Source: https://frombob.blogspot.com/
Timestamp: 2018-06-19 12:11:42
Document Index: 468705209

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1423', '§ 5101', '§ 5101', '§ 5101', '§ 5103', '§ 5101', '§ 5101', '§ 4102', '§ 4102', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§1422', '§1422', '§1422', '§1422', '§ 5103', '§ 5103', '§ 7106', '§ 7106', '§ 7103', '§ 7103', '§ 7103', '§ 7105', '§ 1423', '§ 4103', '§ 4103', '§ 101031', '§ 20', '§ 11311', '§ 15', '§ 22', '§ 3210', '§ 3120', '§ 10103', '§ 10108', '§ 10105', '§ 10103', '§ 10108', '§3103', '§ 3103', '§ 11311', '§11311']

Documents and things Bob's working on.
Search FROM BOB
PETITION TO JON FERNANDEZ RE CANDIDACY OF DAVID CRUZ
Subject: The candidacy of your employee David Cruz for Lt. Governor
Re: This 48 USC §1423k petition;
4 GCA Ch. 5 Political Activity;
5 GCA Ch. 7 Enforcement of Proper Government Spending
DOA Personnel Rules 11.63 I.
1) Your unlawful employment of candidate David Cruz as a DOE teacher and expending money without proper authority, illegally, or contrary to law and using your official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election causes your petitioner, the undersigned, a taxpayer and resident of Guam, to bring these matters before you pursuant to the referenced authority. As you know, Cruz became a candidate for Lt. Governor on Thursday at a time when he is employed as a classified employee of DOE pursuant to a personal services contract for 48 months at a rate of $124, 180 per annum.
2) As an executive branch employee Cruz is not permitted to run for office. Political activity for executive and judicial branch employees is set out at 4 GCA Ch. 5.
“§ 5101. Definitions. In this Chapter:
(a) Employee means a person employed in the Executive Branch of the government of Guam, including autonomous and semiautonomous agencies thereof, or in the Judicial Branch with the following exceptions: (1) A person holding elective office;
(2) A special or Staff Assistant to the Governor;
(3) A person appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Legislature;
(4) A person retained from time to time to perform professional or special services for a specific fee; and
(5) A person working on a casual basis on the days he performs no services. Employees includes a person on administrative annual, or sick-leave unless such person has resigned and has received a lump-sum payment for such leave. Subject to (5) above, it includes persons not providing professional services for a specific fee who are hired on a temporary, part-time, emergency or casual basis;
(b) Election means any local, primary, general or special election;”
This chapter refers to Chapter 5 POLITICAL ACTIVITY and as can be seen regulates political activity of all employees within the Executive branch. Employees not subject to the strictures of Chapter 5 are listed at (1) through (5) of § 5101 (a). This list of five categories identifies the only employees in the Executive Branch who may engage in otherwise impermissible political activity.
3) Cruz is an employee of DOE. While I maintain that Cruz’ contract makes him a classified employee, as explained, infra, it doesn’t matter what label attaches as the five exceptions to § 5101 (a) govern.
(1) exempts: “A person holding elective office,” i.e. not Cruz.
(2) exempts: “A special or Staff Assistant to the Governor,” i.e. not Cruz.
(3) exempts: A person appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Legislature, i.e. not Cruz,
(4) exempts: A person retained from time to time to perform professional or special services for a specific fee, i.e. not Cruz. Cruz has a contract for 48 months at a rate of $124, 180 per annum. 48 months is hardly “from time to time.” 48 months at a rate of $124, 180 per annum is not a fee at all. It’s a salary. Nor is Cruz retained “to perform professional or special services” as will be shown, infra, at 6) Two.
(5) exempts: A person working on a casual basis on the days he performs no services. Employees includes a person on administrative annual, or sick-leave unless such person has resigned and has received a lump-sum payment for such leave. Subject to (5) above, it includes persons not providing professional services for a specific fee who are hired on a temporary, part-time, emergency or casual basis i.e. not Cruz, nor even close.
Cruz not coming within the ambit of any of the exceptions to the operation of Chapter 5 Political Activity, is therefore subject to the prohibition of against candidacy.
