Memo from Fred Hamilton

Memo from Kevin Keane

Colleagues,

I had always held out hope that business would bounce back quickly enough that we would be able to avoid further staff reductions this fiscal year. Unfortunately whatever rebound there is in this economy hasn't reached the advertising market yet. We project revenues will continue their skid well into next year, which means expenses will need to come down accordingly.

Today we're announcing that we will be eliminating 18 full-time positions in the newsroom (managers and rank and file employees) by mid summer. We will notify the union today as well. Employees let go will receive a week's salary for each year worked, with a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of 12. The company will also pay the employer portion of Cobra benefits for health care for three months.

It goes without saying that this deep a cut on top of previous reductions will have a lasting impact on our newspapers and Web sites. Our preference would be to hold staffing at its current level until the revenue bottomed out, but we can't delay if we're to get through this downturn.

Before we finalize these cuts, however, we're asking for volunteers to step forward. These volunteers will receive an additional severance of up to eight weeks salary on top of the severance mentioned above - one week's pay for each year worked, up to eight years. Under the volunteer program, a 12-year employee would receive the maximum 20-week severance.

Management reserves the right to accept or reject a voluntary offer, depending on how vital a position is to the news organization. Every accepted offer brings down the involuntary layoff number by one. If we accept 18 volunteers, we'll eliminate the need for the layoff altogether. Anyone interested in the voluntary program should contact Belinda Byrd in HR by Wednesday, July 8 at 5 p.m.

Any questions, feel free to drop me a line.

Kevin

Memo from the Modesto Bee (dated 1/28/09)

In order to help offset decreases in advertising revenue, we will be reducing a significant number of pages in the paper each week.

These are not things we want to do, but things we need to do.

In the next several weeks, we'll be:

§ Consolidating and/or combining some sections.

§ Reducing the number of section fronts.

§ Eliminating some pages and sections altogether.

§ Refocusing some sections with content that we think will be a plus for readers.

At one point we considered going to a two-section paper on Mondays, which would move the local news into the A section. But given all the changes in the paper, with the web reduction and the shift to Sacramento, we decided against that at this time.

The changes we're making could reduce the weekly page count by 16 pages, plus or minus depending on ad volumes and sizes. One daily page is about $280, so, for example, taking 10 pages out of the paper over the course of the week would save about $2,800 or more than $145,000 a year.

Memo from Steve Hunt

Good afternoon,

As you know, the copy desk from the San Bernardino Sun and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin will be joining our copy desk on Monday, Jan. 26 as we create an Inland Division Universal Desk. This desk will be responsible for copy editing every story and designing and paginating every page in our three newspapers, as well as the Sun and the Bulletin. It is an enormous task, one that requires incredible cooperation and planning. That cooperation will involve every reporter and editor on our city desk, features desk, business desk and sports desk.

One of the challenges in this venture is that three papers now share the same off-the-floor deadlines. The Whittier Daily News, Sun and Bulletin all are due off the floor at 10 p.m. Experience tells us that won't work very well when we join our desks into one. So, we're going to adjust two of those deadlines to give our designers and copy editors enough of a gap to ensure we make deadline for all three papers every night. Beginning Jan. 26, the deadline for the Sun will be 9:30 p.m. and the deadline for Whittier will be 9:45 p.m. The Bulletin deadline will remain 10 p.m. Pasadena's deadline will remain 10:45 p.m., while Tribune's will change to 11:30 p.m.

But those aren't the only changes. Because many of our copy editors and designers will be working 1:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. shifts, we also are going to change the copy deadlines for reporters at all five papers. Beginning Monday, Jan. 19, all inside A section copy for the three SGVN papers will be due at 1:30 p.m. A1 copy for Whittier and Pasadena will be due at 5 p.m., while A1 copy for the Tribune will be due at 5:30 p.m. This will provide us with the necessary copy flow so copy editors and designers can meet their page flow deadlines. For those of you who have never worked on a copy desk, what this does is prevent a logjam of pages on deadline, which would inevitably lead to late press starts and late delivery of papers. Of course, we realize there will be live and late stories from time to time. Special allowances will be made for those, as well as breaking news. But the hope here is to set up a system that provides for greater copy flow earlier in the day to ensure every paper in the Inland Division makes deadline and every reader gets his or her paper on time.

Naturally, those of you making photo assignments will want to try to line those up as early as you can too. We have more leeway on A1 than inside the A section, but it greatly helps designers to have art early in their shifts. Again, exceptions will be made for live events and breaking news.

Also next week, we will have one-hour earlier deadlines on Tuesday because of the inauguration. Circulation plans to print several thousand extra copies to sell on the street and wants to make sure those papers get to delivery people earlier. So on Tuesday night, Whittier's deadline is 9 p.m., Pasadena's is 9:45 p.m. and Tribune's is 10:45 p.m. For that night only, we'll want normal inside A copy by 2 p.m. and everything else by 4 p.m.

Thanks very much for your help. And while I am at it, I will echo Frank's comments about the good work you have all done recently. The Rose, our Jan. 2 parade wrap and the other special sections we've done recently were exceptional. But I am most proud that we had incredibly strong papers throughout that busy period and have kept that going. These are trying times for newspapers and most other businesses. But I am so proud of all of you and the papers we publish every day.

