Captain Biblio's Webmaster Workshop

ERIP Questions

The following is an email sent Nov. 22, 2009 regarding the LA City Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) which raises some questions about the validity of the ordinance:

To: Thomas Simonovski, Sr. Labor Relations Specialist, Los Angeles CAO's Office

cc: a) Roy Stone, President, Librarians Guild, AFSCME Local 2626
b) Loryn Lam, LACERS Retirement Counselor

Dear Mr. Simonovski,

I have the following questions regarding Section 4.1033 of the Los
Angeles Administrative Code ("ERIP ordinance" or "the ordinance"):

1. Para (a)(7)(i) states that "All applications for non-ERIP LACERS
retirements submitted by persons eligible for the ERIP, and still
pending as of the beginning of the 45-day ERIP window period, shall be
held in abeyance for the duration of the 45-day ERIP window period.
Such ERIP-eligible persons may elect to submit an ERIP Election Form,
or, alternatively, they may wait until after the 45-day ERIP window
period has expired, at which point their non-ERIP retirement
applications shall continue to be processed. . . .".

a) Here, what does the term "shall be held in abeyance" mean
and what does the term “shall continue to be processed” mean?

b) My retirement date was set for November 8, 2009 (and I
filed my ERIP election form on November 2, 2009). My intention was to
be first in line if I'm eligible for ERIP - but to keep the option
open of not retiring at all if I'm not eligible. On November 7,2009
I looked again at the ERIP Ordinance. I saw that the language of para
(a)(7)(i) is not clear about what my status would be if I'm not
eligible for ERIP. Therefore, I faxed a withdrawal of my retirement
application to LACERS before midnight on November 7. I interpreted
the phrase "shall continue to be processed" as meaning that I would be
forced to retire (without ERIP) if I'm not eligible for ERIP. Is
this a correct interpretation of the paragraph?

c) What exactly is my status now? Maybe my November 7
withdrawal was not effective - since the application is/was "held in
abeyance" on November 7 (can an application held in abeyance be
withdrawn?)?

2. Para (a)(3) states in relevant part, that "Certain . . . employee
classifications have an ERIP limitation number, meaning that . . .
Participants actually receiving the ERIP benefits, shall be limited in
number . . . The CAO shall make known these . . . Limited
Classifications' ERIP limitation numbers.".

a) The ordinance itself is silent as to who is permitted to
participate in the benefits of the ordinance (by not stating who is
excluded). Doesn't that make the ordinance impermissibly vague?

b) The ordinance grants discretion to the CAO to determine which
employees shall benefit from the ordinance. However it doesn't
provide any guidance as to what standards the CAO should follow in
exercising that discretion. No standards are provided so that the CAO
can determine in a non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory manner who should
benefit - and who should be excluded from benefiting - from the
ordinance. How, exactly, does the CAO decide who is excluded and who
is included in the ERIP program?

c) I was told that there is a limitation of 20 librarians and 15
senior librarians who can participate in the ERIP. How, exactly, were
those numbers arrived at? Why can 15% of senior librarians
participate while only 6% of rank and file librarians participate in
these benefits? Relatively more severance benefit packages for
senior librarians (at the expense of rank and file librarians) is not
only unfair - but could adversely impact library service. Duties of
senior librarians are essential to keep branch libraries open to the
public. And there is only one senior librarian position at each
branch.

d) Were these numbers negotiated by the Librarians Guild AFSCME
Local 2626 union (“Guild”)? The Guild is a management- dominated
union composed of both rank and file librarians and their supervisors
(senior librarians). Although they appear to be two bargaining units
(in one union ?) they have only one Executive Board - and it is
dominated by senior librarians. Senior librarians negotiate for both
themselves and for rank-and-file librarians. This is an obvious
conflict of interest and divided loyalty. When, where, and how can
ERIP limitation numbers be challenged?

