News Releases (1998)
January
CFAC Announces New Executive Staff
The California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) is pleased to announce the appointment of Wendy S. Zlotlow as its executive director. Ms. Zlotlow was previously with The Dentists Insurance Company and Management Services for Associations, both located in Sacramento. Joseph T. (Terry) Francke, the previous executive director of CFAC, has been appointed general counsel. Before joining CFAC in 1990, Mr. Francke was legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
CFAC is a public interest organization devoted to ensuring the right of citizen access to public meetings and information. CFAC actively supports those elements of the First Amendment dealing with the rights of speech, publication, assembly, association and petition, which make civic life possible.
July
Candidates' Positions on Open Government Sought
What will California's next governor and attorney general do to promote open government?
The California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) has asked the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor and attorney general to answer a few questions to gauge their attitudes about the democratic process.
Candidates for governor:
- Would you sign SB 434 or a bill to the same effect (establishing journalists' right of access to prisoners)?
- What is your position on AB 179 and SB 74? Would you support such a law (enhancing public access to electronic records)?
- Would you sign a bill bringing public access to closed criminal cases in California in line with the provisions covering the FBI and other federal agencies under the federal Freedom of Information Act?
- Would you seek, support and sign legislation to establish a state open government and public information commission similar to one that exists in Connecticut?
- Do you favor repealing the "catchall" exemption from disclosure in the California Public Records Act?
Candidates for attorney general:
- Would you support a bill bringing public access to closed criminal cases in California in line with the provisions covering the FBI and other federal agencies under the federal Freedom of Information Act?
- Would you support legislation to establish a state open government and public information commission similar to one that exists in Connecticut?
- Would you support legislation disapproving County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court and clarifying that information made accessible under the California Public Records Act remains permanently accessible unless expressly stated to the contrary?
- Would you support legislation disapproving Rivero v. Superior Court and clarifying that counties and cities do not illegally interfere with district attorneys and law enforcement agencies when they impose information disclosure requirements no more stringent than those covering the FBI and other federal agencies under the federal Freedom of Information Act?
CFAC encourages the media to use these questions in their interviews of candidates for governor, attorney general and other statewide offices. Background material for each question was submitted to the candidates to help them understand the questions and prepare their answers. If you would like to receive a copy of the background material by e-mail, fax or mail, call the CFAC office at 916/974-8888, or send e-mail to cfac@cfac.org.
CFAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of all people to be informed and involved citizens. CFAC fulfills this mission by operating a statewide ActionLine, through its involvement in litigation and the legislative process, and by conducting seminars throughout the state on the Brown Act (California's open meetings law) and the California Public Records Act. CFAC is funded by membership dues, contributions and grants.
Legal Notebook Lets You Take the Law into Your Own Hands
California's most comprehensive and authoritative guide to the laws affecting the rights of journalists and others to gather information and monitor government has been revised and expanded.
The California Journalist's Legal Notebook has been thoroughly updated for its second edition, and includes new sections on court access and shield laws, which protect journalists from divulging their sources.
Contents of the Legal Notebook include:
A survey of the most current laws affecting press passes, trespass, leaked documents, blackballing by public officials, gags on sources, special risks of telephone interviews, and the use and misuse of cameras, tape recorders, scanners, cordless and portable phones, and computers.
A section-by-section explanation of the Brown Act - California's open-meetings law - including what situations it applies to; when closed sessions are and are not legal (with special tips on public records alternatives to closed-session information); the rights of citizen speakers and public officials; and what to do about violations.
A thorough explanation of the California Public Records Act, including rules affecting delay and cost; where the most commonly cited exemptions from disclosure apply; a list of "Dos and Don'ts" for using the law effectively; a sample request letter; and what can be done when records are withheld.
A new section on shield laws, explaining how federal and state courts recognize protection for confidential sources and unpublished information - or when they do not - in 10 distinct situations.
A new section on court coverage reviewing constitutional, statutory and common law bases for access to judicial proceedings and records, plus rules on gag orders, "private" judging, administrative and military proceedings, prior restraints and other obstacles to interviewing lawyers, witnesses, parties and jurors, or using cameras and recording devices in and around courtrooms.
More than just a handbook, the Legal Notebook is now a complete, ongoing information system, including:
A condensed pocket guide for quick reference in the field, including form statements and letters concerning access to public meetings, public records, court proceedings and files.
