In Braun v. City of Taft (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 332, a city councilman (Braun) was investigating purported irregularities in the city's appointment of a firefighter (Polston) to transit administrator. After the city manager refused to confirm or deny the appointment, Braun reviewed Polston's personnel file and released to the press copies of two letters concerning the appointment and its rescission and the "face sheet" of Polston's salary card, which was modified by whiting out "transit administrator" and writing "firefighter" over it. (Id. at p. 339.) The face sheet also revealed information not germane to Braun's investigation, such as Polston's telephone number, address, Social Security and credit union numbers and birth date. Polston filed a grievance against Braun for invasion of privacy, which the city council refused to consider in a hearing. The council, however, enacted a resolution censuring Braun for disclosing the letters and salary card. Braun then petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate commanding the city to set aside its censure. The court ruled the records were not within the personnel file exemption and were subject to disclosure under the Act. (Braun v. City of Taft, supra, 154 Cal. App. 3d at p. 340.) The appellate court upheld the ruling. It held the letters were subject to disclosure under section 6254.8 as they "manifested Polston's employment contract." (Braun v. City of Taft, supra, 154 Cal. App. 3d at p. 344.) The court concluded that "because the letters regarded business transactions and contained no personal information, the lower court properly ordered disclosure of the letters." (Ibid.) The court rejected the city's argument the personnel exemption applied because the letters were part of the personnel file and their disclosure would embarrass him. (Id. at pp. 338-339, 341-342, 344.) The court expressed concern about personal information on the face sheet of Polston's salary card, but stated it was "reluctant to reverse on that limited ground." (Braun v. City of Taft, supra, 154 Cal. App. 3d at p. 345.) In concluding disclosure did not violate the Act's personnel records exception ( 6254, subd. (c)), the court explained: "The data listed on the card was not in any way embarrassing. One's telephone number and address, although personal, are seldom secret. There is nothing in the record to show that such information was not available through a city directory or telephone book." (Braun v. City of Taft, supra, 154 Cal. App. 3d at p. 345.) The court added that "few persons would find interest in the employee's Social Security and credit union numbers, or birth date." (Ibid.)