EDITORIAL: Preserve open government with 'yes' on Prop. 42

March 30, 2014 

Proposition 42 would enshrine in law the requirement that local governments and agencies keep providing public access to documents and adhere to open meeting rules, no matter what it costs.

FRESNO BEE FILE Buy Photo

There should be no question in the mind of anyone who appreciates a free and open society that Proposition 42 deserves a "yes" vote on the June ballot.

Proposition 42 would enshrine in law the requirement that local governments and agencies keep providing public access to documents and adhere to open meeting rules, no matter what it costs.

Didn't know those things were ever in jeopardy? For a brief time last year, they were. That was when Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders were preparing to suspend parts of the California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act -- the state's two most essential public access laws -- for the sake of saving money. The outcry was immediate, and, evidently, persuasive enough to get them to back away and put together this ballot measure.

The threat to public access stemmed from the larger struggle between state and local governments about who pays for what. State government is required to reimburse local governments for the cost of complying with state laws.

As part of the 2013-14 budget, Brown decided not to reimburse local governments for the tens of millions of dollars it owes them for complying with state public access laws. In exchange, the local governments would have had the option of not complying if they couldn't afford to do so. That's a choice that government should never have.

We must have access to public records and open meetings. It's hard enough as it is to keep elected leaders from lining their wallets or giving away the public treasury to keep themselves in office.

Do you think that Fresno Unified School District would willingly reveal what it spends on legal fees if it had the option of not proving that information?

Do you think that Fresno City Hall would turn over expense reports, employee salaries and emails if it weren't required to do so.

Remember those larcenous city officials in Bell? It was municipal public records that outed their six-figure salaries and started an investigation that landed city council members and top city officials in jail.

Transparency is not optional. It is an absolutely essential basic service, like public safety, and must be factored into a city's bottom line. Passing this proposition will ensure that happens by taking away the state mandate to reimburse for public access while reaffirming the requirement that cities, school boards, water districts and other local governments must comply.

Nothing of great worth comes with no expense, and that includes democracy.

The Fresno Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service