Tracy Press

There is good and bad news in the world of open government.

First, the good news:

Second Thoughts

The Contra Costa Times and Los Angeles Times won their lawsuits against local governments. The state Supreme Court ruled that who a government agency hires and how much they make should be open to the public, enabling watchdogs like newspapers and concerned citizens to see just who is earning how much of their tax money.

In one of the decisions, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote: “Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy.”

Well said, chief justice. Too bad Superior Court Judge Lauren P. Thomasson doesn’t agree.

In an Aug. 23 decision, she rejected the Tracy Press’ lawsuit against the city of Tracy that sought to uncover correspondence between a City Council member (sent from her private computer) and the Lawrence Livermore National Lab regarding city business.
If you hadn’t guessed, that’s the bad news.

Thomasson ruled that, under the Public Records Act, Councilwoman Suzanne Tucker did not act as a “government agency” when she discussed influencing upcoming city business because the council can only “act” as a body. Therefore, only the documents generated at those meetings, or e-mails and correspondence that have been through the city’s system, are considered public records.

Thomasson also bought the city’s argument that Tucker is entitled to privacy because Proposition 59, which changed the state constitution, was not written to override existing privacy exceptions.

The first ruling depends on an interpretation of council “action” that’s narrower than Nicole Richie’s wrist. Are we supposed to believe that discussing upcoming meetings and votes — and trying to change them — outside council chambers is not an action of a council member?

I don’t buy the privacy argument, either. The exceptions Proposition 59 discusses are specifically stated elsewhere in law, and Tucker seems to have acted as a councilwoman and a committee member in this case, not a private citizen. When the state constitution grants each citizen an “inalienable right” to “privacy,” it’s talking about individuals seeking safety from an overreaching government, not an elected official trying to evade the oversight of constituents. It’s the difference between seeking protection from tyranny and seeking protection from democracy.

And I can only guess that the judge overlooked the sections in both the Public Records Act and Proposition 59 that stipulate they are to be interpreted broadly and in favor of government openness.

If this decision were to become precedent, it would effectively neuter the Public Records Act (passed by the Legislature) and Proposition 59 (passed by the voters), both designed to make government more transparent — and therefore more accountable.

This ruling makes it all too easy to avoid the oversight necessary to a functioning democracy. Under the city’s argument and Thomasson’s decision, all government officials must do to avoid the Public Records Act and Proposition 59 is to do their work through private e-mails and letters, even when they’re clearly using their power and position as public officials.

It shouldn’t matter if a City Council member is using a private e-mail address or city of Tracy stationery; if the content of their correspondence involves their role as public officials and discusses public business, those writings should be no more private than a statement at a council meeting. It’s the content, not the form, that makes it pertinent to the public.

Otherwise, and if Thomasson’s interpretation of law stands, an unscrupulous government official would have no trouble keeping dirty secrets and actions hidden.

Somewhere, Richard Nixon is laughing and applauding.

The intent of both the Public Records Act and Proposition 59 was to make the writings and actions of government officials more open to the public, to give people a better idea of what their elected representatives were doing so they could be held accountable during elections. But it looks like that mattered as much to Thomasson as decorum does to Jerry Springer.

Luckily, hope isn’t lost.

Thomasson’s decision is not precedent, says attorney Mark Connolly, and can’t be applied to any other records case. It would have to be upheld by an appeals court for that to happen.

So until the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Sacramento upholds or overturns Thomasson — if, that is, it even decides to hear the case — this travesty of open government is confined to Tracy.

Thank God for small favors.

Visit Jon's blog at www.jmendelson05.blogspot.com. To contact him about his weekly column, call 830-4231 or e-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by Christy , August 31, 2007

Excellent points, but this is the a same Council that rejected an ethics ordinance (the State Law is so burdensome for Tucker she doesn't want anything else) and a Sunshine Ordinance (On the same night the Mayor and Tolbert were violating the Brown Act by discussing a non agenda item they asserted they proactively exceed Brown Act requirements)

Then at the last meeting we had both Tolbert and Ives talking about themselves in the third person re: whether or not they should be on the selection committee for a Master Developer for the College Project. I suppose public service requires a fair degree of narciccism.

Note to self (no pun intended): Don't ever, ever vote for them again.

Note to self: vote them

...
written by Christy , August 31, 2007

OUT ...VOTE THEM OUT