Panel OKs State Secrecy Measure

SACRAMENTO -- A Davis administration bill that would let state agencies block public access to plans for use in potential terrorist attacks was approved by a state Senate committee Tuesday over warnings that it would deny citizens information they might need in a homeland emergency.

Administration officials argue that it is in the best interests of Californians to keep the information secret because its release might tip off potential terrorists to possible weaknesses in public facilities, such as freeway bridges, government buildings and dams.

But opponents of the bill charge it would go too far and suppress access to information that could affect public safety, such as evacuation routes from a city struck by terrorists.

“The public has an incredibly high interest in understanding what government’s plan is, at least a lot of the aspects of the plan,” said Tom Newton, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publishers Assn.

But if state agency assessments of the vulnerabilities of security systems and contingency planning were to be made public, it would serve as a “roadmap for individuals eager to strike our state’s weaker points,” said George Vinson, Gov. Gray Davis’ director of homeland security.

“We want to make sure that this [knowledge] is held confidential,” said Assemblyman George Nakano (D-Torrance), who introduced the bill (AB 1209).

Other supporters told the Senate Government Organization Committee that local agencies already are exempt from open meeting laws on certain public safety issues. They said state entities should have the same power to close meetings and withhold documents on issues related to terrorism.

Under existing law, Vinson said in a statement, state departments can be compelled to make security documents available to the public and deliberate in open sessions on sensitive homeland issues.

These circumstances may “help would-be terrorists harm Californians,” he said.

The committee agreed. On a 9-1 vote, it sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it will be further considered. It cleared the Assembly earlier on a unanimous vote and appeared headed to Davis for signature.

“I don’t think we can stop this bill,” Newton told reporters later. “This bill is driven by the governor’s office.”

Terry Francke, general counsel of the First Amendment Coalition, said he hoped “we can create enough dust” to amend the bill so it would “deal with our concerns.” Both he and Newton said the Davis administration had failed to provide examples justifying the need for the bill.

At stake are laws that require open meetings by state boards and commissions and require that government records be available to the public. But Newton said the bill would give state agencies powers far surpassing those of local government agencies and even those exercised by the Legislature on safety issues affecting the Capitol.

The committee agreed to some changes sought by opponents of the bill, but Newton and Francke said they were not enough.

They cited a provision that they said would give state regulatory agencies, boards and commissions the power not only to privately discuss public safety issues relating to their own employees and facilities but also to hold closed sessions on security issues of the businesses they regulated.

For example, Newton said, the bill would allow government agencies that regulate amusement parks to assess security at places such as Disneyland and Magic Mountain but withhold their findings from the public. He said the safety of an amusement park would be of “very strong interest” to the public, but “this bill does not respect that.”

Vinson, the homeland security director, disputed this assertion. He said the bill would enable state government to make Californians safer without suppressing information that would be “vital to their health and safety.”