Proposition 42 (the California Compliance of Local Agencies with Public Act), which will be appearing on the upcoming June 3 ballot in California, will require all local agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) as well as the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) and with any following changes to those laws. The initiative would also eliminate the state’s responsibility for paying local governments for costs related to implementing these laws.
The California Public Records Act was passed by the California State Legislature and signed by the governor in 1968, requiring inspection and/or disclosure of government records to the public upon request (unless exempt by law). Its purpose being, as declared by the legislature, that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
The Brown Act, passed 15 years earlier in 1953, guaranteed the public’s right to attend and participate in the meetings of local legislative bodies, in response to growing concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials. It was contended that various local government bodies were avoiding public scrutiny by holding secret “workshops” and “study sessions.”
In 2013, as part of the budget negotiations, the California Legislature approved a plan to make certain CPRA provisions optional for local agencies — a plan which was projected to save “tens of millions of dollars” in state reimbursements to local agencies that comply with the Act. The changes were added to the 2013 budget as “trailer bills” AB 76 and SB 71, stating that local agencies would no longer be required to adhere to certain stipulations (but should try to):
- Respond to a public record request within 10 days
- Provide electronic records in its native format
- Provide a reason when denying a request
Unsurprisingly, advocates for open government (as well as several California newspapers) spoke out strongly against the measure. General counsel Jim Ewert of the California Newspaper Publishers Association called this revision “the worst assault on the public’s right to know I have seen in my 18 years of doing this.” Some newspapers, including the Oakland Tribune, Fresno Bee, and Visalia Times-Delta have also published editorials against the changes. Fortunately, these plans were reversed after strong public and media outcry.
In September of last year, the legislature approved a constitutional amendment proposal which would incorporate the Public Records Act into the California State Constitution. The amendment clarifies and reinforces that local governments must comply with requests for publicly available documents and cover the costs of said requests in full. The proposed amendment will go to voters for approval in June of this year.
In summary, Proposition 42 establishes that public records are open to inspection at any and all times during office hours of state or local agencies that retain those records, and that the people have the right to inspect any public record. It also requires agencies to establish written guidelines for public access to documents and provide these guidelines at their offices.
Assembly Speaker Ralph M Brown introduced his namesake bill in 1953
The California Ralph M. Brown Act (or simply, Brown Act) requires local legislative bodies to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and requires that all meetings be open and public. Citizens are permitted to attend any meeting of the local legislative body, unless a closed session is specifically authorized.
This all essentially boils down to the point that public access to records and meetings of local government agencies should not depend on whether the state will cover their costs. It also serves as yet another step toward future government transparency and accountability; an issue that has concerned an ever-growing number of citizens in recent years.
More information on Proposition 42 — what it entails, arguments in favor of as well as against, fiscal impact, and so on — can be found here.
Read More:
Contra Costa Times: Oakland Tribune endorsement: California voters should approve Prop. 42 in June
The Desert Sun: Our Voice: Vote yes on Proposition 42
