http://www.rcfp.org/ogg/item.php?t=short&state=CA&level=F1
California's Constitutional Sunshine Amendment: On November 2, 2004, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 59, an amendment to California's Constitution that elevated the public's right of access to public records and public meetings to constitutional stature. That amendment, set forth in Article I, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution, and commonly called the Sunshine Amendment, declares: "The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny." Cal. Const. Art. I, § 3(b);
The rest of this will be posted in the comments section. It is long. It is time to learn about the Brown Act.
Another useful link:
http://community.pacificlegal.org/Page.aspx?pid=183
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The Sunshine Amendment accomplishes many things. First, it firmly establishes a fundamental constitutional right for people to scrutinize what their government is doing by mandating access to government records and meetings of government bodies. By elevating the right of access to constitutional statute, all newly enacted state laws and administrative regulations must conform to the Amendment's provisions. Practically speaking, it brings more weight to the public's right of access because it leaves no doubt as to the importance of access to the people of California and consequently renders ineffective the assertion that access in a particular case serves no public purpose -- a claim often asserted by government agencies to defeat access. Similarly, it strengthens the case for access in particular cases where under existing statutory exemptions records can be withheld when the public's interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the public's interest in disclosure. See Cal. Gov't Code § 6255. This is so because most interests in non-disclosure are not constitutionally based and thus will be of significantly less importance when weighed against a now-constitutional right of access. Second, unlike statutory rights of access under California's Public Records Act and The Ralph M. Brown Act, the Sunshine Amendment applies not just to the executive branch of government but to the judicial and legislative branches as well. While the Amendment expressly reserves existing protections for proceedings and records of the Legislature and rules adopted in furtherance of those protections, and maintains all other preexisting constitutional and statutory exemptions to the right of access to public records and meetings, these branches of government are now within the mantle of the public's constitutional right of access. In practice, what new rights of access this may bring remains to be determined, but arguably the right would include access to records and meetings of both the Legislature and the Judiciary not currently exempt from disclosure under existing authority. Third, the Sunshine Amendment requires that statutes, court rules or other authority be construed broadly when they further the public's right of access and be construed narrowly when they limit the right of access -- rules of construction from which many courts have strayed in recent years to the detriment of open government. Cal. Const. Art. I, § 3(b)(2). Fourth, in adopting new laws, court rules or other authority that limit the right of access, public bodies must now make express findings demonstrating the interest purportedly protected and the need for protecting that interest. Id. Thus, the adoption of agency rules and regulations, for example, intended to impede public access will no longer be allowed on the whim of the agency's governing body but will require actual on-the-record findings demonstrating the need for secrecy and demonstrating how the exemption will achieve that need -- findings similar to that required by a court before sealing a court record or closing a court proceeding.
Lastly, the Sunshine Amendment leaves intact the right of privacy guaranteed by the constitution by clarifying that it does not supersede or modify the existing constitutional right of privacy. And, disconcerting for proponents of access, the Amendment expressly does not affect existing statutory protections afforded peace officers over information concerning their official performance or professional qualifications. Id., § 3(b)(3). Practically speaking, the overwhelming voter support for the Amendment has not gone unnoticed by politicians. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, reversed a long-standing trend of withholding the governor's daily calendars under a claim of deliberative process, by complying with a post-Amendment request for his daily calendars. See: www.cfac.org/Attachments/governor_calendars.htm
Post a Comment