Here’s the law on what an employee can’t do:
4) § 5103. Prohibited Activity. (a) An employee shall not use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. (b) Specific activities in which employees are prohibited from participating include, but are not limited to: (1) soliciting, collecting, handling, disbursing or accounting for 4 assessments, contributions or other funds for a political party, partisan political organization or candidate; (2) organizing, selling tickets to, seeking support for or actively participating in a fund-raising activity of a political party, partisan political organization or candidate; (3) taking an active part in managing the political campaign of a candidate; (4) being a candidate; (5) discharging, promoting, demoting or changing the compensation of any other employee or promising or threatening to do so, because said other employee advocates or fails to advocate through contribution, voting or otherwise, a candidate; and (6) using government travel allowances, government transportation, government supplies or government facilities for the benefit of any political party, partisan political organization or candidate.
When § 5101 and 5103 are read together it is abundantly clear that Cruz, as a candidate for Lt. Governor, is in violation of the law prohibiting government employees from being candidates. And as per 7) infra, you, as Superintendent of Education, are arguably complicit. As mentioned in 3) supra, it doesn’t matter whether Cruz’ employment is characterized as “classified” or “unclassified.” Realizing that my statement flies in the face of popular mythology, as a public service which is not essential to this analysis of your conduct and Cruz’ employment, I will debunk the myth.
5) Debunking the myth: “Well, everybody knows that the mini Hatch Act don’t apply to unclassified employees,” is a fair rendition of the myth. And here’s from the PDN of May 20 spreading the myth:
Fernandez said it is unlikely classified employees would want to abandon their protected status and enter into a contract that allows them to be easily terminated. It was a surprise when Cruz volunteered to make the switch to a contract, he said.” It was unexpected for anyone to do that,” Fernandez said, adding he understands Cruz’s reasons for doing so. [NB the statement “Fernandez…understands Cruz’s reasons for doing so, ” i.e. the unclassified-to -be-a candidate scheme.]
The truth is that classified, unclassified, declassified, petrified or ossified matters not a whit as to who can be a candidate for public office while remaining a government employee. Repeating. It is not true that being an unclassified executive branch employee means that that employee can run for senator, Lt. Governor, etc. NOPE!
Exemption from the prohibition of Executive Branch employees holding on to their government jobs while they run for political office can be found only in the cited § 5101 (a) (1) through (5.) As pointed out, supra at 3) and infra, at 6) Cruz doesn’t even come close.
6) As per 1) supra, I maintain Cruz is a classified employee of the Executive Branch or, in the alternative, his employment contract that you signed on February 12 either makes Cruz a classified employee or is void, and advance three highlighted reasons therefore, viz:
One. 4 GCA § 4102 defines classified and unclassified:
§ 4102. Classified and Unclassified Services. All offices and employment in the Government of Guam, except for employment as academic personnel of the Guam Community College (GCC) and the University of Guam (UOG), as the term academic personnel is defined in enabling laws of GCC and UOG, shall be divided into classified and unclassified services as follows: (a) The unclassified service shall include the positions of:
(1) elective officials;
(3) Superior Court marshal, chief clerk, chief probation officer and court administrator of the Superior Court;
(4) heads of agencies and instrumentalities and not more than one (1) secretary for each such officer;
(5) The first assistant, by whatever title denominated, to the heads of agencies and instrumentalities stated in paragraph (4) of this Subsection;
(6) persons employed on a temporary basis;
(7) members of boards and commission;
(8) executive director of the Commissioner's Council;
(9) all offices and employment in the Executive Branch whose appointment are required to be confirmed by the Guam Legislature;
(10) all offices and employment made, by law, to be at the pleasure of any board, commission or officer;
(11) all legislative employees;
(12) members of the Guam Gaming Commission;
(13) physicians and health care administrators employed at the Guam Memorial Hospital Authority;
(14) With the exception of civilian non-uniformed positions, all positions in the Department of Military Affairs, including the Executive Secretary and Executive Services Coordinator.
(15) employees of the office of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor including off-island offices and Government House, as authorized in the applicable appropriation law.
(16) Property Management Officer at the Department of Corrections.
(17) persons employed on a seasonal basis.
(18) not more than one (1) Special Assistant each to the Attorney General of Guam and the Public Auditor.
(b) The classified service shall include all other positions in the government of Guam
Unless a position is listed in (1) through (18) per the operation of (b), it is a classified position. None of the language in Cruz’ contract describing his position is even close to (1) through (18), ergo Cruz is a classified employee.
