Legal Concerns Over Mayor Breed’s Text Deletion Practices
San Francisco Mayor London Breed is under scrutiny regarding her administration’s handling of public records, particularly the deletion of texts related to government business. This practice raises significant legal questions, especially in light of recent judicial rulings that clarify public record accessibility.
The Legal Background
The practice of deleting text messages by public officials is not uniformly justified. The mayor’s office appears to invoke a section from the San Francisco administrative code established in 2014. However, this reference is problematic because it predates a landmark 2017 ruling by the California Supreme Court, which asserted that records created on private devices for public business must be considered public records.
During this pivotal case, where media interests were represented, the city of San Jose contended that public records could only include documents accessible by the city itself. The Supreme Court rejected this argument decisively, stating, “This strained interpretation sets legislative intent on its head. The statute’s clear purpose is to prevent an agency from evading its disclosure duty by transferring custody of a record to a private holder and then arguing the record falls outside [the California Privacy Rights Act] because it is no longer in the agency’s possession.”
Supreme Court Guidance
The ruling from the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of transparency for public officials, encouraging them to utilize official government accounts for communications about public business. They also urged officials to ensure that any communications sent from private accounts are stored appropriately on government servers, facilitating accessibility for public records requests. However, it appears that Mayor Breed may not have adhered to these recommendations.
Comparisons with Previous Officials
Mayor Breed’s actions draw parallels with those of former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, who continued to conduct public business via text messaging after the court decision, ultimately leading to legal repercussions and substantial financial costs to the city. Liccardo’s case serves as a cautionary tale, demonstrating the potential pitfalls of disregarding public records law.
The Public’s Right to Know
The implications of Breed’s management of public records extend to the essential principle of transparency in government. The citizens of San Francisco have a fundamental right to access information regarding government operations, the utilization of taxpayer funds, and the potential for misconduct. As emphasized by the California Supreme Court, there exists a vital need to uncover any instances of “corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice, and favoritism” that may emerge from public officials’ records and communications.
Conclusion
As legal challenges continue to surround the deletion of texts by government officials, the spotlight remains on Mayor Breed and her administration’s practices concerning public record retention. The ramifications of failing to comply with established legal standards could provoke public backlash and erode trust in municipal governance.
For further insight on public records law, Karl Olson, an attorney who successfully argued critical cases before the California Supreme Court, including the pertinent San Jose case, provides valuable perspectives on these legal standards.
