Gag Law to Plug Leaks Proposed : Ordinance: A Santa Ana councilman proposes a measure making it possible to jail or fine people who tell what happened at secret council meetings.

To plug an abundance of information leaks around City Hall, City Councilman Daniel E. Griset said Thursday that he wants council members to be fined $1,000 or subjected to up to six months in jail if they publicly disclose matters discussed in private meetings.

Griset said he will propose next week that the ordinance also target city employees “or any other person present” during closed council sessions, permitted by the state’s open-meetings law only for discussions about personnel or pending litigation. The state law contains no such prohibition.

Griset said he believes that there have been “calculated leaks of information” that could cost the city millions in contract negotiations or litigation.

“Given the sensitive nature of personnel matters and labor negotiations in these sessions, it seems appropriate to create standards of public conduct,” Griset said.

But Councilman Richards L. Norton called the proposal a “political tactic” and a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

“I don’t think we should keep secrets about anything,” Norton said.

However, Norton said he does not discuss personnel matters and litigation outside of closed sessions.

The council has at least two closed sessions each month either before or after each regular council meeting. In the proposed law, those who attend closed sessions could only disclose the contents of discussions with permission from the council.

Griset’s proposed law mirrors one in Costa Mesa, the only city in the county that has such a prohibition. Costa Mesa City Atty. Tom Kathe said that ordinance was passed in 1962 and updated in 1985.

“It is up to the City Council to decide whether they want something discussed or not,” Kathe said. “This is not a gag order. It’s basically to insure confidentiality. There’s a lot of things discussed that require confidentiality.”

Griset and Norton have been feuding on a variety of issues ever since the two opposed each other in a 1988 council race. Last fall, they faced off in a dispute over whether to place City Atty. Edward J. Cooper on administrative leave. Cooper remained in his post after Norton and Councilman John Acosta could not muster enough council support to oust him.

“My proposal is strictly to protect those special provisions of privacy,” Griset said.

Griset says he isn’t singling out anyone.

Norton said, “My real feeling about this is that it is intended to create a situation where council members can accuse other members of spilling the beans during closed sessions.”

Thomas W. Newton, staff attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Assn., said the proposed law could affect the news media.

“This is a clamp on information and I think it’s going to have a tremendous effect on the media,” Newton said. “This ordinance would mandate that certain information can now be closed down and it will have a profound effect on news gatherers.”

But Griset argues that his law does not jeopardize the media from obtaining information. He says that the ordinance is directed not at reporters but at public officials.