Two. Nothing within the four corners of Cruz’ contract[1] overrides the textual delineation of § 4103. Additional Positions. As an element of deceptive chicanery, you attached a reference to 4 GCA § 4103 to Cruz’s contract. That section contains eight subsections and 528 words. Only the very curious would take the time to discover what your vague citation refers to. Perusal of the eight subsections, (a) through (h) yields the result that only one subsection, subsection (e), is even arguably in the right ballpark but is demonstrably on the wrong base. Here’s 4 GCA § 4103 (e) with my emphases:
“(e) No person may be temporarily employed in a non-professional capacity for more than one hundred twenty (120) days in any calendar year except pursuant to an exception provided for by Paragraph (d). No person may be temporarily employed in a professional capacity for more than one hundred twenty (120) days except upon a contract in writing, and a determination in writing by the appointing authority that such employment is critical to the public health, safety or welfare of the community. For purposes of this Paragraph a person is employed as a professional if the person’s job description in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, has as its first digit zero (0) or one (1). Any person whose job description does not have as its first digit zero (0) or one (1) shall be deemed to be a non-professional employee.”
§ 4103 (e) provides nothing more than a way around budgetary limitations on the number of employees in the Executive Branch. The first sentence of § 4103 (a) makes this clear:
“(a) Except as hereafter authorized by law, the number of employees in the executive and judicial branches shall not be increased beyond the numbers provided for in the annual General Appropriation Act.”
Obviously Cruz, with a 48 month $124, 180 per annum contract, is the antithesis of a temporary employee. Cruz is obviously a permanent employee since the beginning of the fiscal year. Thus your reference to 4 GCA § 4103 in the first and second WHEREAS clauses and set out as Form A on the last page of Cruz’ contract is obviously meant to deceive by providing a sneaky way to use emotional terms, e.g. “critical to the…welfare of the community” when their use is clearly inapplicable.
Even if you are able to distort the provisions of Cruz’ employment so as to be viewed through the lens of the requirements of 4 GCA § 4103, Cruz’ contract would not comply. A myopic interpretation of Cruz’ contract that would over look the fact that the contract is for 48 months at a rate of $124, 180 per annum in order to hold that it is temporary but longer than 120 days, runs headlong into the term “professional capacity” in the penultimate sentence of § 4103 (e):
For purposes of this Paragraph a person is employed as a professional if the person’s job description in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, has as its first digit zero (0) or one (1).
Exhaustive study of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, does not unearth even a single occupational title that is even close to any occupational title to be gleaned from the four corners of Cruz’ contract.[2] The last sentence of the subsection defines Cruz’ status:
Any person whose job description does not have as its first digit zero (0) or one (1) shall be deemed to be a non-professional employee.”
Of course this is an interesting but substantively irrelevant analysis because the purpose § 4103 (e) is to provide an exception to employee number limitations in budget laws. Therefore § 4103 has no relevance to Cruz since he continues to occupy the same position he held at the beginning of the fiscal year. The purpose of § 4103 (e) is not to allow employees to flit back and forth from classified to unclassified positions, nor for the appointing authority to manipulate the personnel system and certainly not to create a fiction that would allow an Executive Branch employee to violate the “mini Hatch Act” by running for office while working for the government.
The relevance of the above analysis is that it demonstrates the trickery used to accommodate your employee, David Cruz; trickery dedicated to creating a fiction that Cruz can continue his employment amounting to $124, 180 per annum at the same time that he is a candidate for Lt. Governor. Egregious enough as it is, but even more egregious is that, in the event he loses, Cruz is protected by a “Golden Parachute” of $124, 180 per annum until February 2022 to cushion his fall from political grace.
Three. As fraught with irony as this entire Cruz candidacy charade is, the greatest irony is that Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Attorney General, signed off on Cruz’ contract approving it “as to form and legality.” If anyone should be aware of the Organic Act infirmity of Cruz’ contract it is Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson. The key provision of the Organic Act here is 48 U.S.C. §1422c(a) which directs the government of Guam to establish a merit system and, as far as practicable, and to make employment decisions in accordance with such system. The landmark case on the merit system and practicability arose during the first term of Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson (Jan. 1987 to Jan. 1995.)
