SACRAMENTO – If not for public criticism and outcry, 2013 may have been the year that California’s Legislature cut off funding to comply with open government laws, such as the Ralph M. Brown Act (California’s Open Meeting Law) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
But state lawmakers and Governor Jerry Brown decided against making this budgetary cut in June 2013 due to public outcry and media criticism, temporarily funding local government agency compliance of these open government laws.
Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) announce the senate’s decision to continue funding CPRA in June 2013
cnpa.com/cnpa_bulletinIntroduced by state Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), SCA 3 asks voters whether or not local governments have a constitutional duty to comply with CPRA and the Brown Act, while paying the associated costs arising from that compliance.
“It would apply to any subsequent amendments that further the constitutional provisions on public access to public agency meetings and records,” California Newspaper Publishers Association reports. “The amendment would also require local governments to pay the costs associated with compliance and exempts compliance with the CPRA and the Brown Act from state mandate claims.”
As the law currently stands, local governments’ adherence to key sections of the CPRA may be viewed as “optional” because they fall under legislative “mandates” by which the state must reimburse local governments for their costs, according to the First Amendment Coalition, firstamendmentcoalition.org.
“What (SCA 3) will do is clarify that local governments’ compliance with the PRA, Brown Act and other transparency laws is mandated not only by statute, but by the constitution, based on a vote of the public,” the Coalition reported. “That change means that local governments must comply with those laws and must also bare their own costs of compliance.”
If Governor Brown and the state Legislature would have accepted a budget bill in June 2013 that scrapped funding for cities and other local agencies to comply with the state’s open records law, the plan would have limited access to government records.
According to the League of California Cities’ 2013 Legislative Briefing Book, cacities.org/UploadedFiles, the state will be exempt from “reimbursing local governments approximately $15 million for mandates required by the California Public Records Act” if the constitutional amendment on the June 2014 ballot passes.
However, the League is showing caution toward the ballot measure, which amends Prop. 59 of 2004. This proposition incorporates the right of public access to information contained in the CPRA and other open meetings laws into the state Constitution; however, the League of California Cities has taken note of the state Legislature’s own lack of transparency.
“Yet when Prop. 59 was being drafted, the Legislature exempted its own operations from these provisions,” the League reported. “Should SCA 3 pass, the lack of state reimbursement obligations and the need for the Legislature to adhere to similar standards may make it easier to expand mandates on local governments.”
* * *
Closer to home, transparency in government continues to be a persistent issue.
As reported by the L.A. Times on Jan. 30, 2012, latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow, Los Angeles County supervisors violated the open meetings law in 2011 by holding a closed-door meeting with Governor Brown. According to the county district attorney’s office – as reported by the Times – Brown was discussing a plan to shift nonviolent state prisoners to county jail and supervision after release.
“Attorneys for the Board of Supervisors had claimed the secret meeting was necessary because the state’s so-called ‘realignment’ plan constituted a potential threat to public services,” the Times reported. “But in a letter dated Jan. 24 (2012), Jennifer Lentz Snyder, assistant head deputy district attorney, said the meeting should have been held in open because the information discussed did not pose a specific enough public threat.”
The California Newspaper Publishers Association provides a list of other new laws and legislative actions for 2014 that impact freedom of information and government access at cnpa.com/cnpa_bulletin.
The Association also has compiled a list of state laws governing open meetings and access to public records at cnpa.com/legislative_and_legal.
* * *
PUBLIC COMMENT
Conducting government business in the open not only gives citizens access to public information – but also to public officials. On that premise, public comment goes hand-in-hand with open government laws.
The Newberry Springs Community Alliance has reprinted an article penned by Ruth Musser-Lopez, calling for a New Year’s resolution to end the 3-Minute Rule and to restore Robert’s Rules of Order.
The Bee urges the public to read the Alliance’s “offprint” of Musser-Lopez’s article at newberryspringsinfo.com, or at sbsentinel.com, where the story was published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on Dec. 27, 2013.
The following are a few excerpts from Musser-Lopez’s article:
“In San Bernardino County, citizens began to be arrested or removed from public meetings for their speech beginning in 1989: Bob Nelson, Craig Himmler, Jeff Wright, Larry Singleton, Grace Lester, Marjorie Mikels, Shirley Goodwin, Dennis Pankey and even, on one occasion, yours truly, me, the author of this column, Ruth Musser-Lopez. Jeff Wright spent the maximum six months in prison for breaking the 3-minute rule while exposing Supervisor Gerald Eaves’ unlawful activities while in office. Eaves was subsequently the target of both federal and state indictments on political corruption charges, which ultimately resulted in his removal from office.”
… “In my view, all nine arrested were cogent, intelligent people who were raising legitimate issues and objecting to actions and a culture of corruption during an extended period of time – nearly two decades – that included Eaves’ tenure, and those of indicted and convicted former county administrative officer Harry Mays, indicted and convicted former county administrator James Hlawek, indicted and convicted former county treasurer Tom O’Donnell, indicted and convicted former county investment officer Sol Levin and indicted and convicted former San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus.”
… “Through 2003 and 2004, the pace of arrests and removals at San Bernardino County supervisors’ meetings increased to about one per month mainly because of Grace Lester being arrested a dozen times; but Jeff Wright, Bob Nelson, Marjorie Mikels and additionally Dennis Pankey were also arrested during that period, with most speakers being removed for content, mainly failing to stick to the Board’s own agenda and then refusing to surrender the lectern.”
…”The Los Angeles Times noted in 2003 that San Bernardino County supervisors were limiting the public’s ability to comment on public issues by placing nearly 90% of its meeting items on the consent calendar, which does not require a public hearing. (Martin 2003).”
…”Not only does the 3-minute rule abbreviate and curtail comment, it makes it difficult or impossible for cogent and timely debate to take place. Robert’s Rules of Order provides the framework for the introduction of an item, a motion, a second, a discussion by the voting members, and then a time for comment by the public before the actual vote. The 3-minute rule allows public comment before the dialog among voting members commences. It does not allow the public to actually participate in the discussion with their elected officials.”