Thanks very much,

Steve

Memo from Jim Janiga

Dear Fellow Employees,

Today our company is announcing the suspension of all annual merit increases to be effective February 1, 2009. We are not certain how long this suspension will last but are hopeful that the coming 2010 Fiscal Year operating budget will allow the suspension to be lifted. The new fiscal year begins July 1, 2009. No guarantees but that is our goal. In the meantime, all merit increases earned and due before February 1, 2009 will be processed.

Under this suspension all increases earned and due on and after February 1, will be suspended for at least five months. For example, and based on that anticipated time period, if you are due a merit increase this coming March 2009, that merit increase will be delayed five months to August 2009. If you just receive a merit increase this past December 2008, your next merit increase would be due May 2010. Your Human Resources representatives can assist with any questions or concerns you may have.

Suspending merit increases will not reduce our current expenses but it does help us contain our expenses for a period of time. So obviously more needs to be considered and implemented, if warranted. To this end we are asking everyone to share with us any suggestions you might have regarding cuts in our operating expenses that are measurable, timely and sensible; cuts that can help us avoid more layoffs and are cuts you may be willing to accept. We need your input.

Unfortunately we cannot promise there will not be layoffs in the future but we should always endeavor to do what we can to prevent as many as possible. Obviously, growing revenue is our best option but until revenue streams stabilize and grow, reducing our expenses will continue to be a painful but necessary focus. Some early suggestions have included mandatory furloughs, cuts in our vacation benefits, pay cuts (temporary and/or permanent), reduced work schedules, allowing volunteer reduction in hours while retaining most full-time benefits, and more.

No one has THE answer and no one should naively speculate what others may not be willing to do to help save a co-worker's job... even where there are no guarantees. We would be foolish not to ask for your support, ideas, focus and commitment.

Everyone needs to be engaged. We need to support each other. We can and will make a difference. Times are tough but we are tougher. Your ideas are important to all of us.

Thank you for your attention and thank you for your continuing input and loyalty.

Sincerely,
Jim Janiga
Senior Vice President - Human Resources

Bray responds to LA Impact (UPDATED*)

Christy L. O'Donnell

Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, LLP

801 South Figueroa St., 15th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Dear Ms. O'Donnell:

On September 8, 2008, I sent a request for documents to your client, L.A. Impact. You responded for the first time on October 14, 2008. Your response so far has been legally inadequate and grossly unprofessional. Your client has been poorly served by your performance.

First, I requested public documents from your client, a public agency. State law gives public agencies ten days to respond to such requests. L.A. Impact received my request -- my second request, by the way -- on September 9, 2008 (see enclosed photocopy of U.S. Postal Service "Domestic Return Receipt," labeled as Document 1). Your letter of October 14 begins, "This letter will confirm our receipt of your correspondence, dated September 8, 2008..." (see enclosed photocopy of your October 14 letter, labeled as Document 2). No explanation for your delayed response follows. Should I wish to argue that L.A. Impact does not comply with the terms of the California Public Records Act, your own letter serves as the plainest evidence of that fact. It took you five weeks to send a short initial response to a one-page letter. I hope this is not the standard at your firm.

Second, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, I asked to receive agendas for public meetings of the L.A. Impact directors. You mailed to me an agenda for the October 16, 2008 meeting of the L.A. Impact Executive Council (enclosed, labeled as Document 3), with a demand (see your letter, Document 2) that I pay a $2.50 fee to L.A. Impact to cover the cost of mailing. As this agenda shows, the meeting in question began on October 16, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. But you mailed the agenda to me on October 15, 2008, as the metered postage on your envelope shows (see enclosed photocopy of Manning & Marder envelope, labeled as Document 4). An agenda mailed October 15 for a meeting on the morning of October 16 is useless, a fact I shouldn't need to explain even to you. In fact, I received the agenda after the meeting was over. Perhaps five weeks is just how long it takes you to get a two-page document in the mail, but you and your client are not complying with the Brown Act by sending an agenda for a meeting that is already over when the agenda arrives. Obviously, I will not be paying your client for this agenda. Future agendas are to reach me prior to the meetings described by those agendas.

Third, on Wednesday, October 15, 2008, we exchanged email in which I asked for an appointment this week to review public records at your client's office. You responded at 9:36 a.m. on that day that you would contact your client and arrange such an appointment for me. It is now 8:45 a.m. on Monday, October 20, and I have not heard from you. You had most of the day Wednesday, and all of Thursday and Friday, to arrange an appointment at a public agency to review simple public records that should be easily available. I am requesting an opportunity to review the recent agendas and minutes of a local legislative body, a set of records that any City Clerk in the state would instantly provide to me over the counter without an appointment. This is not hard.

I am not impressed by you. Do your job.