During that time General Anderson worked with then-Senator Parkinson to change the employment terms of assistant attorneys general so that newly hired assistant attorneys general would be unclassified. (PL 19-52) Later on an assistant attorney general, Alan Haeuser, was fired. Haeuser challenged the provision of PL 19-52 that allowed his termination as unclassified, arguing, inter alia, that the government’s failure to comply with 48 U.S.C. §1422c(a) required his reinstatement. (Haeuser was ultimately awarded in excess of $400, 000 for his wrongful termination.) Haeuser lost at trial, lost at the Appellate Division of the District Court but prevailed at the Ninth Circuit.[3]
The key to understanding not only the Haeuser case but the GovGuam merit system in general, i.e. what we call classified employees, is the difference between to words that sound remarkably similar:
The Haeuser case explains the difference:
Practical refers to something that is also sensible and worthwhile. The dictionary contrasts the usage of “practical” and “practicable”: “Practicable refers to something that can be put into effect. Thus, it might be practicable to transport children to school by balloon,
Id. (usage note) but it would not be practical.”
Here’s why “practicable” is so important:
The Governor shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter or the laws of Guam, appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the legislature, all heads of executive agencies and instrumentalities.
The legislature shall establish a merit system and, as far as practicable, appointments and promotions shall be made in accordance with such merit system.
In GovGuam the “merit system” is the entire system of classified employees. Unclassified employees are not in, i.e. are outside of, the merit system. Thus according to Haeuser only when there is a finding that it would not be practicable for a job to be within the merit system can an employee be “unclassified.” Given an understanding of the Haeuser case, it’s impossible to argue that it is now not practicable for Cruz to be classified since he was classified on March 7 and for seven years[4] before that! Application of 48 USC §1422c (a) as interpreted by Haeuser would make Cruz’ a classified employee if he were to invoke the judicial power to enforce his contract. However, classified employee status under the contract would also be problematic for all the reasons stated supra.
While it is impossible to argue that it is now not practicable for Cruz to be classified, it is likewise hardly possible to assume that Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Attorney General, was unaware of 48 USC §1422c (a) as interpreted by Haeuser when she signed off on Cruz’ contract approving it “as to form and legality.” General Anderson testified at our Superior Court during Haeuser’s trial:
"I looked at it; discussed it with some of the deputies, and sometimes with Senator Parkinson. You don't know if it's good or bad, but you cross your fingers and agree, because I knew we needed a salary increase. And I told Senator Parkinson “I can't see anything objectionable about it.”
After explaining her “crossed fingers” legal analysis in the Superior Court and watching the progress of the case move to a more than minus $400,000 outcome for us, one has to wonder how General Anderson could have forgotten Haeuser v Dept. of Law and signed off on Cruz’ contract on February 27.
7) As demonstrated supra there is no tenable basis to assert that your employee, David Cruz, can continue his government employment now that he is a candidate for Lt. Governor. An explanation for your extraordinary treatment of Cruz, knowing that he was about to be a candidate, is potentially available in a PDN article (my highlights) of May 20:
Government contract paves way for candidacy of David Cruz Jr. 20
Fernandez said it is unlikely classified employees would want to abandon their protected status and enter into a contract that allows them to be easily terminated. It was a surprise when Cruz volunteered to make the switch to a contract, he said.” It was unexpected for anyone to do that,” Fernandez said, adding he understands Cruz’s reasons for doing so.
Repeating: “It was unexpected for anyone to do that,” Fernandez said, adding he understands Cruz’s reasons for doing so.”
In other words you understood that Cruz wanted the contract so that he could run for Lt. Governor and still keep his $124, 180 per year job. If that is the case it explains why you were willing set up the sham “unclassified” contract for Cruz relying on the myth “Well, everybody knows that the mini Hatch Act don’t apply to unclassified employees.”
Re this matter, reference to 4 GCA § 5103 (a) is appropriate:
4 GCA § 5103. Prohibited Activity. (a) An employee shall not use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.
If Cruz’ candidacy were conditioned upon your setting up the contract to allow him to keep his job plus be protected by a “Golden Parachute” should he lose, then the quoted PDN article and your statement make alarmingly perfect sense.
7) Since he became a candidate on Thursday Cruz has pocketed $477.62 per day. By COB Monday Cruz will have earned $1437.85 or $437. 85 in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of 5 GCA § 7106 which reads:
§ 7106. Minimum Amount of Suit. No suit may be brought under this Chapter unless the cumulative amount of illegal expenditures alleged, both past and future, are equal to or exceed $1,000.
