AgdaPkt 2002-06-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SCA 7 from page 1 ·........,..,,..,........,,,,...,,,......... ·., The existing problems with SCA 7 are: of harm caused to the public by.the disclosure. Along with the general terms of limitations set Retroactivity to Existing Exemptions: As forth in sec[ion 3, this is an invitation to litiga- currently written SCA 7. does not protect existing tion, exemptions to the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act. The measure outlines three In addition to practically applying particular- standards to which government must adhere as ized findings, cities would have to cite why the .justification for withholding the public records or serious harm cannot be averted by reasonable meetings: (1) "preserving public funds and alternatives. What would be a reasonable alterna- resources;" (2) "protecting public safety;" and (3) tire to denying access to records pertaining to a "ensuring the fair and effective administration of criminal investigation? What would be a reason- .justice" or "protecting private property." If the able alternative to holding a closed session to exemptions are not perceived to fall under these discuss the existing facts and circumstances that three categories, SCA 7 states that those exemp- may result in litigation against a city? tions may be~judiciallj/determined. We strongly believe that those determinations shall be resolved Determining Who is an Appointed Official: legislatively and shall not be decided by the in sec[ion 3 (b)(1), it states that information courts, regarding the official performance or qualifications of elected or appointed officials "who have or Under SCA 7 as proposed, statutory authority appear to the public to have substantial responsi- that cities have used to conduct the public's bility for or control over the conduct of govern- business while balancing public rights of access, mental affairs." This is a confusing amendment privacy concerns and [heir fiduciary obligations for two reasons: (1) the standard is vague, and may be limited or eliminated or remain available places the determination on whether personnel only at the risk of costly litigation, records of appointed officials are public records, in the hands of the public. To date, the determi- Requiring Particularized Findings: SCA 7 nation of whether information retained by the requires cities to cite the exemption and make government is a matter of public record, has been "particularized findings" in demonstrating the in the hands of the state legislature and the .justification for nondisclosure. SCA 7 does not courts; and (2) this information is explicitly made explain how a city could make the additional available to the public "except as provided pursu- findings, and if those findings will be sufficient to ant to this Constitution." The right to privacy is .justify withholding the information, found in Article 1, section 1 of the Constitution. This amendment seems to say that access to SCA 7 also does not contain any guidance personnel information is public except to the about the nature of the "serious harm to the extent that it violates an individual's right to public interest" that a denial requires. SCA 7 privacy. It would seem that disclosure of infor- seems to provide that disclosure of records relat- marion regarding the official performance of an lng to the fair and efficient administration of appointed official violates the official's right to _justice, for example, sometimes it is in the public privacy. interest, sometimes it may cause moderate harm to the public interest, and sometimes it may SCA 7 will be heard in the Senate Govemmen- cause serious harm to the public interest. How- tal Organization Committee on Tuesday, May 21, ever, neither anything in SCA 7 nor in existing law, 2002. The League carries an Oppose Unless provides standards for how to determine the level Amended position on the bill. Visit the League's Official Web Site--www. cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 5