The California State Assembly acted to allow voters to decide on a constitutional amendment on the June ballot barring government agencies at every level from evading transparency and open government when facing funding shortfalls. “There really shouldn’t be any need for debate,” writes the Santa Maria Times, in an editorial, September 17, 2013. “Both the Brown Act and CPRA are crystal clear when it comes to granting public access to government activities. And like just about every aspect of the California Constitution, the rules are in place for a reason, and when it comes to taxpayers being allowed to know what their government is doing, there can be no equivocation or deviation.”
The State had been funding expenses of the Brown Act, the California’s open meeting law, and the Public Records Act, but recently recoiled from the expense. The proposed constitutional amendment would required local agencies to pay for the laws. In an editorial on September 18, 2013, the Los Angeles Daily News writes that they are not willing to endorse the amendment at this time but that it seemed reasonable. “After all, each level of government should pay its own costs for being transparent to its constituency. Openness should not be a mandate from above, but an inherent part of every level of democratic government,” the newspaper wrote.