This chapter refers to 5 GCA Ch. 7 Enforcement of Proper Government Spending. § 7103 of that chapter indicates that I may have a claim there under. § 7103 is set out below with my highlights:
§ 7103. Taxpayer Standing to Sue. Any taxpayer who is a resident of Guam shall have standing to sue the government of Guam and any officer, agent, contractor, or employee of the Executive Branch of the government of Guam for the purpose of enjoining any officer, agent, contractor, or employee of the Executive Branch of the government of Guam from expending money without proper appropriation, without proper authority, illegally, or contrary to law, and to obtain a personal judgment in the courts of Guam against such officers, agents, contractors, or employees of the government of Guam and in favor of the Government of Guam for the return to the Government of Guam of any money which has been expended without proper appropriation, without proper authority, illegally, or contrary to law. For purposes of this Chapter, the Governor and Lt. Governor of Guam are officers of the government of Guam, and are included within the scope of this Chapter.
Because of her approval of the contract as to legality, the Attorney General has an interesting, but not yet defined role here:
§ 7105. Government May Intervene. The government of Guam, through the Attorney General, shall be entitled as a matter of right, to intervene in any suit brought under this Section.
8) I bring this matter before you pursuant to the aforementioned 5 GCA Ch. 7 Enforcement of Proper Government Spending requesting that you stop illegal spending.[5] I also bring this matter before you pursuant to 4 GCA Ch. 5 Political Activity requesting that your stop using your official position for the purpose of affecting the result of an election.
9) Initially and finally, I invoke 48 USC § 1423k:
Being a taxpayer, a resident of Guam and a person in Guam I respectfully request that you act upon this petition forthwith.
Original signed by Robert Klitzkie
[1] Occasional references to the word “unclassified” in the label of text of the contract are of no effect if inconsistent with the terms of the contract, are inorganic, not permitted by statute or contrary to statute.
[2] Given that the last version of the DOT issued in March 1999, it is clear that those invoking the remedy of § 4103 (e) must reference their positions to titles at 00 or 01 of that issue. The Compiler’s note for § 4103 (e) shows: “Added by P.L. 16-111:24 (Oct. 7, 1982). Subsection (e) amended by P.L. 22-144:6 (Dec. 27, 1994). Subsection (e) amended by P.L. 24-327:15 (Dec. 30, 1998).” Thus the Legislature is obviously aware of the DOT and its efficacy in determining “professional.” The effect of a construction of the statute in disregard of the March 1999 issue of the DOT for lack of update would be to hold that there can be no temporary professional employment for 120 days per subsection (e). By far the better view is that the statute refers to the March 1999 issue of the DOT, so as to uphold the statute.
[3] United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Alan F. HAEUSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM; Civil Service Commission of Guam, Defendants-Appellees.
94-16987. No.
Decided: October 08, 1996
[4] See 5).
[5] If Cruz is an unclassified employee he can be terminated forthwith, even without cause, which of course is abundant. If Cruz is a classified employee he can be terminated IAW DOA Personnel Rules 11.63 I. Political Activity Prohibited by Law. It is submitted, however, that Cruz would be estopped to deny than he is an unclassified employee.
Labels: classified, David Cruz, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Haeuser, Jon Fernandez, mini Hatch Act, Organic Act, petition, unclassified
JON FERNANDEZ' EPIPHANY
3 a (1) : a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something
Like a drowning man waving off a life line, Superintendent Jon Fernandez wanted the suspension of the Adequate Education Act (Pl 28-45.)
Labels: Eddy Calvo, Ernie Samelo, Every Child Act, FromBob Buffs, Jon Fernandez, Super Jon
THE SUPER. JON--EVERY CHILD FILE CABINET.
This is THE SUPER. JON--EVERY CHILD FILE CABINET. The documents referenced in the blog entitled:
JON FERNANDEZ' EPIPHANY are pasted in below. I've done some highlighting. If you haven't been to the post called JON FERNANDEZ' EPIPHANY , you can start there. Scroll to the bottom here and you'd find the top secret document referred to in JON FERNANDEZ' EPIPHANY
Labels: Jon Fernandez' Epiphany
BJ'S STRAW MAN
Labels: beg the question, Bill 247-34, BJ, foreshadowing, PDN, pl 34-87, Sen. Frank Aguon, Straw man
THE MISSOURI MANEUVER--CAUSATION OR COINCIDENCE?
In Tuesday's FromBob titled:
Labels: BILL 247, Bill 248, cynic, Government Efficiency Act..SHOW ME, MISSOURI MANEUVER, Ray Tenorio, Won Pat Ten
Labels: attorney general, Barrett-Anderson, Department of Land Management, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Guam Post, JungleWatch, Kate Baltazar, MISSOURI MANEUVER
SUNSHINE LAW NOTICE OF DEMAND ON JON FERNANDEZ FOR INSPECTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS
Re: SUNSHINE LAW NOTICE OF INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS ON MARCH 13.
