Veteran journalists and j-law teachers are praising the new ebook edition for iPad, Kindle and smartphone—available in paperback as well—of the indispensable guide to newsroom law in California. The CalAware Guide to Journalism Law in California, 2nd Edition, has just been revised to discuss cases decided and legislation passed since 2007 plus new entries devoted to: • recent limits on closed sessions and remedies to correct violations of the Brown Act; • getting records of courthouse administration (not just cases); • online access to court case records; • texting and other uses of e-devices in the courtroom; • libel and copyright cautions for using material from the Internet; • covert audio and video recording for “sting” journalism; • the latest escalations of anti-paparazzi penalties; • warranted searches of journalists’ phone and e-records; • warrantless searches of journalists’ smartphones, laptops and tablets; • covering volatile protest demonstrations; and • California and constitutional law protecting college as well as high school journalists. Features A 360-page indexed paperback pocket edition will be available in mid-November on Amazon at $24.95. Meanwhile the $19.99 ebook edition (at http://tinyurl.com/me9rshf or in the iTunes store) links every mention of a case or code section to the full text online, as well as the leading Internet resources for using the federal Freedom of Information Act. And like any other ebook, the format allows for contextual word searching, bookmarking and highlighting. Both editions also include recommended protests or statements to be used in the field when journalists’ rights of access or independence are threatened. Reviewers’ Reactions “More often than not, requests for public information are met with a quick ‘No.’ The CalAware Guide to Journalism Law in California provides a powerful remedy by arming its readers with explanations of the […]
OPEN MEETINGS Judge agrees with LA Times, CalAware: Coliseum Commission repeatedly violated open meeting law PUBLIC RECORDS CalAware, Orange County online news center ask high court relief from county’s invited gag order OPEN GOVERNMENT California’s high court justices cool to State Bar’s claim that its records are closed to public Governor signs bill allowing online filing, display of officials’ statements of economic interests Report: White House, deaf to routine info requests, shows singular zeal to detect, deter leakers FREE PRESS Without a First Amendment, British press freedom depends on journalistic feistiness like this OPEN COURTS Bar panel: Free from video monitoring, judges’ courtroom misbehavior happens off the record FREE SPEECH Modesto Junior College sued for barring student vet from handing out copies of the Constitution Anaheim high school apologizes for barring student from wearing NRA T-shirt depicting hunter Court asked to reconsider: Do words that offer advice, counseling lose presumed freedom of speech?
Former San Diego Councilwoman Donna Frye soon quit her post as Mayor Bob Filner’s Open Government Director, then led demands that he go Upon winning election as San Diego’s mayor last November, Bob Filner announced he would appoint former City Council Member Donna Frye to a new post: Director of Open Government. She was the logical choice, if anyone, to fill that role given her leadership on the council for greater transparency and public involvement—walking out of closed sessions, for example, to protest their use for discussions that should have been public. By the end of February Frye was also coincidentally elected as President of Californians Aware, of which she was a charter member of its board of directors. But she had also come to realize that her city position had absolutely no power to make its government more open. On the contrary, decisions on what and how much information would be released to requesters under the California Public Records Act were carefully walled off from her; a staff strategy session on which information would be withheld was conducted behind her back. Before long she resigned, offering as a figleaf to spare Filner embarrassment the public explanation that she wanted to spend more time in her CalAware role. She gave the mayor that consideration because she had worked so hard to get him elected and was convinced he was still a great plus for progressive leadership of the city, after many years of Republican mayors. She had heard rumors about his behavior toward women, but so had many people, and they were no more than rumors. Then, no longer at city hall, she began to hear more. The full story of how she and two […]
OPEN GOVERNMENT CalAware’s proposed Plan B to save the Brown Act and the Public Records Act to go before the voters Sunlight’s new list has 32 pointers for local/state governments on “proactive disclosure” policies FREE PRESS Judge denies deputies’ bid to gag the L. A. Times from publishing leaked background screenings Governor gets bill requiring 5 day notice to journalists before subpoenas of their phone, email records Federal shield bill moving to the Senate would protect sources of a wider variety of journalists OPEN MEETINGS L.A. Council may allow citizens to address its meetings remotely, avoid hassles of trip downtown FREE SPEECH Federal judges cool to arguments that new sex offender online data tracking preserves free speech PUBLIC INFORMATION Campaign finance watchdog: Just how helpful will the improved Cal-ACCESS online database be? WHISTLEBLOWERS Court: Government attorneys’ ethical duties don’t strip them of law’s whistleblower protections Secret spy court judge: Snowden leak led to “considerable public interest”; more openness needed
A veteran but financially struggling small-town newspaper publisher facing a trial court order to pay a school district more than $56,000 in attorney fees was spared that fate today by a three-judge panel of the Third District, California Court of Appeal. The court held that while Sacramento Valley Mirror publisher Tim Crews’ lawsuit for emails held by the Willows Unified School District lacked legal merit, it was not “frivolous”—neither intended to harass nor such an obvious loser that no reasonable lawyer would have taken the case. Accordingly, the trial court had erred in finding Crews liable to pay the district’s attorney fees. Instead, the district will be required to pay Crews’ costs for appealing the matter. Crews filed suit for emails to either confirm or refute a source’s allegation that the district superintendent had used public resources to affect the election of a county schools superintendent. The decision’s lasting effect is to encourage energetic and tenacious litigation to enforce disclosure of government records in California without fear of having an unsuccessful suit labeled as “frivolous” as the basis for paying the government’s attorney fees. Supporting Crews before the Court of Appeal were two amicus curiae briefs: one representing a wide variety of journalism organizations and newspapers, and the other representing Californians Aware, of which Crews has since been elected as Vice President; State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco); and former Assemblyman William Bagley, the author of the California Public Records Act. The facts and rationale for the decision in Crews v. Willows Unified School District are here. Background by Jim Newton of the Los Angeles Times is here.
