Voters to decide on Proposition 59

By Katie De Boer
Online Forty-Niner
Staff Writer

The democratic right of citizens to request and receive information from the government has become a tarnished model in California, weakened by court rulings and everyday practices in public offices. Citizens want to know what the government is doing behind closed doors.

This is the argument behind Proposition 59 on the Nov. 2 ballot. The measure does not directly require any specific information to be made available to the public. However, it does create a constitutional right for the public to access government information. According to the Registration Voter Guide, previous laws such as the California Public Records Act and the Legislative Open Records Act allows any person to access, inspect or copy legislative, state or local government documents. Other laws such as the Ralph M. Brown Act, Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and the Grunsky-Burton Open Meeting Act requires legislative bodies to provide public agenda notices before an initial meeting and to allow the meetings to be open to the public viewing and inspection.

On the other hand, the laws allow for some privacy. The privacy of the public is protected, such as closing medical records. There are also several loopholes that allow private meetings (hearings) for the security of individuals or the government, including concealing meeting documents.

Voting no on Prop. 59 means accessing governmental records would continue to be governed by the existing laws mentioned above.

According to the Official Voter Information Guide voting yes on this measure would give Californians access to governmental information and the government would be obligated to make higher expectations of privacy when disregarding information to the public. The California's government will also be asked to provide all documents requested by the public except those deemed 'private' by the courts.

Accepting Prop. 59 will acquire some costs in complying with the public's request for documents. Entities can charge a fee for individuals requesting information for the cost of photocopying documents. These fees, however, do not cover all costs, such as staff time to retrieve the documents. By potentially increasing the amount of government information required to the public, the measure could result in some minor annual costs to state and local governments.

Also, Prop. 59 will protect constitutional rights such as privacy, due process, and equal protection. It is up to legal officials to interpret these rights rightfully to the public.

Supporters of the Nov. 2 initiative say that information is often denied when media representatives and other citizens request names, dates, salaries or background documents on a controversial decision.

"As a broadcast journalist I am all for Proposition 59," said CSULB sophomore, Robert Zepeda. "It could make finding information about people easier. On the other hand judges can still over-rule information if it might endanger someone's life."

Zepeda feels there is a need for the government to construe the "right to privacy' clause of the California Constitution. He also agrees he would not mind paying copying fees to retrieve data.

Proposition 59 aims to require judges to interpret state anti-secrecy law approximately for access to documents and meetings — and narrowly on efforts to withhold or restrict them. It will also require more cooperation of government agencies such as the public water district offices, city halls, county courthouses or the Capitol. The result could push California closer to the forefront of states that already have understandable communication language in their constitutions, such as Florida, New Hampshire, Montana and Louisiana.

CSULB student, Lauren Williams, said voting yes will be beneficial for individuals because it is the peoples right to know about information disclosed by organizations, official meetings, etc. She also said Prop. 59 has a lot to do with the recent rulings on the Patriot Act, which gives federal agents more latitude to spy on U.S. citizens and non-citizens while hunting terrorists.

"With the many issues such as the Patriot Act there needs to be a line drawn between accessing people's information and the privacy of their information,' she said.