3. Para (a)(3)(i) states that "In the event that a Limited
Classification's number of ERIP Eligible Filers . . . exceeds the
limitation number, the earliest initial date of LACERS membership
(Initial LACERS Membership Date) shall be used to determine which ERIP
Eligible Filers shall be allowed to retire under the ERIP . . . The
person with the earliest Initial LACERS Membership Date shall receive
priority. . . .".

a) I was told last week by a representative in the CAO's
office that "seniority" would be used to determine who shall receive
priority in this regard. However, someone with an earlier Initial
LACERS Membership Date could have less seniority than someone with a
later date. For example, I was told that my Initial LACERS
Membership Date is October 2, 1979. However I have less than a full
30 years of service credit because I wasn’t a full-time employee for
all of that time. Please clarify that the Initial LACERS Membership
Date will be used instead of seniority measured in years of service.

b) Also, please clarify - how can an individual employee
appeal – or even verify - a decision by the CAO that he or she is not
eligible for ERIP?

Sincerely,

Agency fee.

A strong union is important for public librarians. We are on the cutting edge of an amazing information revolution. Our job description has changed dramatically over the last 15 years. We must now be fluent with new tools of technology in addition to the traditional fluency in literature being accessed by that technology.

We are caught between extremely rapid advances in the manifestation of information, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, library administrators who lag behind even the general public in knowledge of technology - but who nevertheless make decisions affecting our day-to-day workplace situations.

Indeed, public libraries now see the need to redefine their very identity and mission. A strong union is not only important in helping librarians survive these difficult times. A strong union is also important for the general public by charting the way for the future of the public library in our society. What is more valuable in this regard than meaningful input by our front-line rank-and-file librarians?

Unfortunately, our union has not been up to this challenge. Instead of a strong union we have a union dominated by management - and unable to exert any real change in regard to systemwide decisions.

The Librarians Guild is the labor union representing librarians at the Los Angeles Public Library. The Guild is composed of both rank and file librarians and their supervisors. Far more significant is that LAPL supervisors sit on the Guild's Executive Board - making union decisions for rank-and-file employees. If you're thinking - "isn't that a "conflict of interest" or doesn't that constitute management domination of a union - you're thinking the same as I did for years.

Even in cases where supervisors could be members of a rank-and-file union they cannot hold office in the union. Where a member is promoted to supervisor and wants to keep his ". . . union membership as a form of job security or as a means of retaining union benefits, such persons may not be candidates for or hold office." (29 CFR 452.47).

Back in 1991 I filed a grievance regarding a workplace issue - not realizing that my supervisor (against whom it was filed) happened to be Vice-President of the union. I saw then - first hand - how the supervisors on the Executive Board stonewalled my grievance. And I realized then how the rights of individual rank-and-file employees cannot be protected in a situation where the people against whom a grievance is filed are the very same people who decide the fate of the grievance!

I quit the union in protest over this issue. And I resisted the imposition of agency fees as a non-member because of this.

What is "agency fee"? The union must represent every employee within the bargaining unit, whether or not the employee is a member of the union. Agency fees are intended to compensate for this work (so that the employee must pay his "fair share" and doesn't receive a "free ride" - to use the union's language). They are calculated by taking the union's costs of representation -- contract negotiations and other forms of representation -- and dividing those among all employees. They are generally less than member dues, and employees are generally required to either join the union and pay dues, or pay the lower "agency fee."

Although agency fee may seem reasonable for most unions it is not reasonable in the case of the Librarians Guild.

See my reasoning taken from the body of my challenge to the fee:

Date: April 30, 2009


Re: Challenges **************
re Notice to All Non-Member Employees Paying Agency Fees to Council 36, Deadline May 8, 2009

This is my response to "Notice to All Non-Member Employees Paying Agency Fees to Council 36, Deadline May 8, 2009" ("Notice") which I recently received from Council 36 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The Notice sets forth a calculation by the union of my purported "fair share fee" (i.e., agency fee) as a non-member of Council 36 - described (at p. 5) as follows: " . . . 67.17% of the fair share fees deducted from nonmembers' payroll" are "fully chargeable".

The Notice includes procedures for objecting to or challenging the payment of - or to the calculation of - said fee and it states (at p. 7) that "All challengers will automatically be treated as objectors . . . ".

