Posted on 11/22/2005 1:12:10 PM PST by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO - Two newspapers and a free speech group sued Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to obtain appointment calendars and other records that would show who met with two of his top aides while the governor was considering the fate of hundreds of bills last year.
The lawsuit by the California First Amendment Coalition, the San Jose Mercury News and the San Diego Daily Transcript on Monday seeks to force Schwarzenegger to reveal whom from outside the governor's office met with, or spoke to, Patricia Clarey and Bonnie Reiss from Aug. 27 to Sept. 30, 2004.
Clarey is Schwarzenegger's chief of staff and Reiss is his senior adviser.
At a minimum, the suit asks that the governor be ordered to release those records covering Clarey and Reiss' meetings and telephone conversations during the week of Sept. 13-20, 2004.
"That was the peak week when most of the bills, and all of the most contentious ones, were finally signed off on or vetoed," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment coalition, a nonprofit group that promotes freedom of the press and public access to information about government activities.
"Presumably, the most intensive arm-twisting and meetings and negotiations with interest groups and stakeholders would be going on during that time."
Bills vetoed during that week included measures to raise the minimum wage, to require economic impact reports before local governments approve Wal-Mart-style superstores and to promote recreation and restoration over maximizing logging in state forests.
Scheer said the lawsuit was filed in San Diego County Superior Court because several judges there have issued opinions supporting openness in public records cases.
After voters last November approved Proposition 59, a measure strengthening public access to government records, Schwarzenegger released his meeting schedules for the period Oct. 21, 2003, to Nov. 17, 2004.
The records revealed that the Republican governor met regularly during that period with corporate campaign contributors.
Scheer said Clarey and Reiss' records would provide information about "all the important meetings that the governor didn't have for reasons of time availability and maybe because he didn't want to be too close to certain supplicants."
"I think it's important for the public to know who has the ear of the governor, both directly and through his top aides," he added.
Spokeswoman Julie Soderlund said the governor's office would not comment until it had seen a copy of the lawsuit.
But Peter Siggins, Schwarzenegger's legal affairs secretary, said in a February letter to Scheer that releasing the information through a California Public Records Act request would discourage people from "freely communicating their views" to the governor's office.
"Such a result would place unwarranted limits on the governor's access to critical information concerning the matters before him and thereby inhibit his consideration of the broad spectrum of persons and viewpoints which he requires to govern effectively," Siggins wrote.
He also said that Clarey and Reiss' records would include personal information that would be too costly and time consuming to redact.
But the lawsuit said the records sought by the coalition and newspapers were subject to release under the Public Records Act and the state Constitution and that Schwarzenegger's willingness to make public his own meeting schedules undercut Siggins' arguments.
I, for one, would be interested in who Green Bonnie's been talking to.
What was Schwarzenegger thinking when he promised "open" government? He had to know he'd get caught in his own snare.
"I will open up the windows and doors of government.
It is time to let the sun shine in. . . .
No more decisions in the dark."
Make that 'for two.' Bonnie's Rolodex would be most revealing.
He was thinking he could ignore, BS, and intimidate his way out of it, just like he always has.
Three, here!
I found Siggin's comment amusing:
He also said that Clarey and Reiss' records would include personal information that would be too costly and time consuming to redact.Is he saying that those darn unprofessional women are always doing personal things on the job (unlike male counterparts)? Or, is he admitting that state employees perform personal business while on the state payroll or using state assets?
I didn't know you were lurkin, or I sure woulda pinged you to that last one!!!
Is he saying that those darn unprofessional women are always doing personal things on the job (unlike male counterparts)? Or, is he admitting that state employees perform personal business while on the state payroll or using state assets?
Actually I'll give them an out and jump in on their side on this one.
Often times in emails you can say things like "That guy never shuts up. Do I really need to meet with him again? He picks his nose and smells like he doesn't shower too. Why don't you have one of the flunkies in the other office see what he wants first?"
That's something that you'd want to be redacted but isn't necessarily personal business.
ROFL! Point noted.
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.