Sincerely,

Chris Bray

*UPDATED: Here is the key paragraph in O'Donnell's letter to Bray, dated Oct. 23, that responds to the letter above:

As for your allegation that the appointment is untimely, there is no specific time requirement within the Brown Act, the above appointment is reasonable, and thus there is no violation. Although no explanation is required, you allege that you should immediately have been given an appointment within a secure LA IMPACT building solely because "a set of records that any City Clerk in the state would instantly provide to [you] over the counter without an appointment. This is not hard." As I explained in my October 14, 2008 correspondence, LA IMPACT Headquarters is a secure law enforcement building with restricted access to civilians. Further, the LA IMPACT taskforce is not a municipality or state agency, but rather a crime task force whose priorities are to assist law enforcement agencies in immediate and exigent crime suppression. As such, the above date and time is more than reasonable, given the nature of LA IMPACT. No Brown Act violation exists.

She's right, LA Impact is neither a city nor a state agency. But neither are a county or a school district, and yet both are bound by the Brown Act. (State agencies, funnily enough, are governed by a different open-meetings law.) Moreover, every one of these agencies, LA Impact included, is subject to the California Public Records Act. That means LA Impact's agendas and documents must be open to inspection at all times during business hours (6253(a)). Failure to comply is a violation of California law.

Bray and LA Impact

September 8, 2008
Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force ("LA Impact")
5700 S. Eastern Ave.
Commerce, CA 90040

Sir or Ma’am:

I would like to receive agendas and minutes for the meetings of the L.A. Impact Board of Directors. Please add me to your Brown Act notice list. This is my second request, following my letter of July 14 of this year. Perhaps your response to my earlier request was misdirected, but it has not reached me.

Also, I want to be able to review the agendas and minutes of the L.A. Impact Board of Directors at the sites where they are regularly posted. Please provide me with a list of those sites.

Finally, I plan to review minutes for previous meetings of the L.A. Impact Board of Directors. Please identify the custodian of those records, and let me know how and where I may review them.

Thank You

Chris Bray

Cc: Richard McKee

Richard M. Kreisler, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore

*******************************************

Dear Mr. Bray:

This letter being sent to you via email as a courtesy and U.S. Mail will confirm our receipt of your correspondence, dated September 8, 2008, in which you requested the following items:

1) "[T]o receive agendas and minutes for the meetings of the L.A. Impact Board of Directors", and accordingly to be added "to your Brown Act notice list."

2) "[T]o be able to review the agendas and minutes of the L.A. Impact Board of Directors at the sites where they are regularly posted", and accordingly to be provided "with a list of those sites."

3) "[T]o review minutes for previous meetings of the L.A. Impact Board of Directors", and accordingly to know the identity of "the custodian of records" and "how and where I may review them."

Here is our response to each of your above requests:

1) A copy of the upcoming Agenda for the October 16, 2008 LA Impact Board of Director's meeting has been mailed to you. Pursuant to Government Code section 54954.1 LA Impact has established a fee of $2.50 for mailing the agenda. Please forward payment for this mailing immediately to our Los Angeles office upon your receipt. Please be advised that in the future, we will require payment of this fee in advance of mailing you the agenda.

As for your request for a copy of the minutes to be sent to you, there is no such requirement within the Brown Act and thus we cannot comply with your request. Please see our response to your request No. 3, as you may view the minutes at the site at which they are normally maintained.

As for your request to be added "to your Brown Act notice list", there is no requirement of the same within the Brown Act and thus we cannot comply with your request.

2) The agenda for the next LA Impact Board of Director's meeting is posted at 12545 Florence Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, CA. Therefore, you may view the agenda at that location up to 72 hours before the regularly scheduled meeting.

As for your request regarding where the minutes are "posted", there is no such requirement within the Brown Act and thus we cannot comply with your request. Please see our response to your request No. 3, as you may view the minutes at the site at which they are normally maintained.

3) The minutes are maintained by LA Impact at their headquarters in Commerce. You will only be allowed access to view the minutes from "Open Sessions" of the Board, as closed sessions do not constitute public records. Should you still desire to view the minutes from prior Open Session, please provide me with a few alternate dates and times you are available to view the minutes so that we can make arrangements for you to do so, as LA Impact is a secure building and we will need to arrange for you to have access. In addition, please be advised that should you desire to photocopy any of the minutes, you will be asked to pay in advance a rate of $ .35 per/copy.

Should you have any additional requests or inquiries, please direct them to me as counsel for LA Impact.

Christy L. O'Donnell, Esq.
Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, LLP
15th Floor at 801 Tower
801 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 624-6900
(213) 624-6900 fax
clo@mmker.com

******************************************

Dear Ms. O'Donnell,

Thanks for your prompt reply to my request. I had hoped that LA Impact minutes and agendas were created and stored as Word files, or something similar, and could be emailed as attachments with very little cost or hassle to your client. But I would be happy to spend time in the LA Impact office instead, even if it is a substantial time commitment for us all. If I'll be required to travel to the office to read minutes every time there's a meeting of the Board of Directors, perhaps we can come up with a regular appointment time for those frequent visits. In the meantime, I'd like to schedule any morning next week after nine a.m. to review the requested minutes. I plan to read them carefully and methodically, so I may need to visit the LA Impact office quite a few times in the coming days.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Chris Bray