--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenOakland" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openoakland...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CANER2SjXP%2BUPV9Ukb_ZLW7-EgdpdMHnc%3Djx9rTkdnw7KxHE%2B7g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CAEQ1d_NC9jq_cAeWc%3DL%2BUyDmEyGZ1EFOkY27QXo2UOSHxGJD8w%40mail.gmail.com.
John, Gallo voted for it in the first round; not sure why.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenOakland" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openoakland...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CANER2Sg8gkKPo47D8a1SzKgvePJoWVU%3Dzm2hq7LK6pTiLsU%3D8Q%40mail.gmail.com.
I think this is a bad constitutional amendment. It's disguised as a transparency law but it's really about shifting costs from the state to local governments.
In any case, these city council "endorsement" bills are just for political grandstanding purposes and are completely meaningless.
p.s. I'm not really liking this crossposting to a bunch of email lists like this.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenOakland" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openoakland...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CANER2SjXP%2BUPV9Ukb_ZLW7-EgdpdMHnc%3Djx9rTkdnw7KxHE%2B7g%40mail.gmail.com.
WHEREAS, California Proposition 42 on the June 2014 ballot would secure the California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act in the State Constitution and relieve the State from paying for local governments' costs of compliance with these open government laws; now, therefore, be it
Ballotpedia describes it as:
The initiative would result in a fiscal savings for the state government, but would likely result in comparable revenue reductions to local governments.
What's interesting is that organizations, like EFF, support the bill. I think it's because it ensures the local governments will comply and don't have excuses for not participating, but I would preferred to required compliance while also requiring the state to do better accounting for its costs.
Technically, I believe this ballot measure won't affect Oakland. We already have Sunshine Ordinance, inherits and expands the state's CPRA and Brown Act and from what I've gathered, Oakland is not reimbursed by the state for complying.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CA%2Bn2%3D%2BA4y60cSw04sA6OG9HcWBmS9ojxuu%2B_K-iOnELd%2Bxef8Q%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openoakland/CAALX_7aTt20OYwP1xJM1xaswzU7iuNvYzgNUgr6TfoJ%3DAXeCfw%40mail.gmail.com.