Challenges:

1) As a rank-and-file employee, I am not responsible for expenses of negotiating the Supervisory Librarians' Contract - nor for expenses of adjusting supervisory librarians' grievances.

Membership of the Librarians Guild, Local 2626 ("Guild") consists of both rank-and-file employees and their supervisors. The Notice fails to consider that the Guild negotiates on behalf of TWO different bargaining units. It negotiates BOTH of the following: a) a Rank & File Librarians' Contract, and, b) a Supervisory Librarians' Contract. Likewise, the Guild adjusts grievances both for supervisors and for those whom they supervise.

I am a rank and file librarian with the Los Angeles Public Library ("LAPL"). Supervisory librarians are part of a different bargaining unit.

Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (475 US 292, 1986) authorizes collection of agency fees ". . . to finance expenditures by the Union for collective-bargaining, contract-administration, and grievance-adjustment purposes". In this regard, it contemplates the collective bargaining, etc, to be only for the non-member's particular bargaining unit - not for other bargaining units.

In other words, whatever could be my share of expenses in negotiating the contract for my bargaining unit (in order not to have a "free ride"), I should not be responsible for the expenses of negotiating the supervisory librarians contract, etc. Therefore whatever - if anything - could be determined to be a total fair share percentage of bargaining, etc, expenses needs to be divided by two (AT THE VERY LEAST - see below).

2) Supervisors negotiating for - and supervisors adjusting grievances of - those whom they supervise is a conflict of interest which I should not be required to support.

Year after year, the Executive Board of the Guild is packed with supervisors. Currently the President of the Guild, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Guild and the Guild's publication editor (an at-large Board Member) are all branch managers. The Guild's Recording Secretary is a higher level manager. And two of the Guild's trustees are at nearly the highest levels of management.

This constitutes a conflict of interest because the Executive Board negotiates rank-and-file contracts and adjusts rank-and-file grievances.

"It takes no vivid imagination to see that, due to its closeness to management, the supervisory personnel might (and in many instances do) possess divided loyalty, rendering them ill-equipped to conduct labor negotiations and settle sensitive labor disputes from the standpoint of both the employer and the union. Recognizing the inevitable conflict of interest deriving from divided loyalty, the authorities and legal scholars go even further than the statute and either question the extension of representation rights to supervisory and managerial employees, or urge legislative amendment of the MMB Act to exclude supervisors from coverage by negotiated agreements." (United Clerical Employees, Local 2700 v. County of Contra Costa (76 CalApp 3d at p. 128).

The Guild negotiates two contracts for two different units whose interests directly conflict with each other - one for supervisors and one for those whom they supervise. Therefore, the Guild (which acts as exclusive negotiating representative for members of the bargaining units - just as a lawyer acts as exclusive representative for his clients) should receive ZERO compensation for negotiating where there is a conflict of interest - under the same principle that a lawyer is subject to denial or disgorgement of legal fees when involved in a conflict of interest.

Furthermore, I should not be forced to support an unfair labor practice (for supervisors to handle rank-and-file grievances).

Supervisory employees are on the Executive Board of the Guild which adjusts rank-and-file grievances. However, supervisory employees are precluded from voting on or otherwise handling, a grievance of a rank-and-file employee.

The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (CAL.GOV.CODE §3500 et seq) is applicable to local government employees. It is silent on this issue. However, California state employee supervisors are prohibited from handling a rank-and-file grievance under CAL.GOV.CODE §3529(b). The case, Public Employees of Riverside County, Inc. v. County of Riverside(1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 882, holds that the Court should look to the state Employer-Employee Relations Act in analyzing the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. Therefore, CAL.GOV.CODE §3529(b) also applies to local government employees

3) So long as management employees are members of the Guild, I should not be required to support an organization which is in violation of the City Employee Relations Ordinance.

Employee Relations Ordinance of the City of Los Angeles ( "ERO") Sec. 4.822(a)(7) states the following:
"(7) Management or confidential employees shall not be included in the same unit with other employees.".
Library Branch Managers (Senior Librarians) and even higher level Regional Managers (Principal Librarians) are members of the Guild.

