I’m posting this because as a writer and librarian you’ve got to know how hard it can be to work with publishers. My current novel (supsense/thriller, Death Game, published by independent press, Zumaya Publications) has been reprinted so it can be distributed by Ingram. This is the first book the publisher redid from their list and I just received it and the publisher’s logo is not on the spine in the new edition.

I’ve heard libraries and bookstores will not stock/shelve books w/o publisher’s logos on spines. You must know. Is that correct?

Lewis Jaffe Philadelphia Pa.

PS - there are a few broken links in your second paragarph on the rules.

Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 15:54:21 -0400
Reply-To: thomkeat at earthlink.net
Sender: State and Local Freedom of Information Issues

Sent-From: James Keat
Subject: Maryland open meetings
X-cc: Allen Dyer

Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. has vetoed a bill, passed
virtually without opposition, that would have remedied an overlooked
defect in the 30-year-old open meetings statute.

He said it would open government agencies to increased litigation
— the only way the statute can be enforced.

However, lobbyists for local governments, which would be the
principal targets of such suits, did not oppose the bill with one
exception, representatives of local school boards.

The bill was designed to remedy a trial court decision last year
that dismissed an open meetings enforcement suit against a local
school board on the ground the plaintiff had no standing to sue.

If allowed to stand, this ruling would effectively eviscerate
enforcement of the statute by civic groups, the press and virtually
all other persons.

The statute permits persons “adversely affected” to sue for
compliance.

The judge decided that the plaintiff was not economically injured
by the asserted violations a! nd therefore lacked standing.

Because there was no case law on the point, the judge had to reach
into the zoning code for a precedent.

That ruling is on appeal.

The governor’s veto can be overturned by the legislature at its
next session, now scheduled for next January.

Additional information:

Editorial in Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.meetings28may28,0,344
8322.story?coll=bal-opinion-headlines

Opinion article in Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64695-2004May28.html

Briefs and other documents in law suit:
http://www.riverhill.org/unofficial/board/open/indxpldg.htm

Jim Keat
Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association

— James Keat
— thomkeat at earthlink.net

http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0405&L=foi-l&D=1&O=D&T=0&P=5581&F=P
http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/foi-l.html

Over at my own blog the agenda is expressly political and I am regularily handed my head by bright, if misguided, commenters. Occupational hazard. And my choice. Just as banning Jack is Karen’s choice.

Jack, here’s a suggestion, if you really, really want to get into the assorted red herrings about brother sister and multiple marriages come over to my blog and have at it. But respect Karen’s unwillingness to have your comments here.

And do, please, drop the whole silly idea that this is about censorship or freedom of speech. There is no “gotcha” here. No one forces you to post here, no one denies you access to the literally hundreds of thousands of platforms the net provides for free expression.

It is not censorship to refuse to invite a rude dinner guest back the next time you have a dinner party. It is merely a recognition of that rudeness. It should be taken personally and the behaviour corrected.

I think your guidelines are clear and based on common courtesy.

Although I haven’t had any problems with obnoxious comments posted to this site, I’m sure that someday I will. I’ve just come across Karen Schneider’s guidelines for comments on her blog, and I find that I could not have stated