The California Public Records Act (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270): ‘In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.’

ABSTRACT:  Notably, after the City Council met in closed session on Thursday, October 10, 2013 and announced the settlement of The Carmel Pine Cone editor/publisher/owner Paul Miller’s lawsuit against the City (CARMEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive Respondents, Case No.: M125118 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE), the City reaffirmed “the city’s policy and practice that the California Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure, consistent with the law and the rights of our employees,” according to The Carmel Pine Cone. However, five days later, on October 15, 2013, The Carmel Pine Cone received the City’s response to a September 2013 Public Records Act request for emails between Carmel Residents Association President Barbara Livingston, City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore attorney Heather Coffman stating in a letter the City’s refusal to provide the documents because the emails had a “privacy right” that outweighed the public’s right to view the emails. “Please note that personal identifying information contained in response to the PRA requests has been redacted in order to protect the privacy interests at issue. For example, correspondence of members of the public detailing their concerns as citizens have been redacted because the public interest in disclosure of this correspondence is clearly outweighed by the interest in nondisclosure to avoid a chilling effect on the public.” Links to Secrecy at city hall reaches new heights - CRA president exchanges hidden messages with mayor, city administrator, MARY SCHLEY, October 25, 2013 and Pine Cone sues city over resume, but suit is quickly settled, PINE CONE STAFF REPORT, October 11, 2013 are provided with Excerpt Highlights. The California Public Records Act (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270) document is embedded. 

Secrecy at city hall reaches new heights
- CRA president exchanges hidden messages with mayor, city administrator
By MARY SCHLEY
Published: October 25, 2013

Excerpt Highlights:
A REQUEST from The Pine Cone for emails between Carmel Residents Association President Barbara Livingston, city administrator Jason Stilwell and Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett was refused last week because the city considers much of their correspondence too sensitive or inflammatory to allow the public to read it.
The Pine Cone asked for the emails in September, under the provisions of the California Public Records Act, which clearly requires that government officials release emails, letters, documents and other written records that are about official business.
But the city responded to The Pine Cone’s requests by providing heavily redacted copies of approximately 75 emails dated between early July and the end of September. Many of them had their entire contents redacted. The coverups were made in white, so it’s impossible to tell how much writing was hidden.
In her Oct. 15 cover letter explaining the city’s refusal to provide the documents, San Francisco attorney Heather Coffman said the people who wrote and received the emails had a “privacy right” that outweighed the public’s right to see them.
When asked if she would provide the copies herself, Livingston said she deletes every email as soon as she is done reading it. When asked if she would give permission to the city to release full copies of the messages, she simply replied, “No, thanks.”

Pine Cone sues city over resume, but suit is quickly settled
PINE CONE STAFF REPORT
Published: October 11, 2013

Excerpt Highlights:
 “We reached an agreement with the city, not only to provide us with everything substantive from Mullane’s resume, but also a promise that they would do the same in the future for all new hires to senior-management-level positions at city hall,” publisher Paul Miller said.
The city council, meeting in closed session Thursday to respond to the suit, also reaffirmed “the city’s policy and practice that the California Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure, consistent with the law and the rights of our employees.”

ADDENDUM:
A POCKET GUIDE TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, A SERVICE OF: THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS (Nor. Cal.)

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270.pdf

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE: CARMEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents (Case No.: M125118)

ABSTRACT: The PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, CARMEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents (Case No.: M125118), dated October 4, 2013, (Filing Date 10/8/2013) document (including Exhibit A, Exhibit B) is embedded. “Petitioner Carmel Communications, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the County of Monterey, State of California, and publishes a weekly newspaper known as the Pine Cone.” WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS AS FOLLOWS:
 l. That this Court issue an Alternative Writ of Mandate, commanding Respondent City to allow the inspection of, and upon payment of the statutory fee to provide a copy of, Mr. Mullane's resume, or to show cause before this Court at a date and time to be specified by the Court why it has not done so, and why it should not be compelled to do so; and
2. That on the return of the Alternative Writ and the hearing of this Petition, this Court issue its Peremptory Writ of Mandate commanding Respondent City to allow inspection of and, upon payment of the statutory fee to provide a copy of, Mr. Mullane's resume.
3. For an award of attorney's fees to petitioners pursuant to Government Code §6259;
4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. After the City Council met in Closed Session on Thursday, October 10, 2013, the case was settled to the satisfaction of Paul Miller, Publisher/Editor/Owner, The Carmel Pine Cone. 

CARMEL COMMUNICATIONS V. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA (M125118).pdfPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
CARMEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents
Case No.: M125118

ADDENDUM:

Re: Johnson v. Winter (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 435, 440 (exempting candidate records); Cal. Govt. Code§ 6254(c) (exempting personnel records based on privacy concerns).
Johnson v. Winter, 127 Cal. App. 3d 435 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1982)

Cal. Govt. Code§ 6254. Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:

(c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.