I think this is a bad constitutional amendment. It's disguised as a transparency law but it's really about shifting costs from the state to local governments.
In any case, these city council "endorsement" bills are just for political grandstanding purposes and are completely meaningless.
p.s. I'm not really liking this crossposting to a bunch of email lists like this.
--Should Oakland endorse Prop 42? CMs Kalb and Kaplan are putting a resolution to the Council tonight to support this new law; final vote. They're inviting the public to speak on tonight, agenda item #16. I'll be stepping out for a minute this evening to speak in favor. - PhilText:Resolution in SUPPORT of California Proposition 42 - Constitutional Amendment to protect the public's right to know by requiring compliance by local agencies with the Public Records Act and the Brown Act for open meetings
WHEREAS, public transparency and freedom of information safeguards are of
significant importance to and benefit for the citizens of Oakland and California and the integrity of government; and
WHEREAS, the California Public Records Act, passed in 1968, is a critical tool
for the public and the press and facilitates obtaining government records, awareness of the activities of government, and effective advocacy in the interests of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, passed in 1953, guarantees the public's
right to attend and participate in legislative bodies of local agencies, including boards, commissions, and councils; and
WHEREAS, state and local governments have been in disagreement regarding
the amount of state financial support that is required address the costs to local
governments with complying with these transparency laws and, at times, local agencies have used the failure of the state to reimburse their costs as an excuse for not complying with the transparency laws; and
WHEREAS, requiring the state to reimburse local governments for compliance
costs with these laws does not encourage local governments to take steps to reduce their compliance costs, such as through proactive transparency procedures; and
WHEREAS, California Proposition 42 on the June 2014 ballot would secure the
California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act in the State Constitution and relieve the State from paying for local governments' costs of compliance with these open government laws; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council hereby endorses Proposition 42.More on the law...
- League of Women Voters: http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/06/03/ca/state/prop/42/
- EFF (Vote Yes): https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/california-voters-check-yes-42
- Pando Daily's analysis (insightful on the implications): http://pando.com/2014/05/02/oh-the-things-prop-42-could-do-for-the-open-government-movement/
- California Legislative Analyst's Office (cities have to pay for their own compliance, a few $10s of millions statewide): http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop-42-062014.aspx
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenOakland" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openoakland+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openoakland@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CANER2SjXP%2BUPV9Ukb_ZLW7-EgdpdMHnc%3Djx9rTkdnw7KxHE%2B7g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.