20 May
2014
20 May
'14
3:04 p.m.
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. - Phil
Text:
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.
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1739719&GUID=98A…
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-gov…
- 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
20 May
20 May
5:21 p.m.
New subject: [OpenOakland Brigade] FYI: Oakland Council voting tonight on new California TRANSPARENCY law
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.
On May 20, 2014 3:04 PM, "Phil Wolff" <pwolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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. - Phil
Text:
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.
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1739719&GUID=98A…
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-gov…
- 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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openoakland(a)googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CANER2SjXP%2BUPV9Ukb_ZLW7-Egd…
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
22 May
22 May
9:26 a.m.
New subject: [OpenOakland Brigade] FYI: Oakland Council voting tonight on new California TRANSPARENCY law
You all might recall the battle over AB 76
(refresher<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/openoakland/sSozjmDtDy8/…
).
I agree with you Miguel, this measure is not as clean cut as it seems. The
key part of the language is the following:
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
Ballotpedia describes it as:
*The initiative would result in a fiscal savings for the state government,
but would likely result in comparable revenue reductions to local
governments.*
What's interesting is that organizations, like EFF, support the bill. I
think it's because it ensures the local governments will comply and don't
have excuses for not participating, but I would preferred to required
compliance while also requiring the state to do better accounting for its
costs.
Technically, I believe this ballot measure won't affect Oakland. We already
have Sunshine Ordinance, inherits and expands the state's CPRA and Brown
Act and from what I've gathered, Oakland is not reimbursed by the state for
complying.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Miguel Vargas <unroar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
On May 20, 2014 3:04 PM, "Phil Wolff" <pwolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
Eddie A. Tejeda
@eddietejeda
2012 Fellow, Code for America
http://codeforamerica.org
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. - Phil
Text:
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.
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1739719&GUID=98A…
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-gov…
- 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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openoakland(a)googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CANER2SjXP%2BUPV9Ukb_ZLW7-Egd…
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openoakland(a)googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CA%2Bn2%3D%2BA4y60cSw04sA6OG9…
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
9:35 a.m.
New subject: [OpenOakland Brigade] FYI: Oakland Council voting tonight on new California TRANSPARENCY law
Eddie,
I think the big argument in favor is that being open should be part of governing, not
something extra. Apparently some jurisdictions were billing the state for posting notices
on bulletin boards in city hall.
Mike
On May 22, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Eddie Tejeda
<eddie(a)codeforamerica.org> wrote:
You all might recall the battle over AB 76 (refresher).
I agree with you Miguel, this measure is not as clean cut as it seems. The key part of
the language is the following:
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
Ballotpedia describes it as:
The initiative would result in a fiscal savings for the state government, but would
likely result in comparable revenue reductions to local governments.
What's interesting is that organizations, like EFF, support the bill. I think
it's because it ensures the local governments will comply and don't have excuses
for not participating, but I would preferred to required compliance while also requiring
the state to do better accounting for its costs.
Technically, I believe this ballot measure won't affect Oakland. We already have
Sunshine Ordinance, inherits and expands the state's CPRA and Brown Act and from what
I've gathered, Oakland is not reimbursed by the state for complying.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Miguel Vargas
<unroar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
--
Eddie A. Tejeda
@eddietejeda
2012 Fellow, Code for America
http://codeforamerica.org
--
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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openoakland(a)googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CAALX_7aTt20OYwP1xJM1xaswzU7i….
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. On May 20, 2014 3:04 PM, "Phil Wolff"
<pwolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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. - Phil
Text:
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.
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1739719&GUID=98A…
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-gov…
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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openoakland(a)googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CANER2SjXP%2BUPV9Ukb_ZLW7-Egd….
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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(a)googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openoakland(a)googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CA%2Bn2%3D%2BA4y60cSw04sA6OG9….
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
3627
days inactive
3629
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Eddie Tejeda -
Michael Ubell -
Miguel Vargas -
Phil Wolff