Legislation
to Undo a Court Decision Barring Public Access to
Police Discipline Records
Deserves Support!
Sunday,
April 22, 2007, Editorial: Fighting against official secrecy; an Orange County
Register editorial
The
Orange County Board of Supervisors is now considering the creation of a much-needed
citizen oversight panel to allow some outside eyes and public accountability when
allegations arise of mistreatment by deputies within our jails or on our streets.
But even if such a panel is created, the public is still cut out of the process,
because of a disastrous California Supreme Court decision last year, known as
Copley Press v. Superior Court.
In
the case, the San Diego Union-Tribune sought to obtain records from a civil service
commission hearing that dealt with a terminated deputy sheriff. The commission
refused, and the state's high court upheld that refusal. As a result, records
regarding police misconduct are off-limits to the public. Although the court did
not specifically address the status of oversight commissions, such panels have
closed their hearings and documents to the public.
"Copley
Press represents nothing less than complete and total victory for the secrecy
lobby in this state," Tom Newton, general counsel for the California Newspaper
Publishers Association, wrote in a letter to state Sen. Gloria Romero in support
of her legislation to overturn Copley. He is correct.
Reform
is tough going, given that law enforcement unions oppose any public access to
records about misbehaving cops. San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno
last week turned his bill to overturn Copley into a two-year bill due to a lack
of support in his Public Safety Committee, thus stalling it indefinitely. Santa
Ana Democrat Jose Solorio failed to support the Leno bill - a huge disappointment.
Fortunately, Ms. Romero's Senate legislation passed her committee on a 3-2 party-line
vote last week, with Republicans, including Bob Margett of Glendora (who represents
a portion of Orange County), voting for government secrecy.
Restoring
the law to pre-Copley days does not endanger police officers. Mr. Newton correctly
argues that the law had only allowed the public "a right of access to settled
official facts generated in a quasi-judicial proceedings at significant taxpayer
expense, in which due-process rights of peace officers are protected, about confirmed
instances of serious official behavior, even illegal behavior."
Such
information is available about discipline of other types of public employees.
Any time a member of the public is arrested, detailed information about that person
is publicized. It's absurd, and dangerous to public safety, to grant what Mr.
Newton calls "the Holy Grail of KGB-like secrecy" to "the only public officials
given the right by the public to affect the personal liberty of citizens and even
take life."
Ms.
Romero's bill remains the best vehicle to fix a situation that is inappropriate
in a free society. It deserves widespread, bipartisan support.
A
billion here. A billion there. Unfunded liabilities. Assumed rate of return.
The
numbers and terms behind the statewide pension debate are so staggering and confusing
that it's
(Continued page 4)