The concept of knowledge as power was first attributed to Sir Francis Bacon in 1597. Two hundred years later, Thomas Jefferson said that whenever people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. One hundred years after that, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address extolled the virtues of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And yet, another Sunshine Week has come and gone and San Bernardino residents are still in the dark about what their government is doing.
In the same week that California City Clerks celebrated Sunshine Week, a time to advocate and celebrate the public’s access to its government, a San Bernardino City Council special meeting devolved into a fracas largely over disagreement about the need for supplemental information to be provided prior to the meeting so that the public and council could prepare for the discussion.
The term “sunshine” refers to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ assertion that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Although California law–mainly in the form of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act–governs public access rights at the local level, cities and counties are free to enact ordinances that provide greater access than state law. These local laws providing extra rights are often referred to as “Sunshine” laws, and provide clear, citizen-led guidance on matters such as posting agendas, recusals from votes and limits to campaign contributions by vendors and contractors with business before the city.
The preamble to the 1953 Ralph M. Brown act states why this level of transparency is needed: “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
At last count, a dozen local governments in California had enacted such laws, including Alameda, Benicia, Brea, Contra Costa County, Gilroy, Milpitas, Oakland, Riverside, San Francisco and Vallejo. The city of San Bernardino, alas, does not. And it is past time for the residents to demand one.
As a former investigative reporter, I place high value on government transparency – how can we support a government of for and by the people if the people are unaware of what is going on? Over the past 7 years as San Bernardino City Clerk, I have proposed a sunshine ordinance to several city managers and a couple of mayors as a way to normalize city business, improve relations with the community and improve policymaking decisions. I was told that this was a matter for the policymakers, not the clerk. I can respect that.
Justice Brandeis (1856-1941), referred to as the “People’s Attorney” also said that the most important political office is the private citizen. It is time for the citizens of San Bernardino to demand better from their leaders for themselves and the city.
Without pressure from their constituents, there is little impetus for policymakers to place more demands on their openness. But perhaps they should consider the notion that public participation in municipal government and the resulting trust is a central tenant of several public administration studies published since 2000.
I did a small qualitative study for my graduate work at Cal State San Bernardino, examining the link between transparency, voter attitudes and voter participation 16 months after the November 2016 charter election. It was by no means scientific in that I sent out the notice of a survey via my personal email and Facebook, asking people to follow a link and take a survey to determine how they received information about the charter review process, if it led to greater trust in the governing body, and if that resulted in them voting in the Special Municipal Election.
The sample size of 22 people is not statistically significant, nor is it representative of the voting populace of the city of San Bernardino. But the results, nevertheless, are instructive for those looking for direction about transparency. In a city were the voter turnout hovered historically between 12% and 20%, the 60% voter turnout in November 2016 was extraordinary. The survey found that voters generally want transparency in government, thought that the broadcast of both Charter Review Committee meetings and Mayor and City Council meetings made them more transparent, that their broadcast (either via cable or online) enhanced their knowledge of the issue and that that knowledge affected their vote. Three in four respondents (75%) strongly agreed, somewhat agreed or agreed with the statement that they have more trust in government because the meetings are broadcast, and 63.63% said they had greater confidence in the Charter Review process because it was transparent. Slightly more than two-thirds (68.1%) of the respondents reported that they had voted in the November 2016 election, and 60% said the discussion prior was adequate to make an informed decision. A lesser number, 54%, said that their knowledge of the discussion of the Charter Review had affected their vote and 45.45% said the process empowered them as a voter. Nearly all, 86.36%, said that governmental transparency was important to them. The conclusion was that there was linkage between a governing body’s willingness to act transparently with voter satisfaction and participation.
Ultimately, a Sunshine Ordinance is an instruction manual of what citizens want from their policymakers, not what the policymakers think they need to provide. The best way to come to consensus on these issues is for the citizens to decide, via a citizen-led Sunshine Task Force, what the city’s Sunshine ordinance should include. There are models out there to look to for inspiration. San Bernardino residents deserve better; it’s time to let the light shine on San Bernardino.
Comments