Wrong way to boost state transparency
Transparent government is good government. But it has to be done the right way.
An incorrect way to achieve transparent government is the Government Transparency Act initiative submitted last month to the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta for a title and summary, after which signatures will be gathered. It is sponsored by Consumer Watchdog, a progressive consumer group. Consumer Watchdog is best known for sponsoring Proposition 103 in 1988, which increased state regulation of the insurance industry and made the insurance commissioner an elected position.
The proposed initiative declares California openrecords laws “have been abused or weakened by legislators and government officials.” The legislators attend junkets in “exotic places” and collect money from “special interest donors behind closed doors.” And government agencies unreasonably limit searches for records on public officials.
To correct that, the initiative would require legislators to disclose meetings with lobbyists and fundraising events by special interest groups. And it would curb companies' ability to file “preemptive lawsuits to deny access to public records.”
If the initiative merely proposed tightening public-records laws, it might be reasonable. Unfortunately, it also includes this clause in Section 3: “Allows the public to bring legal actions to address past violations of the law and to prevent threatened future actions that would undermine access to public records.”
That's vague. And it reeks of lawsuits under the state's Private Attorneys General Act.
Normally lawsuits against state employment laws are filed by the attorney general or a local district attorney. But PAGA allows private employees to file civil lawsuits against their own companies. According to Tom Manzo, the president and founder of the California Business and
Industrial Alliance, a PAGA lawsuit on average costs the employer $1.1 million in total fees. The costs are passed on to customers, while giving businesses another reason to leave the state.
On the new initiative, Denise Davis of the California Chamber of Commerce told us the chamber won't take position unless the initiative qualifies for the ballot, “But the precedent that it would set in terms of opening up retroactive lawsuits while limiting businesses ability to use the legal system is very troubling.”
The initiative is 29 pages long, with many dense sections difficult for voters to parse. There have been no public hearings in the Legislature, where experts and the general public can testify about potential effects. Granted, the initiative is aimed at a problem in the Legislature. But this really is something the Legislature itself should take up and examine at public hearings. When pressured by citizens, it actually can solve festering problems, as with workers' compensation reforms in 2004 and 2012 to control rising costs to employers.
The initiative also doesn't address one of the main reasons businesses lobby in the Capitol: to defend themselves against the immense number of unneeded regulations the Legislature already passed.
Consumer Watchdog ought to withdraw this initiative and refashion it without the problems we addressed above. Assuming, of course, its goal is simply to improve government transparency.
The Legislature also ought to reform lobbyist disclosure laws itself to head off this or similar efforts, while delivering meaningful transparency.
We encourage lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to do this, not for their own sake, but for the sake of Californians who deserve to know what their government and elected representatives are up to.
Bashing of Sheriff Bianco is despicable
Re “Sheriff Bianco is a complete failure” (Oct. 5):
Today's anonymous editorial is about the lowest, most despicable, undeserving piece of garbage you have published. Riverside sheriff has over 4,000 employees working in one of the largest counties in the United States. In today's anti-police atmosphere, it is impossible to recruit peace officers of the highest caliber. Every profession has its 10% “rotten apples” and yet you blame the sheriff for the misbehavior of a handful. This assassination piece has all the markings of Sal Rodriguez, your opinion editor, who has, for years, maligned law enforcement agencies and correctional peace officers. Sal, who has probably never worn a uniform or a badge or dealt with the mentally disturbed or the violently criminal, has the unmitigated gall to disparage our law enforcement on a continual basis. Fire Sal Rodriguez! — Matthew Martel,
San Bernardino
Threats to democracy
After reading Ms. Creswell's letter (Oct. 4) in response to the John Phillips column Oct. 1st regarding the left's obsession with the phrase “a threat to democracy,” I had to comment on a few of her claims. Disagreements on actual policy are one thing, but many times the actual policies are completely misrepresented by one party involved, as is the case here. Creswell states the “Republicans are the ones leading the charge for voter suppression.” How exactly? By requiring people who vote to present a valid form of ID? How is that “suppressive” to legal voters? The “book banning” she accuses the right of is actually about keeping books containing softcore pornography out of K-12 school libraries. Do young kids really need to have access to books that have various sex acts graphically described in vivid detail? How about the schools focus on having books and other tools available that can help students improve their math and reading competency as well as their critical thinking skills instead of spending precious in-class time discussing someone's preferred gender pronouns. However, her most pronounced fallacy was the claim that the right has taken “reproductive rights away from women.” Sorry, all the Supreme Court did was make a legal ruling on an originally weak case and put the issue of abortion rights back to the states, where it allows the voters to decide, not the activists.
Speaker McCarthy out in House; Butler sworn in
How sad have both our state and federal governance become?
On one hand, we have a newly-appointed senator given the position by Gov. Newsom solely based on her race and gender — he announced months ago that Diane Feinstein's eventual replacement would be an African-American
woman.
On the other, Democrats and “hard-right” conservative Republicans team up to oust a Republican Speaker of the House.
So I ask: How is what Newsom did not racist and discriminatory?
I don't mean to disrespect Ms. Butler, I have no doubt she possesses the required credentials, but if, say, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had announced the next senator appointee would be a White male, he would have been lambasted (and rightly so.)
And why would Democrats help remove a speaker who was more willing to compromise away from a right-wing agenda than those actually seeking his ouster?
Because they care only about playing politics, not representing their constituents. Total lunacy.
— Bob Cunningham,
Cherry Valley
Newsom and democracy
Kudos to the opinion headline writer of “Newsom doesn't really care about democracy, does he?” Oct. 5.
It accurately reflects the great editorial written by writer Ms. Shelly. If Newsom cared about the voters we would not have $6 - $7 gas and some of the highest cost of living rates in the country. The voters that put him into office are getting the policies for which they voted. I hope they are not moving out of the state and are enjoying the havoc their votes have given their neighbors.