when the new tests are given which might be more than one year out--the district anticipates an initial dip in scores which he said often accompanies new standards and tests. The district is also holding special meetings to assist parents with the common core homework their children will be bringing home. The special meetings are announced on the district website.— September 19, 2013 1:35 p.m.
Chula Vista parents protest switch to Common Core State Standards
I hope in the future to do a longer piece on common core standards and assessments--there is a quite a bit of material that I was not able to include in this article. As I understand it, much of the funding for the common core came from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.— September 19, 2013 12:09 p.m.
Chula Vista parents protest switch to Common Core State Standards
eastlaker, thank you for your astute comments and careful assessment. The Sweetwater Union High School board called an emergency meeting on September 13. See below for the single item on the agenda. * Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 4257, Assurance of Sufficient Availability of Textbooks and/or Instructional Materials and Assurance that the Core Curriculum is Aligned to the State Content Standards.— September 19, 2013 12:07 p.m.
Chula Vista school hurries to get ready for Arne Duncan
kevinh5, Illiterate foreigners? How many citizens of the United States are you speaking about? Is this really how you want to speak about the young people, the future of this country?— September 14, 2013 9:39 p.m.
Chula Vista school hurries to get ready for Arne Duncan
Eastlaker, I think you have hit on a new topic that merits our interest=common core standards and the business connections of common core. Belatedly delving into this myself.— September 14, 2013 7:30 p.m.
Anti-war protesters visit Juan Vargas’s Chula Vista office
Thank you Julian for the questions. Like you I don't have the answers. But I would really like to see more planning, a larger plan. One positive outcome of this tragic situation in Syria is that there has been more public dialogue than I have seen in a long time.— September 12, 2013 6 p.m.
Sweetwater school district backs off on Alliant International University plan
On the subject of private emails--and their relevance. During the time Chopra and Alioto were at Southwestern I asked for emails specifically regarding the Prop R bid. It was more than a little interesting to me to see, after the DA's office raided houses and took cell phones and computers, that much of the information I and most likely other journalists had been seeking--was being conducted on private email accounts. Had these emails been available to the publlic, maybe the public could have been spared a whole lot of grief and expense.— September 8, 2013 4:21 p.m.
Sweetwater school district backs off on Alliant International University plan
Not to belabor a point, rather to extend the discussion. One of the concerns for journalists and the public seeking public records in the recent past has been that public officials conduct their business on private emails, using for example cox.net instead of sweetwaterschools. There was an important ruling in California this year that says those emails, even if they are on private email addresses, belong to the public: Judge plugs ‘private email’ loophole in CA public records law (March 20, 2013) Peter Scheer–In a big victory for open government, a Superior Court judge in San Jose has ruled that the state’s Public Records Act applies to government officials’ emails and texts about government business–EVEN IF those messages are sent or received using the officials’ private email or text accounts, rather than accounts belonging to the government. The decision by Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg rejected San Jose’s argument that local governments can’t be held legally responsible for digital messages that reside in computer servers that they don’t own, lease, use or control. Judge Kleinberg reasoned that government officials, when emailing and texting about government business, are functioning as agents of the city. The officials’ ownership and control of the messages is imputed to the city. The decision is consistent with FAC’s 2012 suit against the city of Auburn. That case ended in a settlement in which Auburn agreed to adopt policies requiring city officials, when emailing about city business using their personal email accounts, to “cc” the emails to a city mail server where they would be stored in a searchable archive. In recent years more and more government officials have turned to personal email accounts as a back channel for official communications, believing that those communications are shielded from disclosure under the Public Records Act. The new decision, Ted Smith v. City of San Jose et al., suggests that belief may be misplaced. - See more at: http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/03/judge-…— September 8, 2013 12:25 p.m.
Sweetwater school district backs off on Alliant International University plan
knowthetruth, As there are no email addresses at all, why would one be redacted? I will follow up tomorrow and report back if I am wrong. Thanks, Susan— September 8, 2013 11:24 a.m.