Should the state Constitution be amended to require local governments to comply with state public-access laws, and to eliminate the requirement that the state reimburse local governments for the costs of such compliance?
Requires local government compliance with laws providing for public access to local government body meetings and records of government officials. Eliminates reimbursement for costs of compliance.
- Reduced state payments to local governments in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
- Potential increased local government costs of tens of millions of dollars annually from possible additional state requirements on local governments to make information available to the public.
- A YES vote on this measure means:
- The state would not be required to pay local governments for costs to follow state laws that give the public access to local government information.
- A NO vote on this measure means:
- The state would still be required to pay local governments for certain costs of providing public access to local government information.
Background
California Has Thousands of Local Governments. Californians receive services from thousands of local governments--counties, cities, school and community college districts, and special districts (such as fire districts, flood control districts, and water districts). Each local government has a local governing body (such as a city council or county board of supervisors) that makes decisions about its programs, services, and operations.
Public Access to Local Government Information. The State Constitution requires that meetings of governing bodies and writings of public officials and agencies be open to public scrutiny. Two state laws establish rules local governments must follow to provide public access to local government information and meetings.
- California Public Records Act. This law allows every person to inspect and obtain copies of state and local government documents. It requires state agencies and local governments to establish written guidelines for public access to documents and to post these guidelines at their offices.
- Ralph M. Brown Act. This law governs meetings of the governing bodies of local governments. It requires local governing bodies to provide public notice of agenda items and to hold meetings in an open forum.
State Payments for Public Records and Brown Act Costs. Over the years, the Legislature has modified the Public Records Act and Brown Act from time to time. Some of these changes have increased local government responsibilities and costs. The state generally must pay local governments for their costs when it increases their responsibilities--a requirement that state officials consider when reviewing proposals that increase local government costs. Under current law, the state must pay local governments for their costs to implement certain parts of the Public Records Act (such as the requirement to assist members of the public seeking records and to tell individuals seeking records whether the records can be provided). The amount of money the state owes local governments for their Public Records Act costs is not known yet, but is estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars annually. In addition, the state previously has paid local governments for their costs resulting from certain parts of the Brown Act. However, California voters amended the State Constitution in 2012 to eliminate the state's responsibility to pay local governments for these Brown Act costs.
Proposal
This measure:
- Adds to the State Constitution the requirement that local governments follow the Public Records Act and the Brown Act.
- Eliminates the state's responsibility to pay local governments for their costs related to these laws. (As noted above, state responsibility to pay for local Brown Act costs was eliminated in 2012.)
The measure applies to the current requirements of these laws, as well as any future changes to either law that are made to improve public access to government information or meetings.
Fiscal Effects
Effect on State Costs and Local Revenues. By eliminating the state's responsibility for paying local government costs to follow the Public Records Act, the measure would result in savings to the state and comparable revenue reductions to local governments. The impact is likely in the tens of millions of dollars a year.
Potential Effect on Local Costs. The measure could also change the future behavior of state officials. This is because under Proposition 42, the state could make changes to the Public Records Act and it would not have to pay local governments for their costs. Thus, state officials might make more changes to this law than they would have otherwise. In this case, local governments could incur additional costs--potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually in the future.
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 42:
- Proposition 42 will cement in the Constitution the public's right to know what the government is doing and how it is doing it. Local agencies shouldn't be allowed to deny a request for public information or slam a meeting door shut
based on cost. Vote YES on Proposition 42.
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 42:
- Proposition 42 would amend the California Constitution to impose the cost of complying with the California Public Records Act and local open meeting laws
upon the local governments involved. An alternative, not offered by this proposition, would be to impose the cost upon the state government.
- Contact FOR Proposition 42:
- Peter Scheer
First Amendment Coalition
534 Fourth St. #B
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 460-5060
pscheer@firstamendmentcoalition.org
http://www.cnpa.com/prop42
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 42:
- Gary Wesley
gary.wesley@yahoo.com
|
|
Official Information
Secretary of State
Legislative Analyst's Office
Campaign Finance Data
Cal-Access (Secretary of State)
Nonpartisan Information
League of Women Voters
Ballotpedia
California Choices
Events
LWV Pros & Cons Presentation
- May 12, 7:30pm
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Sunnyvale
(on Grounds of Congregational Community Church)
1112 Bernardo
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
- May 16, 1 - 2:30pm
Garden Room, Avenidas
450 Bryant St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(cosponsored by Avenidas)
Partisan Information
Proponents
Opponents
|
This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
|
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Pass:
2,467,357 /
61.8% Yes votes ......
1,522,406 /
38.2% No votes