Protect good government in California, the fiscal expense is necessary

The Press-Enterprise, Editorial Opinion, 3/11/13. "Editorial:  Don't impede citizen access to public records." also viewed on the California Chamber website. 

"Public access to official records should not be a casualty of the state's chronic budget turmoil. The governor once again proposes to waive open government rules to save money. But the Legislature should reject that poor trade-off and keep good-government requirements in place.

Keep open access to public records

Gov. Jerry Brown has suggested suspending some provisions of the state's Public Records Act, which guarantees the public access to official documents. Public agencies would no longer have to respond in writing within 10 days to records requests. Agencies would no longer have to help people identify which records contain the information they want, and would not have to provide electronic copies of documents when requested.

Hiding embarrassing or politically damaging public information would become far easier if the state suspended those requirements. Lifting the 10-day limit for a response would enable public agencies to stall on answering requests, and avoid giving any justification for withholding records. People unfamiliar with government would struggle unaided to figure out which records they want. And agencies wishing to hinder access to information could insist that people collect paper records in person, instead of providing electronic copies.

Those provisions of the Public Records Act are state mandates — state-required duties for which the state is supposed to reimburse local government. Suspending the mandates would free the state from paying for those expenses. But the governor has no real idea of how much this would save, because the Commission on State Mandates will not even start computing the potential cost until April.

But the amount is likely to be tiny in comparison to the governor's proposed $97.7 billion general fund budget. The state suspended open meeting mandates last year, to save the more than $20 million annual cost. That figure was suspect, as a series of state audits found local governments inflating claims for reimbursement. And those claims were for handling tasks, such as preparing and posting agendas, that happened weekly in many cases. Public records requests are far more sporadic.

Either way, the governor's approach puts fiscal expedience ahead of the public interest. Access to official records is key to understanding what agencies are doing, and crucial to holding government accountable. Such documents provide context and details often missing from public discussion of issues. Concealing records enables abuses, including special interest deals, mismanagement and corruption.

The administration notes that most cities and counties continued to follow open meeting rules even after the state suspended those mandates last year. But doing otherwise would have been conspicuous, and created a political uproar. Blocking public records requests is far easier to do without anyone noticing, because such obstruction would affect individuals on a case by case basis, rather than the broader public all at once.  Yes, local agencies should follow good-government practice regardless of reimbursement. But keeping the mandates would safeguard compliance; lifting the requirements would condone official disregard."

Related -  The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA.  Note:  The article State mandates link is a large pdf which may take time to come up on your computer.  The photograph above is from the article.

Submitted by Jim Wagner

Posted by Kathy Meeh