Today we have a CalPERS trifecta. This post may seem less sexy than election-rigging, but it provides further evidence of CalPERS’ institutionalized abuses.
Bloomberg did the heavy lifting in providing a concrete example of how CalPERS engages in the criminal abuse of the Bagely-Keene Open Meetings Act by improperly relegating information and decisions that should be shared with the public to its confidential meetings, the so-called closed session. In this case, Bloomberg sought and eventually obtained a partly-redacted BCG report on a major Sacramento development project that CalPERS is funding.
The fact that CalPERS coughed up most of this document (and we’ll explain why most of the redactions were overreaching) was an admission that a great deal of this deliberation was improperly held in closed session. As we’ve explained earlier, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act deems that abuse to be criminal if the board members doubted if the closed session classification was proper. From an August post:
But even more important is that Brown described how holding the discussion of investigation in closed session was a violation of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. And if this violation was knowing, individual board members are subject to criminal penalties (see page 14 of the Attorney General’s guide)….
Bear in mind that California law has strong transparency requirements. The Attorney General has pointed out,“…the Legislature has allowed closed sessions in very limited circumstances….Courts have narrowly construed the Act’s closed-session exceptions.”
In other words, the default for a California public agency like CalPERS is that information is public, and that board