Phil Ting, an emerging voice in state politics (despite the relatively profile of his day job, as assessor recorder of San Francisco), writes at the blog Calitics that state budget cuts represent a threat to the Brown Act and related state laws that guarantee that governments must hold open meetings and give sufficient notice of those meetings.
How's that? Because the state open meetings law is a mandate on local governments. And with funds to carry out the meetings cut, local governments could argue they have the option to stop complying.
The costs of compliance with such a law are so low that local governments should abide by it anyway. (If you have encountered a government that is failing to comply, please let us know here at Prop Zero). But just to be safe, this seems like one area where the state should make clear that the mandate remains in place, funded or unfunded. The principle at stake is too important.
