Don’t let special interests hide from the public
Legislators give lip service to the public’s right to know about government operations. But too often, for the right special interest, they’re willing, eager even, to limit access to information. Two bills addressing this tendency are pending, one involving an entrenched special interest who wants to keep negative information hidden, the other a shiny new one that would hide info we now have a right to know.
One should pass; the other must not.
First, the old. Unlike Texas, Florida and a dozen other states, California exempts records of police misconduct from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. In Senate Bill 1286, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, seeks to open records of completed investigations into officers who have been found to have committed wrongdoing, so the public can see what discipline, if any, was imposed.
He rightly contends that one way to deter abuse and restore confidence in law enforcement is to shine light on officers who unjustifiably resort to force.
Supporters include civil libertarians, the California Newspaper Publishers Association and criminal defense attorneys. Opponents include virtually every law enforcement group, including district attorneys, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, a union representing college cops and many more.
Police unions give campaign money, unlike SB 1286’s backers, and candidates covet law enforcement endorsements. In other words, Leno’s bill faces long odds. It shouldn’t. Disclosure is fundamental to democracy.
Politicians also like to be seen as being on the cutting edge, as evidenced by Healdsburg Democratic Sen. Mike McGuire’s SB 1102. This bill would carve an exemption into the California Public Records Act for Airbnb and other Internet-based competitors to traditional hotels.
As envisioned by the bill, Internet hoteliers would pay hotel taxes to cities and counties without disclosing any information about the owners of the homes being rented. Cities could request that the state controller audit tax payments, but otherwise would be bound by concerns that data “is not used for improper purposes.”
What “improper purposes” includes is anyone’s guess. It’s not specified. Perhaps it would be deemed improper to let neighbors know that the sweet little old lady next door is violating local zoning ordinances by turning her home into a business, or causing undue traffic and noise – or that a corporation is buying up property for use as short-term rentals.
Internet companies connecting guests to homes might define it as improper to provide any information about their operations. We’ve seen how anxious big internet companies are to help law enforcement even the public’s safety might be endangered. So what harm could come from giving them more opportunities to hide information from the public?
It’s clear that SB 1102 is not in the public interest. Whatever his reason for this exemption, McGuire is, in our view, using the legislative process for improper purposes.
Public employees are answerable to the public. And if those who want to do business among us are so concerned with their privacy, perhaps they shouldn’t be entering that business in the first place.
This story was originally published April 18, 2016 at 2:38 PM with the headline "Don’t let special interests hide from the public."