Branch Managers fall within the definition of "Management Employee" which is defined by ERO Sec.4.801 as follows:

"An employee having significant responsibilities for formulating or administering City or departmental policies and programs".

LAPL Branch Managers do, in fact, have significant responsibilites for administering Library policies and programs.

Note that the law looks at the facts of what employees do - not to their job title in this regard:

" . . . the determination of "managerial" or "supervisory" is a matter of degree and depends on the authority actually exercised. (NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co. (1974) 416 U.S. 267, . . . Whether an employee is a supervisor who possesses genuine management prerogatives and exercises independence of judgment is essentially a question of fact. (N.L.R.B. v. Bama Company (5th Cir. 1965) 353 F.2d 320, 322. . . The factual determination, however, does not depend solely on the job title, but rather on all the facts of the case." (United Clerical Employees v. County of Contra Costa, 76 Cal. App. 3d 119).

LAPL Branch Managers develop and administer the policies of their branch and they administer the policies of the Library Department. They have descretion to formulate programs and to determine what type of programs - and what specific programs - their branches offer to the public. The Branch Manager is also responsible for the nature and content of the library's collection (what will be available to the public). He/she is responsible for staff discipline, determines staff schedules, and regulates the flow of staff interaction with the public at his/her branch.

National Labor Relations Board has noted, "managerial status is not conferred upon rank and file workers or upon those who perform routinely, but rather it is reserved for those in executive type positions, those who are closely aligned with management as true representatives of management." Bell Aerospace (1975) 219 NLRB 384.

LAPL Branch Managers have the day-to-day responsibilities of managing their libraries. They are, indeed, in an executive type position - true representatives of management to the public and also to their own staff.

Therefore, so long as Branch Managers are members of the Guild, the Guild is in violation of ERO 4.822(a)(7) and I should not be required to support an organization which is operating contrary to the ordinance.

4) The Guild is both a "professional organization" as well as a labor union. Therefore, the Notice's data is based on an unfair comparison of different types of organizations.

The Guild purports to be more than a labor union. It purports to be a professional organization. The Guild web site (http://www.librariansguild.org/) states the following:

"The Librarians' Guild represents the professional librarians of the Los Angeles Public Library. It is Local 2626 of AFSCME (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees). It is a member of AFSCME District Council 36. The Librarians' Guild is both a labor union and an organization representing the professional concerns of librarians." (emphasis added).

One of the objectives of the Guild as stated in Article III of its constitution is:

"to uphold the highest standards of professional librarianship" (emphasis added).

Being a professional organization - in addition to its role as a labor union - it stands to reason that the time and resources spent by the Guild in negotiating labor contracts is clearly a smaller percentage of its total spent time and resources than it is for the vast majority of the AFSCME locals which are labor unions exclusively. However, the data upon which the "fair share fee" percentage is calculated is taken from a pool of locals which is most likely comprised of locals which are exclusively labor unions.

Furthermore, to the extent the Guild as a professional organization is a political or ideologically based organization I should not be required to make any contribution at all - based on First Amendment to the US Constitution freedom of association protections. Chicago Teachers Union is based on Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (431 US 209, 1977) and, in this regard, Abood states the following: ". . . .contributing to an organization for the purpose of spreading a political message is protected by the First Amendment.".

5) Most of the "categories" listed in the Notice are, in fact, not chargeable

Abood permits an agency fee ONLY ". . . to finance expenditures by the Union for collective-bargaining, contract-administration, and grievance-adjustment purposes" - not for other, unrelated, activities.

All of the categories listed in the Notice (e.g., "5. The public advertising of positions on the negotiation, . . .", "27. Social and recreational activities", etc.) are for other, unrelated activities, except for the following: "1", "2", "3", "4", "7", "9", "12", "14", and "15".

6) The information supplied by the Notice to support its calculations is insufficient to gauge the fee's propriety.

The Notice does not provide sufficient information to gauge the fee's propriety.
"In Hudson, a public-sector case in which limitations on the use of agency fees were prompted directly by the First Amendment, the Court held that unions and employers must provide three procedural protections for nonunion workers who object to the agency-fee calculation: sufficient information to gauge the fee's propriety, 475 U. S., at 306;. . ." (Miller at para 19 - emphasis added).
The data used to calculate the fee is based on other AFSCME Locals, an unknown number of which are not professional organizations and are not mixed supervisors/rank-and-file.


