THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
Access to public records is an important aspect of an open and democratic system of government. Prior to November 2, 2004, public access to State and local government records was required by the Public Records Act (PRA).
In November 2004-by referendum from the Legislature of the State of California-the voting public overwhelmingly supported (by 83%) Proposition 59, which amended the State constitution to provide for the right to public access and information as part of Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The Article provides in part that "the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny."
Article 1, Section 3 also provides that a statute, court rule or other authority shall be broadly construed if it furthers people's access and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.
Under the Article, the Legislature has exempted itself from compliance with the requirements for access and inspection of proceedings and records of the legislature, members of the Legislature and its employees, committees, and caucuses. Open government activists believe that legislation should be passed to make the Legislature fully subject to the PRA.
The meaning of public records may vary. For purposes of inspection of public records, the term is defined as including, generally, any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state executive agency or by any local government or other agency.
Several examples of compliance with Prop. 59 followed its enactment. Governor Schwarzenegger released to the media his calendar of meetings and appointments from his first year in office. For thirteen years prior to the passage of Proposition 59, all gubernatorial records have been categorically off limits. The records have been viewed as exempt under Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, a 1991 California Supreme Court decision involving records of then Governor George Deukmejian.
Opinion is held that if Proposition 59 requires the disclosure of the governor's daily calendar, it does the same for every mayor, school superintendent, county supervisor, or city manager in California.
Recent public disclosures under Proposition 59 include California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) disclosure of management fees paid to individual venture capital, hedge, or other private equity funds in which CalPERS invests.
In addition, in Alameda County, a Superior Court Judge has ruled that the City of Oakland must comply with a public records request asking for the names and incomes of City employees making over $100,000. per year.
The denial of a legitimate request for access and inspection of public documents under the PRA may result in litigation against the non-compliant public entity. Attorney fees may be awarded when the court determines that the lawsuit against the public entity for the release of records resulted in the release of records requested under the Act. In addition, the prevailing party may ask that the fees incurred be multiplied because of the complexity and result of the case. The court has discretion to award additional amounts.
In a recent and local public records litigation case, the Court ordered the City of Monterey to pay substantial attorney fees incurred in a fifteen-month legal proceeding over access to public records.
All of this is a significant expense to the public entity.
Suffice to say, the Public Records Act is a meaningful tool to achieve the goal of access to information concerning the conduct of governmental entities, a fundamental Right of every citizen.
--Nancy Green, Copresident, LWVMP