While a citizen could stand on his right to require immediate inspection of public records, as a courtesy to you I have given you the time and date of the inspection .
Pursuant to 5 GCA § 101031 this letter will serve as notice of an impending inspection[1][2][3] of public records at your office on March 13 at 4: 30 PM. At that time I will inspect the following: Notices of Personnel Actions[4] or other public records showing an annual salary of $100,000.00 or more for all employees[5] who are NOT assigned to a school.
1. Notices of Personnel Actions or other public records created during the current fiscal year that provide salary increases for all employees who are NOT assigned to a school and receive an annual salary of $100,000.00 or more.
2. Announcements, letters, or any other communication directed to teachers describing your responsibility pursuant to § 20[6] of the Every Child Is Entitled To An Adequate Public Education Act.
3. Announcements, letters, or any other communication directed to teachers describing your power to commence enforcement action[7] pursuant to the last paragraph of § 11311 (d) of 7 GCA. [§ 15 of the Every Child Act]
4. Announcements, letters, news releases, memoranda or any other communication describing how you will require compliance with § 22 of the Every Child Act which reads:Section 22. Construction with Other Laws. A new 53210 is hereby 2 added to 17 GCA to read: "§ 3210. Construction with Other Laws. Insofar as the provisions of the Every Child is Entitled to an Adequate Public Education Act are inconsistent with the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Act shall be controlling; and in particular but not by way of limitation, except as may be provided in this Act, no provision of any law shall be applicable to the government of Guam with respect to the provisions of the Every Child is Entitled to an Adequate Public Education Act unless I Liheslatura (the Legislature) shall specifically so state." [17 GCA § 3120]
5.Announcements, letters, news releases, memoranda or any other communication describing how you will require compliance with the Every Child Act.
[1] 5 GCA § 10103. Right of Inspection of Public Documents. (a) Every person has the right to inspect and take a copy of any public document on Guam, except as otherwise expressly prohibited in law, and except as provided in § 10108 of this
(b) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.
[2] All emphasis is added for easy reading.
[3] § 10105. Efficient Disclosure of Records. (a) To ensure expedient disclosure of records by an agency, the Director of an agency shall require all personnel in charge of receiving any incoming mail, electronic mail, faxed documents or other communications to immediately notify the Director or his designee upon receipt of a request for records under this Chapter.
(b) Upon receipt of a request for records under this Chapter, the Director of an agency or his designee shall immediately assign the request to be fulfilled or responded to by an employee of the agency.
(c) Each agency shall organize paper and computer files so that documents can be retrieved and copied quickly for expedient disclosure of records under this Chapter.
[4]5 GCA § 10103(d) which reads in pertinent part:
“…if the records being requested partially contain information exempted from disclosure by this Chapter or by another law, the agency shall redact the exempt information only and release the nonexempt information in the records, citing the exemptions in law that require the information to be redacted. If the records in whole contain information not disclosable by this Chapter or another law, and contain no information that can be released,
[5] “§ 10108. Limitation on Right of Inspection.
***All information regarding salary, and the name, and worksite mailing address of each employee and public official shall be public record.”
[6] “Section 20. Duties of the Superintendent. 17 GCA §3103(j) is hereby amended to read: "(j) to perform other duties as may be required by public law to provide an adequate public educational system.” [17 GCA § 3103(j)]
[7] “Section 15. Limitation of Actions. § 11311 of 7 GCA is hereby amended to read: "§11311.***The lack of funding or failure to release allotments shall not constitute a defense to claims under this Section unless the named respondent, before commencement of the claim under this Section, files an action to release such funding against the responsible party withholding such funds or allotments."
Labels: $100, 000 salaries, Every Child Act, Jon Fernandez, Sunshine Law
“second class citizenship”
Aiden Gumataotao
Barrett-Anderson
Bill 230-34
Bill 234&235
Bill 247-34
Ernie Samelo
Every Child Act
FromBob Buffs
Gov. Calvo
Government Efficiency Act..SHOW ME
mini Hatch Act
MISSOURI MANEUVER
pl 34-87
Sen San Nicolas
Sen. Aguon
SHOW ME! priorities
Speaker Unpingco
Won Pat Ten