7) As per Miller, I reserve the right to amend, or to add to, the grounds stated in this Challenge.

". . . plaintiffs who challenge an agency-fee calculation are not required to state any grounds whatsoever for their challenge." (Airline Pilots Association v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866 (1998) at para 52). "We have held that "the nonunion employee has the burden of raising an objection, but that the union retains the burden of proof." Hudson, 475 U. S., at 306. And when pursuing the union's internal remedies, an objector may preserve the right to subsequent judicial relief without "indicat[ing] to the Union the specific expenditures to which he objects." Abood, 431 U. S., at 241 . . ." (Miller at para 53).

Furthermore, I do not agree to the arbitration procedure described in the Notice (see Miller at para 18).


____________________

Usury Laws

According to an excellent article in Harper's Magazine (April 2009) - Infinite Debt by Thomas Geoghegan - the key to our current financial meltdown and economic crisis can be summed up in one word:

USURY.

Most analyses of the economic crisis focus on the housing meltdown and/or the lack of proper bank regulation. These are true - but not the whole truth.

Geoghehan goes to the heart of the matter and points the finger of blame for our current financial and economic crisis on the dismantling of usury laws which resulted from the 1978 Supreme Court decision in Marquette National Bank v. First Omaha Service Corp (national banks may charge the interest at the rate set by the state "where the bank is located" regardless of the laws in the state where the bank is actually lending money).

“We dismantled the most ancient of human laws, the law against usury, which had existed in some form in every civilization from the time of the Babylonian Empire to the end of Jimmy Carter’s term.”


Geoghegan traces how "with the collapse of anti-usury laws, we have also seen the deregulation of virtually everything else bankers do" and how our economy has since become based - not on manufacturing innovations but - on banking innovations (e.g. derivatives, etc) resulting in economic deterioration.

According to one authority (see http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1998_usury.htm )
regarding usury "[a]mong its most visible and vocal critics have been the religious institutions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. To this list may be added ancient Western philosophers and politicians, as well as various modern socio-economic reformers.".

Could our society's violation of this "moral law" be the cause of our current economic crisis?

Articles:

Revive Usury Law

Senator proposes national usury rate

Road to ruin: Usury, greed and the paper economy

Democracy Now article

South Dakota eliminates usury laws to save Citibank

ITC v. LAPL Librarians: Is the tail wagging the dog?

To what extent are the traditional responsibilities of the professional librarian being swallowed up by the new technology?

This question comes up due to the policy at LAPL whereby librarians are prohibited by ITC from downloading any programs to the reference desk computers - including reference tools like Google toolbar which reference librarians use to fill patron inquiries.

The following are some of the issues involved - as stated in grievance (and grievance appeal) papers that brought (and denied) regarding this issue:

__________

At LAPL, ITC computer staff - instead of librarians - decide what tools professional librarians should use in performing their public service mission

LAPL Information System Standards (ISS) conflicts with our public service mission. ISS states under "2.0 Usage Guideline" the following:

"Staff must not install or attach hardware or software on the Library Department's network or equipment without ITC Division approval.".

The purpose of ITC is only to support the professional librarians. However, here, technology has become the master rather than the servant of the professional librarians. ITC staff who are not even librarians, dictate what tools librarians can - or cannot - use in performing their public service mission. This is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. ITC has usurped professional responsibilities of librarians.

And this situation also constitutes a form of censorship, something which the profession of librarianship has traditionally been vehemently opposed to (see, for example, American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom). Software is a form of literature. Code is a natural language. Banning particular software from reference desk use is analogous to banning particular reference books from reference desk use.

. . . I spoke with ******, who heads ITC. He said that computers must be standardized because librarians inadvertently download malware when they download free programs to use on reference desk computers. Then ITC must spend time to come out and get rid of the malware. He suggested that librarians should use their own laptops which can have any configuration they want. However, it's my understanding that (some other) policy prohibits use of personal equipment, including laptops (and USB drives). The conflict in policies is confusing and requires clarification.
________________

The failure of LAPL to provide a necessary exception to the ITC policy (viz, for professional librarians using reference desk computers) denigrates the professionalism of all LAPL Librarians.

