freedomforum.org: California Senate OKs amendment to bolster access to records, meetings

California Senate OKs amendment to bolster access to records, meetings

By The Associated Press

07.01.02

SACRAMENTO — A constitutional amendment to bolster the public's access to government meetings and records was approved without opposition late last week by the state Senate.

The measure, by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, was sent to the Assembly on June 28 by a 34-0 vote. There was no debate.

The amendment would declare that Californians have a fundamental right to access government information, with some exceptions.

California has had a series of open-government laws on the books for years but supporters of the amendment say those statutes have been eroded by court decisions and efforts by government officials to block access to records.

Putting an open-records, open-meeting requirement in the California Constitution will strengthen those protections, they say.

Among other things, amendment supporters cite state Supreme Court decisions that allow:

Public officials to withhold documents showing how they reached — and who influenced — their decisions.
Lower courts to bar future violations of open-meetings laws but not to find that a previous meeting violated those requirements. Critics say the ruling weakens citizens' ability to reverse decisions made during illegally closed meetings.

Supporters also complain that a public agency can cite an existing exemption from open-records or meeting requirements without providing a justification for that exception or revealing what is being protected.

Bills to allow a court to fine a public agency that denied access in bad faith were vetoed in recent years, the supporters say.

Supporters include the California Newspaper Publishers Association and California First Amendment Coalition. Opponents include the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties.

Opponents say the measure, SCA 7, would jeopardize legislatively authorized exceptions to open-meeting and open-records requirements and lead to costly litigation.