Some notes on two pending legislative measures that would amend the Brown Act and its prescription for transparency in local government agency meetings, plus a third that would add sunshine to how the Legislature itself does its business. When the Minutes Don’t Reveal Whodunnit Some may be surprised to learn that the Brown Act does not require local councils, boards and commissions to create minutes of their meetings; it simply provides that minutes of closed sessions may be kept, but if they are, they are not public records. And of course there are strong legal, business, practical and political reasons for the maintenance of minutes: to confirm the adoption of ordinances, bylaws and other rules and regulations; to verify approval of contracts and other agreements; and in general to manifest everything done or even considered by the body collectively and officially—and when. Accordingly, the taking, approval and preservation of minutes is an essentially universal practice even in the absence of a legal mandate. But just how much detail is included varies widely, from the diligent virtual transcript of all that is said, and by whom, to the minimalist action summary that reports only issues reaching a vote, with little or no elaboration beyond a mere label. Even sketchier are those agencies—the Association of Bay Area Governments, for example— that disclose the vote tally, but not who voted which way. Accordingly Senator Leland Yee has introduced SB 751, requiring that local bodies “publicly report any action taken and report the individual vote or abstention of every member present.” The initial version of the bill put this requirement in Government Code provisions outside the Brown Act and applied them only to the highly specialized local bodies where […]
Tim Crews, editor and publisher of the twice-weekly Sacramento Valley Mirror in Glenn County and recipient this past weekend of the 2013 Freedom of Information award of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, comments on what it takes to make government documents tell their story to the public. Let’s look backward in the Mirror. In Los Angeles Saturday, where I had been flown to be recognized for 23-odd years of public records, open government and other freedom of information work, I had a few moments to reflect on the fruits of that effort. It is quite gratifying to get a one-of-its-kind award. At the same time, in the rarefied company of the state’s leading newspaper publishers, editors, reporters and photographers, I had a few minutes — we hadn’t been fully notified of why we were there—to ask myself what we do that is so different to merit the honor of the 2013 CNPA Freedom of Information Award. Sure, we’ve sued a lot, and mostly won. And we’ve beaten most redneck censors but some people are still afraid of being seen buying a copy of the county’s largest newspaper. California has some of the better, not the best, public records and open meetings laws in the nation. But it takes muscle to make them work. But more important is that The Sacramento Valley Mirror operates under old-fashioned newspaper-of-record principles. Certainly not as tough as those I grew up with where, in a county this size, every birth, hospitalization, divorce, marriage and birth was printed. We do bookings and keep track of police reports and that function helps us frequently to be able to make connections the police can’t or don’t, such as the link between an apparent […]
Tim Crews, editor and publisher—and truth be told, lead reporter—of the twice-weekly Sacramento Valley Mirror, was recognized by his peers Saturday for his dogged use of the courts to keep his Glenn County readers informed about their government and its officials. Crews was presented with the Freedom of Information Award for 2013 of the California Newspaper Publishers Association at its annual convention in Universal City. Before a packed luncheon audience at the Sheraton Universal, Karlene Goller, vice president for legal affairs of the Los Angeles Times, had this to say in introducing Crews to his fellow professionals. This year’s recipient may be the most experienced freedom of information litigant. You could call him Mr. Sunshine. Just looking at the past five years, he has filed more than two dozen cases seeking government records under the California Public Records Act or pursuing violations of the Brown Act. He won most of the cases, setting public access standards in all of them. You’d think bureaucratic obstructors would know: Don’t mess with Tim Crews and the Sacramento Valley Mirror. Nearing 70, he served five days in the Tehama County jail for contempt because he refused to name a source of published information subpoenaed in connection with a criminal prosecution. “I had given my word,” he said. He was so immersed in the contempt battle that he hadn’t paid attention to the fact that, if he went to jail, because it was essentially a one-man operation, the paper’s sterling record of continuous publication could be broken and his government foes would have won a significant victory. As Crews likes to say, “Journalism in small towns and tiny counties is different from the big city. I see the people we […]
A cautionary story for journalists, activists or others tempted to covertly audio- or video-record a conversation with someone, the better to expose him or her later: the problem is that once you do expose them, you may end up owing them a lot of money for violation of a California privacy statute, which can also be enforced by criminal charges. Jeff McDonald reports for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Meetings of local government bodies are kept open by the Brown Act. For state boards and commissions in the executive branch, it’s the Bagley-Keene Act. The Legislature’s open meeting obligation is in the state constitution. But for want of such an unambiguous mandate for transparency, California’s judicial branch, providing the tribunals where all these other sunshine laws are enforced, is governed by a network of policy-making and advisory bodies most of whose meetings are held behind closed doors. The rationale seems to be, Cheryl Miller reports in The Recorder, that these meetings are presumed to be closed because no law presumes them to be public. But Californians Aware and others say that’s got it backwards, given a constitutional amendment in 2004.