The reference desk computer is a major tool - if not the chief tool - used by LAPL Librarians to provide professional library service to the public. It is used hour after hour, day after day, as the librarian's chief reference tool. Yet LAPL deems its librarians too lacking in judgment and discretion to decide what software may or may not be installed on these machines to make them the most effective tools for public service. LAPL Librarians are dependent on downtown computer people (non-librarians) to tell them what software tools they may or may not use on the reference desk computers. Therefore LAPL Librarians are not considered by LAPL to be truly "professional" employees who consistently exercise discretion and judgment in serving the public at their local branches.

The US Labor Code 29 USC sec. 152, para 12, defines a "professional employee" as follows:

(12) The term "professional employee" means - (a) any employee engaged in work (i) predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or physical work; (ii) involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance; (iii) of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time; (iv) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general academic education or from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes . . . (emphasis added).

LAPL librarians should not have to go through a convoluted process to obtain approval from non-librarians in order to use the tools they need to accomplish the best possible professional service to the public. Who is serving whom in regard to the reference desk computers?

Granted that in regard to public computers ITC should have the last word. But the reference desk computers are the librarians' chief tools to serve the public. The burden should be on ITC to show that a particular program may be susceptible to malware intrusion and for them to request that it be removed if necessary. ITC's concerns are out of balance. The risk of malware inadvertently getting on the reference desk computer, and harming it, is greatly outweighed by the benefit to the public when librarians have the flexibility to install the tools they need to do their job.

The proof of this is the fact that at most LAPL branches the ITC policy is completely ignored at reference desk computers. Obviously LAPL librarians place service to the public above rigid adherence to the policy.

The reply suggests that there is a librarian downtown who is part of ITC. However, the fact that a librarian - no matter how well intentioned or knowledgeable - signs off on software decisions made by computer people is beside the point. The professional librarian should be considered to have the judgment to decide what tools to use to help the individual patron at that particular branch's reference desk. Being restricted to using only tools deemed appropriate by someone in a downtown office is an encroachment on the librarian's professionalism.

Another point of confusion is the apparent conflict of policies. As stated in the grievance, [the head of ITC] told me in our phone conversation that I should use my own personal laptop computer. This conflicts with instructions from [regional manager] (many months ago) that staff is not allowed to use personal computing equipment on the job. So what's the applicable rule?

Doctor's Note Conundrum

Early this month I needed to use sick time for nearly a week due to symptoms of the common cold. I was told on the phone that a Doctor's note is required by LAPL in order to return to work when out sick for more than 3 days.

So the night before returning to work I went to Kaiser Hospital and got the required note. It took more than 2 1/2 hours of travel time, waiting time, and examination time. It cost me a Kaiser co-payment fee and Kaiser parking fees.

My question was this - was all this really necessary? - or was it based on a misunderstanding of the LAPL Doctor's Note Policy?

It's well known that there is "no cure for the common cold". For example, Wikipedia (s.v. "Common cold") states the following:

"Acute viral rhinopharyngitis, or acute coryza, usually known
as the common cold, is a highly contagious, viral infectious disease of the upper respiratory system, . . . Common symptoms are sore throat, runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing and coughing; . . . The symptoms of a cold usually resolve after about one week, but can last up to two. . . . There are no antiviral drugs approved to treat or
cure the infection; all medications used are palliative and treat symptoms only. . . .".

Since there's no treatment for this - there's no reason to seek treatment for it.

No reasonable person - knowing in advance that the doctor will do nothing except tell him to "go home and rest" - would spend hours traveling, parking, sitting in waiting rooms and examination rooms, just to be told to "go home and rest". It would be better for everyone involved for an employee with a common cold to just stay home and rest. Therefore, in this case, the only reason for going to Kaiser is to satisfy the DNP.

