PD Editorial: Some sunshine for California legislators

At the beginning of Sunshine Week, we commented on proposed improvements to the Freedom of Information Act, the law governing public access to federal government records (“Americans deserve better access to records,” Monday).

We’d like to cap the week, a national initiative of the American Society of News Editors to highlight the important of open government, with a look at a frequently abused gap in California’s public meeting laws.

Before enacting an ordinance or taking any other official action, a city council must give 72 hours’ notice so citizens have an opportunity to comment or otherwise try to influence the process. The same rule applies to county supervisors, school boards, special districts, commissions, even the UC Board of Regents.

The state Legislature, however, is exempt.

And a process known as gut and amend - that perhaps ought to be renamed bait and switch - is routinely employed to pass legislation without public hearings and, at times, without even an opportunity to read the bill.

On the final day of the 2013-14 legislative session, according to news accounts, a committee hearing was convened at 2:19 a.m. to consider a bill so new that it hadn’t even been printed. Less than an hour later, the bill had been approved and was on its way to the governor.

Many legislators insist they couldn’t resolve difficult issues or respond quickly to emergencies if they had to follow the same rules as a city council.

The crisis they faced last August? Training standards for corrosion prevention workers - on projects awarded after Jan. 1, 2017.

Gov. Jerry Brown rejected the bill, though his veto message made no mention of the tortured legislative process.

Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, who recently became minority leader, introduced a constitutional amendment that would subject the Legislature to some basic open-meeting rules similar to those that govern other California elected officials.

ACA 1 would require that the text of a bill be available in print, and online, for 72 hours before a vote. It includes an exception for urgency legislation submitted by the governor along with a declaration of emergency.

This isn’t the first time that a state lawmaker raised this issue. In the last legislative session, state Sen. Lois Wolk, a Davis Democrat whose district extends into Sonoma County, introduced an almost identical amendment. Wolk’s measure died without so much as a committee hearing.

Olsen’s amendment needs two-thirds majorities in the Assembly and Senate and ratification in a statewide election to take effect. It was unveiled this week alongside another commendable proposal - AB 410 by Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, which would require that all reports issued by state agencies and legislative committees be posted on the Internet.

Just as updating FOIA would send a message that open government is important for the United States, extending California’s open meeting laws to the Legislature would demonstrate a commitment to sunshine in the Golden State.