In June, California legislators, at the governor's behest, made a major blunder. In their efforts to dial back spending, they tentatively agreed on a couple of budget-related bills that would have allowed local governments to shirk their obligations to abide by key elements of the California Public Records Act.
For example, counties, cities and other public agencies would no longer have been required to respond to a state Public Records Act request within 10 days or to provide a legal explanation for the denial.
They also would no longer have been required to provide electronic records in a format desired by the requester, even if it could be done without additional time or cost to the agency.
Rather than being required to follow the rules of state transparency laws, public agencies merely would have been encouraged to follow these rules as "best practices."
Why? Because public agencies are allowed to seek compensation from the state for compliance with these rules, and state officials hoped to save some money by scaling back on their obligations.
But the response, particularly from newspapers, was swift and universally negative, prompting the Legislature to do something rare in state politics — take back a state budget for modification.
It removed those bills and, at the governor's encouragement, followed by pushing through a constitutional amendment that would make clear once and for all that compliance with all aspects of the Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act is not discretionary. The amendment also would relieve the state from being responsible for paying local governments for costs related to complying with these laws.
The Legislature passed the amendment unanimously, and it is now going before California voters in the form of Proposition 42 on the June 3 ballot. Voters should approve it as well.
Without timely access to government documents, the state Public Records Act is meaningless. Its purpose and effectiveness hinge on the ability of members of the public and the media being able to obtain and review documents when the issue is relevant, not when compliance is convenient.
There have been too many examples of public agencies attempting to hide behind exemptions to the state's transparency laws to protect themselves from embarrassment or criminal misconduct.
The public was reminded of the importance of the state's open government laws with the sentencing this past Wednesday of the former city manager of Bell to 12 years in prison. Robert Rizzo also was ordered to make restitution of $8.8 million for his role in a corruption scheme that nearly drove his small Southern California community — with a population about the size of Rohnert Park — into bankruptcy.
It turned out that Rizzo was giving himself an annual salary and benefits package worth $1.5 million.
The exploits of people like Rizzo may never have been brought to light if compliance with the state's open records act was optional.
The truth is that compliance with public records requests in a digital age is not as time-consuming, complicated or as costly as it once was or as some agencies still contend.
It's also true that the public has, time and again, endorsed the importance of openness as a job requirement of public officials. California votes sent that message loud and clear 10 years ago when they approved Proposition 59 with 84 percent of the vote.
Californians should send that message again, by approving Proposition 42.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: