Posted on 01/12/2004 7:56:23 PM PST by calcowgirl
A long-stalled constitutional amendment to bolster public access to government meetings and records was placed on California's November ballot Monday by lawmakers after twice bogging down in the state Assembly.
The Senate approved similar versions of the amendment in 2002 and 2003, but both times the legislation ran into Republican roadblocks in the other house. There was no sign of the measure's past problems on Monday, however, as it passed the Assembly 76-0.
"When it comes to public information there are too many unnecessary roadblocks and too many easy refusals," the amendment's author, Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, said in a statement after the vote. "Voters will now be able to make sure the public and the press have the access they deserve to important government meetings and materials."
California has had a series of open government laws on the books for years, but those statutes have been weakened by court rulings and efforts by government officials to block public access, supporters of the Burton amendment say.
They say putting an open government plank in the state constitution would shore up those rights.
"Public disclosure is the cornerstone of our democracy," said Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark. "(People) have a right to know what's going on in their government."
The amendment would give the public a constitutional right of access to government meetings and records, with some exceptions. It would require courts to broadly interpret laws and rulings that increase the public's access to government records and meetings and narrowly interpret those that don't.
However, the right of access couldn't supersede the right to privacy already in the constitution, and the amendment wouldn't cover the Legislature.
Kent Pollock, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said the amendment's supporters were told in "no uncertain terms" that the legislation wouldn't pass unless it had an exemption for the Legislature, which is covered by its own open records law.
"I think they were concerned about their caucuses (being opened)," he said. "I think they were concerned about some of the deliberative process that goes on. I think they just wanted to try to maintain the status quo."
He said the amendment would still "attack the root problem of (maintaining) open government, which is local government agencies. ... The Legislature doesn't act nearly as secretly as your local redevelopment agency. Some of them."
Burton's legislation stalled in the Assembly in 2002 after Republicans refused to waive deadlines to allow it to be considered late in that year's session. Last year it became hung up in the Assembly again when Republicans accused Democrats of going back on a budget deal and refused to vote for any measures that required two-thirds majorities, including constitutional amendments.
Constitutional amendments approved by the Legislature also need simple-majority approval from voters to take effect.
Besides the First Amendment Coalition, the legislation's chief supporters include the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
-----------------------------------------
On the Net: Read the legislation,
SCA1, at www.senate.ca.gov or www.assembly.ca.gov
What?
The Ralph M. Brown Act, California's first law parting the curtains on public agencies, is now 50 years old. The Legislature would best honor the Assembly speaker for whom it was named by sending SCA 1 to voters. This proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco), faces one final Assembly vote, most likely in January, before it could head to voters on either the March or November ballot.
The measure wouldn't stop lawmakers from seeking ways to sidestep the law, but it would correct court and agency interpretations of existing meetings and records laws that have chipped away at public access. It would reaffirm the principles first announced in the 1953 Brown Act, namely that "the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.... The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." The proposed amendment instructs courts and government lawyers to broadly interpret any new law expanding public access rights and narrowly construe any law limiting them.
A similar measure failed last year because some legislators worried that it might erode personal privacy or expose agencies' confidential legal and personnel matters. The new version contains better protections on both counts. Legislators no longer have a reason to keep SCA 1 off the ballot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.