Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

From Sunshine Review

Jump to: navigation, search
Sacramento Newspaper Guildvs.Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Number: 263 Cal.App.2d 41
Year: 1968
State: California
Other lawsuits in California
Other lawsuits in 1968
Precedents include:
This case established that the California Open Meeting Act did not apply in situations where the attorney-client privilege of the public body would be violated.

Contents

State Sunshine Laws
State Sunshine laws
State Open Meeting Laws
Transparency headlines
Statutory changes
Notable FOIA requests
How to ask for records
State sunshine lawsuits
State court cases
E-mail access
Private agency, public dollars
The WikiFOIA portal


Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Supervisors was a case before California's Third District Court of Appeal in 1968 concerning open meetings.

[edit] Important precedents

This case established that the California Open Meeting Act did not apply in situations where the attorney-client privilege of the public body would be violated.

[edit] Background

  • On February 8, 1967 the "five county supervisors, the county counsel, county executive, county director of welfare and several members of the Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO" attended lunch at a luncheon at the Elks Club in Sacramento. The subject of discussion was a local social workers strike affecting the county. The press was denied access to the meeting.
  • The newspaper guild filed suit, seeking to prevent future closed meeting of the county counsel under the California Open Meeting Act(Brown Act).
  • The county argued that the Open Meetings Act only applied to interest persons, and is an aspect of citizenship, and did not apply to groups or organizations relying on Adler v. City Council of Culver City.

[edit] Ruling of the court

The Supreme Court found that the intention of the Brown Act was to expose all deliberation and action by government bodies to open, public review. The gathering at the Elks club clearly fell under this expansive concept of meeting. Also, while the court found that the meeting was not exempt because of attorney-client privilege because the meeting was not convened with the intent of communicating special legal matters that needed to be maintained in confidence, it established an important precedent in declaring that the Brown Act was not meant to strip the attorney-client privilege from governmental bodies and thus amended the injunction against future meetings to not include meetings that fell under the category of attorney-client privilege. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the guild, affirming the district courts decision.

[edit] Associated cases

[edit] See Also

[edit] External links

[edit] References