Closed-Session Leaks: No Crime

Government officials from the White House to the local school board are often perplexed and annoyed by that common affliction of government life, the leak of confidential information. Many remain so right up to the point of deciding that it serves their own purposes to leak information themselves.

In the highly charged atmosphere of the Hall of Administration, concern has gone beyond mere irritation to a new level of indignation. The Board of Supervisors has been thinking about making leaks from closed sessions a crime. It’s a bad idea fraught with constitutional problems.

Before this effort goes much further, the supervisors would do well to remember that they are engaged in the public’s business, even behind closed doors. Closed sessions are permitted under the Brown Act, but that does not mean those who reveal the contents of such sessions can or should be punished. It would set a bad precedent, and potentially have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers who might actually alert the public to wrongdoing or unpopular decisions.

Supervisor Jim Silva, angered by a continuing feud with colleague Todd Spitzer, wants to make it illegal to disclose details from closed board meetings or private communications to supervisors. He and other supervisors were disturbed when a confidential legal opinion from County Counsel Laurence M. Watson was made available.

The opinion justified the county’s use of John Wayne Airport funds to plan the new El Toro airport. Isn’t this the kind of thing the public should know anyway?

On May 11, the board debated a proposed ordinance, and decided after a heated discussion to think things over. The interim provides a good opportunity to regroup. A far better resolution would be for individual members to exercise good judgment in the handling of confidential information. It is too easy to forget the public when public boards close their doors.