LAPL Personnel Procedures Manual, sec. 13.522 ("Verification of Illness/Injury") is apparently the basis for the DNP. It states the following:

"Satisfactory and suitable proof, such as a doctor's
certificate, must be furnished for any period of personal illness longer than three consecutive working days . . .".

The purpose of the DNP is not to verify by a medical person that the employee is no longer contagious - a health threat to co-workers - and that it's therefore safe for him to return to work. It's to provide "proof" (evidence) that the employee was really sick.

The doctor's note is just one example given of "satisfactory and suitable proof" of this. But a medical degree isn't required to recognize that someone has a common cold. Indeed, my supervisor was witness to my illness when I left work early the day before calling in sick. What does the doctor's note add as far as "proof" that I was sick?

In California, a written declaration signed under penalty of perjury is considered adequate proof for a number of things (e.g., proof of service, declarations attached to ex parte motions, etc.). It stands as "proof" of the facts stated therein - unless rebutted by an opposing declaration.

A declaration (signed by myself and/or other witnesses) stating that I had particular medical symptons preventing me from coming to work should also be adequate for LAPL. Is this indeed adequate? And if not, why not?

The implication of the DNP is that the employee must go to the doctor while he is still sick (otherwise how does the doctor know that he was sick in the past?).

But how can the doctor give him a "back to work" (aka "return to work", "release to work") note if he is not yet ready to go back to work?

Does the employee need to go twice to the doctor (once to prove that he is sick and once again to prove that he is well enough to go back to work)? In other words, to what extent, if any, is the required note from the doctor a true "back to work" note?

Furthermore, from LAPL's point of view, a rigid interpretation of DNP may result in lost employee productivity as follows:

If, because of DNP, an employee must get out of his sick bed to go somewhere, he may as well go to the workplace - on the fourth day of illness - rather than to the doctor. He then saves sick time hours and saves the time and expense of going to the doctor. However, by doing this he exposes fellow employees to his "highly contagious" disease which, if other employees catch it, could result in a much higher total employee use of sick time and lost productivity. And it's not be morally worse for the sick employee to come to the workplace than to go to the hospital waiting room (to infect the innocent people there).

After returning to work I requested clarification - for the future - of the LAPL Doctor's Note Policy ("DNP"). But I never received it.

Friends of the Library

Below is the bulk of the memo I sent on Jan. 5, 2009 suggesting some library fund raising possibilities:

MEMO

Suggestions for Friends of EXPO

At the last area meeting I learned that the San Pedro Branch, Friends of the Library, group takes in some $3,000 per month from its monthly book sales. That's impressive - especially with the current library budget problems. We should explore ways to improve Expo's financial situation. The following are some ideas along these lines:

We should create a Friends of Expo Group to function as a fund-raising arm of the library.

1. The Friends group could sponsor book sales (not too original!).
2. The Friends group could purchase a laser printer so that our many laptop computer users can print make printouts from their laptops. 25 cents per page from this growing segment of the population could add up (my Samsung printer costs me 3.5 cents per page for consumables).
3. Extending the above idea, a corner of our study room could be set aside for a public fax machine, a color printer, and a US Mail dropoff (three things we are often asked for).
4. Every Sunday Mr. Carter makes a few bucks for the chess club via donations for coffee & other refreshments. We could explore the possibility of having food vending machines permanently in the meeting room where people could take a break from study for refreshments.
5. Other libraries have successfully deployed food vending machines and other types of vending machines (the Inglewood Public Library has vending machines for pencils, erasers and small notebooks). For example, San Antonio Public Library:

"The Friends of the San Antonio Public Library operates the Book Cellar, a used book store in the basement of the Central Library. . . . Book sales are the main source of income for the Friends, and the profits are donated to support San Antonio Public Library activities and materials. The Book Cellar is managed by a salaried employee of the Friends and staffed by volunteers from Friends of the San Antonio Public Library. . . . The stock comes from books withdrawn from the library system and donations. Most books sell for 25 cents to $1.00. . . . .Vending Machines
The store sells soda and bottled water and has a snack vending machine available to the public. (from http://www.sanantonio.gov/Library/friends/cellar/?res=1024&ver=true).