A complete desk version with expanded material and explanation for a more complete understanding of the law.
An online reference and supplement (on the Coalition's Web site, First Light) providing complete texts of the hundreds of cases, statutes and other authorities referenced in the book, plus recent decisions and legislation that keep users up to date on breaking developments.
Arranged for optimum ease of use, the Legal Notebook features more helpful points of reference than any comparable guide:
A comprehensive table of contents and index makes it easy to quickly check the law on a particular issue, either by topic or key words and phrases.
A comprehensive table of authorities provides quick reference to any of the more than 300 cases, attorney general's opinions and code sections discussed in the text - ideal for checking on public officials when they cite the law to deny access to meetings and records.
The Legal Notebook, published by the California First Amendment Coalition, was written by the Coalition's attorney, Terry Francke, who has spent more than 18 years fielding hotline calls from reporters, photographers, editors, publishers, news directors, attorneys, public officials, citizen activists and others.
During his 10 years as legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, Terry established the original editions of its Reporter's Handbook on Media Law. He drafted the 1994 revisions to the Brown Act, and is sought by elected officials for his views on a variety of issues relating to public access.
The Legal Notebook comes as a two-volume set: a full-sized desk reference and a pocket edition. Both volumes are spiral-bound so that they open completely and lie flat. The pocket edition is the same size as a standard reporter's notepad and comes with a sturdy vinyl slipcover for storing both the Legal Notebook and a reporter's notepad, back to back.
The price for the Legal Notebook is $30 ($25 for Coalition members). For orders of 11 or more, the price is $20. To place an order, call the Coalition at 916/974-8888, or order on-line through the Coalition's Web site.
August
Newspaper's Fight for Free Records Proves Costly
A Northern California newspaper recently spent close to two thousand dollars to find out how much local police officers were being paid. It shouldn't have had to spend anything: this information is a matter of public record.
When the Paradise Post asked for the police salary information, the city's attorney acknowledged that the records were public, and then alerted the Paradise Police Officers Association of his intention to release them.
The association promptly obtained a temporary restraining order preventing city officials from disclosing the information.
The Post sought the information because the city was in negotiations with police over raises. The newspaper wanted to compare existing salaries with the salaries of police in similar small cities in the area. Such a comparison was intended help Paradise residents make a more informed judgment as to whether additional tax dollars should be spent on police salaries, and if so how much.
The newspaper challenged the restraining order under the California Public Records Act. The judge promptly lifted the order, denied the permanent injunction sought by police, and ordered the salary information disclosed.
Victory was tempered by the newspaper's legal fees: $1,700 for obtaining records that were supposed to be free. Although the Public Records Act allows successful plaintiffs to recover their attorney's fees from the government defendant, the law anticipates that plaintiffs in these cases are the ones trying to compel disclosure.
In this case, the plaintiff went to court to prevent disclosure. Because of this preemptive legal move by the police officer's association, the Post was forced to act not as a plaintiff but as an intervening party, and thus was not entitled to recover costs under the literal language of the Act.
This semantic loophole in the law can be exploited by government officials who want to deny access to public records without taking the financial and political risks. If a third party can be found to lead the charge against disclosure as plaintiffs, officials can simply throw up their hands and proclaim that the matter is out of their hands.
The purpose of the attorney's fees provision is thus subverted. It is supposed to provide citizens with some assurance that they will not be stuck with the legal bill if they take government officials to task for unlawfully denying access to public records. Similarly, the provision is intended to deter government officials from obstructing legitimate public inquiry, by forcing them to pick up the legal tab when the other party prevails.
In this case a small weekly newspaper was willing to put its money on the line to force city officials to obey the law. Most citizens are not in a position to take such a financial risk, especially when government officials can sidestep the attorney's fees provision by finding third parties to fight their battles for them.
The California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) supports revisions to the Public Records Act that would close this loophole in the attorney's fees provision by providing that once a request has been made under the Act, any party who sues to block disclosure and loses will be liable for the litigation costs of any opposing party it forces to sue for information that should have been made public.
CFAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of all people to be informed and involved citizens. CFAC fulfills this mission by operating a statewide ActionLine, through its involvement in litigation and the legislative process, and by conducting seminars throughout the state on the Brown Act (California's open meetings law) and the California Public Records Act. CFAC is funded by membership dues, contributions and grants.