Saturday, March 16, 2013

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

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is wrong. But of course, crickets from all of the democrat voters. Sheeple.

Anonymous said...

110, what is wrong, what are you talking about? And why did you add Sheeple? Give us a clue if you've got one.

Anonymous said...

Public trust in government is at an all time low. Often, as we've seen in Pacifica, the distrust has merit. Some of the efforts to conceal the truth are intentional, others are comically inept, but all should be discouraged. Hardly the best time to strip away another of the public's tools to get at the facts.

Anonymous said...

City Council wants an open and transparant government!

Anonymous said...

Hahaha, yes, who doesn't love the sound of that? Sadly, for several of our councilmembers being open and transparent just isn't part of their controlling and manipulative natures. Nobody's perfect.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
City Council wants an open and transparant government!



Aww that's sweet, and OJ wants outta jail. In Pacifica, smart money is on OJ.

Sherlock said...

Hey council, where's our police outsourcing report?

Anonymous said...

Sherlock, you nag! More than a month ago council promised their report of the consultant's 10 month-old Power Point presentation would be ready on March 20th. Takes time to spin. Expect a fantastic document which may or may not bear much resemblance to the source material. And unless they make the Power Point available, council will continue to look deceitful. As they should.

Deception or blundering or both? They should have just come clean months ago. Oh what a tangled web we weave, and so on.

Anonymous said...

What? Our council is open. At least when it comes to saying how they feel about their poor brethren employees.

Funny, we are told that they can't comment on ongoing negotiations. They can't even release the outsourcing report because it's linked to contract negotiations.

But they have no problem letting the unions know how sorry they are that we had to actually ask for concessions.

Anonymous said...

golly. some say that the outsourcing report was withheld as leverage at the bargaining table? what a dud, huh? those new PPD contracts do nothing for the city beyond cutting a little bit of the really plush benefits. and shazaam here comes the report!

screwed again.

Anonymous said...

1055 Concessions! Have you looked at the frills the cops actually gave up? It's fat that should've been cut years ago.
Whoopdidoo!They're giving up a little of the fat in their fat benefits. I can see how that might hit a nerve with council since they too enjoy some pretty nice benefits for a very part-time job. For the rest of us, however, those so-called cuts are much too little and way too late.
After months of council bullshit about that outsourcing report and how it's linked to negotiations and can't be released, this is what they bring us? Hope the cops remembered to say thanks. Kiss kiss.

The beggars in front of Safeway are better negotiators. Of course, they're not riding that gravy train!

Anonymous said...

Wasn't it just over a year ago that a reporter from Patch first found out that the outsourcing report or the numbers or whatever
was actually at City Hall? Without that bit of journalism, who knows when or even if we'd have heard about it because, clearly, council had no plan to release the info to the public who pays the bills. We are still waiting.

Anonymous said...

Coumcil abandoned outsourcing for 2013 without a public hearing. Read the Mar 11 council agenda. As part of approval for the police union contracts, outsourcing will not happen this year. No savings of $1.5 million for 2013.
Mike Oneill voted no--he's the only one who understood and opposed the give-away.

Anonymous said...

Yeah real big concessions! The cops gave up some holidays. We still have to pay them for the day only they will be working. No real savings. The 3% number council fed us is pure BS and as usual the Tribune just printed it with no investigation or analyzing.

Anonymous said...

Council abandoned outsourcing? Why the report? Didn't they pay the consultant more $ to spruce it up for public consumption? Ah, what did we pay for. Are we going to get some kind of explanation? I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the report on police outsourcing...infamous throughout the county. What a shameful council episode-even by Pacifica standards.

After Council hid the info from the public for a year with the excuse that it was protected by attorney-client privilege and part of union negotiations, the official Council-authorized version which has been lovingly crafted by city staff will be available March 20th.

After all that drama what a shame that this Council got virtually nothing for their closely-held little bargaining chip. Nothing. They wasted time and money, mocked the public trust, failed miserably in their duty to the people they represent and got nothing for their trouble. Any doubt about what their priority was? It couldn't have been the people of Pacifica.

Bravo to Mike O'Neill for standing apart on this issue. The reason he did so should worry all of us.


Anonymous said...

The fact that Governor Brown wants to weaken public disclosure laws should worry all citizens.

He has become the omnipotent fascist.

Anonymous said...

In Washington, D.C. all elected politicians get free (well , paid for by the peasants and slaves) haircuts and shoe shines that come to an annual amount of over 7 million dollars. Remember that scumbag John Edwards that wanted to be president would have $300. dollar haircuts? Yes. It is true. When democrats say there is no need for cuts, please don't be a sheeple and believe them. Find out for yourself and you will see where to cut. Do it!

Anonymous said...

Read the terms of the newly negotiated contracts. Police outsourcing was given up until 2014 in order to get the "3%" from PD. What a great trade. We saved enough money to pay 4 days wages for employees while the people get screwed again. Nice.

Anonymous said...

Save 3% my ass! Bunch of carnival hucksters running a con on the public to get votes for a new tax measure. Anything to keep their gravy train running. Save 3% of what? Nothing they did means anyone will make less this year than last and that's what needs to happen. Apparently they got zero leverage from the outsourcing idea during negotiations, and then for their pals on the city payroll, they took it off the table for another year. Spinnin' and grinnin' as usual.

Anonymous said...

It will never be enough. We are too far gone. Buckle up and pay attention to your bank account. Soon. Soon.

Anonymous said...

Are we broke or aren't we? You sure can't tell from the actions of council. They need to stop worrying about their pals the 150 or so city employees and start worrying about the near 40,000 people who live here. The unions will take care of the employees. Council is supposed to worry about the rest of us. Cuts they've made are a joke. Superficial and misrepresented to the public.

Anonymous said...

Very disappointed in Mary Ann, Len and Karen for voting in favor of shelving any discussion of police outsourcing until next year in order to supposedly settle an agreement that will only save the city a tiny amount.

Bravo to Mike O'Neill, the one council member with the balls to reject this sweetheart deal.

The real losers are going to be PD once the layoffs start due to our bankruptcy.

Anonymous said...

No, the real losers are the people of Pacifica who have once again been betrayed by the people they trust to run this city. What's it going to take to change Pacifica?
O'Neill's the only one with any backbone. Stone is a huge disappointment on this one. The rest ran pretty true to form. Can Ervin think for herself?

Anonymous said...

@958 disappointed in Stone big time but as for the other two? when you gonna wake-up? only one person in pacifica likes to hear nihart talk more than nihart likes to hear herself talk, and that's ervin. and neither one can handle simple math.