Tuesday
November
25
2014
2:02 pm
Weather

  Home
  Local News
  State / National / World
  Sports
  Opinion / Letters
  Business
  Arts / Entertainment
  Lifestyle
  Obituaries
  Calendar
  Submit Event
  Comics / Games
  Classifieds
  DJ Designers
  Archives
  Advertise With Us
  About Us
 
 
 
 
Editorial: Yes on Proposition 42
May 16, 2014, 05:00 AM Editorial

Last June, state legislators dropped a bombshell that they no longer wanted to pay cities and districts for the California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act even though it was mandated by the state. As part of the state Legislature’s budget negotiations, trailer bills were approved to make these provisions optional, but encourage local government agencies to follow them as “best practices.”

After a tremendous amount of public fervor about such an assault on the public’s right to know, there was significant backtracking and discussion of a new proposition that would continue to require it and that the state should not pay for local compliance. So here we are.

Proposition 42 is a legislative constitutional amendment that would require cities, counties and school districts to comply with the state’s open meeting and public records laws and eliminate the requirement that the state reimburse that expense. While it is inherently wrong for the state to require local governments to adhere to a state law, this proposition will ensure that the state’s open meeting and public records law essentially remain as they are.

The California Public Records Act, passed in 1968, was landmark legislation designed to allow public access to government records, the “people’s business.” In tandem with the Ralph M. Brown Act, passed in 1953, it provides freedom of information and establishes the public’s right to participate in government activity.

Part of the California Public Records Act requires government agencies to respond to a public record request within 10 days and provide a reason for denying a request. Both are important and essential to ensuring the public continues to receive the information we require to ensure our governments run effectively and in the proper light. While we disagree with the premise that local governments should pay for a state mandate, but recognize that the greater good is served when these acts are protected. Vote yes.

 

 

Tags: public, state, records, government, require, local,


Other stories from today:

 

 
Print this Page Print this Page  |  Bookmark and Share
<< Back
 
Return To Archives
 
  


 
 
 
Daily Journal Quick Poll
 
What do you think of Pablo Sandoval inking a deal to play for the Boston Red Sox?

All good things come to an end
Going to miss him
Wish he would have stayed
Good riddance
Love it, love the Red Sox

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
US economy grew at 3.9 percent rate in 3rd quarter
WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy grew at a solid 3.9 percent annual rate in the July-September period..
Ferguson businesses torched in overnight protests
FERGUSON, Mo. — Smoke billowed from burned-out buildings and sidewalks were strewn with broken gla..
New FDA rules will put calorie counts on menus
WASHINGTON — Whether they want to or not, consumers will soon know how many calories they are eati..
More >>  
 
 
  
 
  
 
©2014 San Mateo Daily Journal
San Mateo County garage sales