Democracy in the dark: How California lawmakers are trying to shield themselves from public view

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

At town halls across the nation, including in California, residents have confronted their members of Congress face-to-face to voice their fears and frustrations over Trump administration policies, from cuts to overseas aid to Medicare.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in the state Legislature have introduced about a dozen proposals that would make it harder to confront your local officials at public meetings and would shield more information from the public eye, according to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The bills follow a streak of California officials’ attempts to shroud themselves in secrecy.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently sent burner phones to major California business leaders with his number preprogrammed — paid for by his nonprofit, allowing him to communicate with executives without having to disclose the content publicly. Lawmakers and government employees signed non-disclosure agreements preventing them from sharing details about taxpayer-funded renovations to the state Capitol. The Legislature refused to say whether federal search warrants and subpoenas were served to lawmakers. 

The largely Democratic efforts have raised alarms among ethics advocates and an outcry from some Republican lawmakers, such as Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, who has introduced two bills to require lawmakers and government agencies to disclose more to the public, not less. 

He announced them during National Sunshine Week, an annual campaign to promote government transparency that the Legislature quit observing eight years ago.

“It is the one time throughout the year where we pause and we ask the question: Are decisions in government being made in the public light? Can the people know what’s going on?” DeMaio said. 

Looking decision-makers in the eye

Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican from Roseville, has contended that interacting with constituents in-person makes a difference: There’s nothing more thrilling for a local elected official than having constituents exercise their right to yell and scream at you, he said in 2023 opposing a proposal that allows neighborhood councils in Los Angeles to meet remotely until 2026. 

“It’s just much more impactful,” he said. “It’s like the difference between a text message and a phone call. Text messages are useful for quick communication of something, but not for something more complicated.” 

Nonetheless that proposal was signed into law — one of many over the past few years that have increasingly allowed state and local officials to participate remotely. This year, various legislators are pushing at least six different measures that aim to make them permanent.

Since the pandemic, California has relaxed its once-strict rules that required officials to be physically present at public meetings. Instead they’ve carved out more exceptions so that advisory board members can meet remotely, and public officials can avoid disclosing their whereabouts when they appear virtually.

Supporters of these efforts say they “modernize” the state’s open meetings rules, arguing that allowing members more remote access boosts public participation, cuts costs, protects officials’ privacy and grants more flexibility in emergencies.

Under the relaxed guidelines, 41 state boards reported increased attendance among board members, according to a June 2021 report by the Little Hoover Commission, a state oversight agency that focuses on government efficiency. 

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters