PD Editorial: Public officials need to meet in public

Gov. Gavin Newsom officially rescinded California’s COVID emergency restrictions on Feb. 28.

Perhaps the state Legislature didn’t get the message.

Because five months later, lawmakers are advancing legislation that would allow members of state boards and commissions to participate in public meetings without bothering to show up or even disclose their whereabouts.

During the pandemic, with COVID causing serious illness and even death, virtual meetings were necessary. Zoom and other online platforms allowed state and local governments to function with limited disruption while maintaining a degree of transparency.

Some private-sector workers have stayed with remote work, but barring extraordinary circumstances, government should do its business in public.

A law suspending open meeting requirements for state boards and commissions expired on July 1. That should have been the end of the story.

Influential policymaking and regulatory bodies such as the California, Coastal Commission, Public Utilities Commission, Board of Forestry and Air Resources Board should be meeting in public, with board members in attendance.

But Senate Bill 544 by state Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, would make what were emergency rules permanent. If his bill passes, only one staff member would need to be present at the official meeting site. Board members could participate remotely, without even a requirement to disclose their location.

That’s the antithesis of the intent of the state constitution and a 1967 transparency law named for two former North Bay legislators — Democrat Barry Keene of Sonoma County and Republican Bill Bagley of Marin County.

The state constitution declares that “the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” To fulfill the constitutional requirement, the Bagley-Keene Act mandates public meetings of state agencies, boards and commissions.

As the law’s preamble says, “It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.”

Several bills were introduced this year to allow local government bodies to meet remotely without any emergency declaration. Most of those bills stalled, but Laird’s bill cleared the state Senate on a 26-3 vote and is awaiting action in the Appropriations Committee.

Laird describes SB 544 as a cost-saving measure that would promote equity by removing barriers to attending public meetings, according to a legislative committee analysis. Other supporters suggest more people might be willing to serve on state commissions if the public attendance requirement was eliminated. Those arguments aren’t very convincing.

A coalition of opponents ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association acknowledges that virtual meetings were valuable during the pandemic, but “public officials serving on public bodies without ever having to convene in person results in a reduction of public access.”

Streaming meetings benefits the public by making it easier to attend, especially for those commissions that convene in different locations around the state. Keeping that option for the public is worthwhile, but it’s time for commissioners to return to their hearing rooms.

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.