(January 19, 2004) -- The LB City Council, already openly lustful at a scheme (not even qualified for the ballot yet) to hike L.A. County's sales tax to feed LB City Hall and others, ought to support a measure already slated for the Nov. 2004 ballot to protect the public's right to know what's being done with public money in the public's name.

The CA legislature has voted overwhelmingly -- 78-0 in the Assembly, 34-0 in the CA Senate with LB reps Lowenthal, Oropeza and Karnette all voting "aye" -- to put SCA 1, the CA open-government Sunshine Amendment, on the Nov. 2004 statewide ballot.

The measure would for the first time give Californians a constitutional right of access to information about the conduct of the people's business by government.

This significant reform, spearheaded by the CA First Amendment Coalition, is long overdue.

Some government bodies have persistently flouted CA's Public Records Act, whose legislative loopholes courts have worsened by letting officials offer endless excuses and pretexts for hiding materials from taxpayers, neighborhood activists and reporters.

The open-government ballot measure would provide a constitutional right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, requiring meetings of public bodies and writings of public officials and agencies to be open to public scrutiny.

It requires a statute, court rule or other authority to be broadly construed if it furthers the right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.

It requires a statute, court rule or other authority adopted after the effective date of this measure to include findings demonstrating the interest protected, and the need for that protection

As the CA First Amendment Coalition notes on its web site:

The last proviso, by which state legislators neatly exempted themselves from the disclosure requirements, was blasted months ago by then-candidate, now-Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"I would eliminate the special protection from public scrutiny of proceedings, records, and deliberations of 'the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.' There is no reason why the Legislature should be shielded from the antiseptic of sunshine. As Governor, I will propose a constitutional amendment to guarantee Californians a constitutional right to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, including the Executive branch and the Legislature," said then-candidate Schwarzenegger.

However, as the CA First Amendment Coalition notes on its web site, this provision "became necessary to win legislative approval."

That's OK. As it stands, the constitutional amendment is a major step forward (read text below)...and the legislature's self-exemption can be dealt with by a subsequent ballot measures.

Even the League of CA Cities, normally quite protective of local government prerogatives, supports the measure.

We urge voters to approve it in November...and to see if LB Councilmembers put their City Hall on record supporting it.

Finally, actions speak louder than words. LBReport.com has cited repeated examples of LB City Hall's resourcefulness in applying what we consider the "mushroom treatment" (keeping the public in the dark and fed manure) in important matters. We have used the Public Records Act to report stories that might otherwise not have seen the light of day. Some LB community activists have had to fight long, arduous, lonely, uphill battles they shouldn't have to fight just to find out what their City Hall is doing.

SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.

(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.