The Dubious Value of Secrecy

California law allows agencies such as city councils and boards of supervisors to conduct closed sessions to discuss lawsuits and personnel matters. But there’s no guarantee a council member or supervisor will not later tell the press, and thus the public, what was discussed behind closed doors.

Orange County Supervisor Jim Silva last month proposed an ordinance making it a crime to leak closed-door information. Silva complained that “there’s always a sniveling, conniving little weasel” who makes public secret proceedings. Of course, if that weasel is leaking information beneficial to your side, he becomes a statesman.

Fortunately, Silva recently changed his mind and withdrew the proposed ordinance. The ordinance probably would have been struck down as unconstitutional, but only after the county ran up legal costs to defend itself in court. Even if the measure had been overruled eventually, it could have intimidated whistle-blowers.

Silva was angered when a confidential legal opinion regarding the county’s use of John Wayne Airport funds to plan the new El Toro airport became public. The issue of the use of funds should never have been kept secret. The public deserves to know what is happening on its most important land-use issue.

Silva said he backed off after learning that under state law a supervisor can be removed from office for leaking information. That’s not an outcome likely to be seen any time soon.

It would be better for elected officials meeting in closed session to take for granted that their decisions will become public. That would be another incentive for putting the public interest first.