PD Editorial: One thumbs up, one down for two open-records bills

Next to the state constitution, the California Public Records Act is the most critical document residents have to ensure their government operates in a transparent way. It protects the right of Californians to have prompt access to documents related to the public’s business. Two bills now working their way through the state Legislature would have a significant impact on this vital open-records law - one in a positive way and the other negative.

As it stands, the Public Records Act is a no-fault statute, meaning there is no penalty for when governments fail to live up to their obligations to allow the public to access public documents. Assembly Bill 1479, authored by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, would change that by adding a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for egregious violations.

Such a penalty would prevent what has been happening far too often across the state - agencies refusing to allow requesters to access documents that they legally are entitled to see. Under AB 1479, requesters who are rejected and file a lawsuit would be able to make a case that a public agency acted in bad faith. If successful, the penalty could be assessed.

It’s not a significant sum. But it would give the open-records law the teeth it needs to discourage agencies that turn down legitimate requests with impunity. The bill, which the California Newspaper Publishers Association calls “the most ambitious freedom of information measure of the year,” is scheduled to go for a key vote before the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Friday. Legislators should move this forward and, when it eventually arrives on his desk, Gov. Jerry Brown should sign it.

Meanwhile, another bill threatens to severely weaken the state’s open-records act.

As it stands, such documents as medical records and records pertaining to pending litigation are exempt under the Public Records Act. But under Assembly Bill 1455 sponsored by Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, D-Los Angeles, the list of exemptions would be extended to include all documents connected with local government contract negotiations with public employees. A legislative analysis of the bill cites “the potentially disruptive effects of public disclosure” as a reason for its need. But let’s make no mistake. The purpose here is not disruption. It’s disclosure. The objective is to make it more difficult for the public to see how well or how poorly their interests - and money - are being represented in collective bargaining. This is why this bill is heavily supported by organized labor.

As it is, the public has limited insight into these discussions and inadequate opportunity to evaluate labor agreements before they come up for a final vote. Sonoma County residents have seen this too often where labor deals are released to the public on a Thursday or Friday and approved on a Tuesday without so much as a proper analysis of the contract’s impact on long-term retirement costs. Under this bill, if an updated analysis of unfunded liabilities is included in labor negotiations, that document would then be exempt from public disclosure. This is nonsense.

Legislators need to stop this black hole bill in its tracks.