The California Public Records Act (CPRA) was modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The common purpose of both laws requires public business to be conducted "under the hard light of full public scrutiny," in order to to permit the public to decide whether government actions are proper. Under both CPRA and FOIA and the Act, "disclosure, not secrecy, is the dominant objective."
Nevertheless, the California Court of Appeal recently held that, despite the lower expectation of privacy that public officials have - particularly when engaging in communications about public issues - the language of the CPRA does not imposes a duty to produce messages that are stored on personal electronic devices and accounts that are inaccessible to the officials' public agency.
The case was filed against the City of San Jose, its mayor and ten city council members by an individual seeking disclosure of officials' communications concerning a downtown redevelopment project. Under the court's interpretation, city council members may effectively conceal their communications on public issues by sending and receiving them on their private devices from private accounts. The court conceded as much, but held that it is the job of the legislature to fix the problem, not the courts.
The case is City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 225 Cal.App.4th 75 (2014).
Posts
