Times?Mirror?Co.?v.?Superior?Court?(State?of?California)?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1325?,?283?Cal.Rptr.?893;?813?P.2d?240
[No.?S014461.Jul?22,?1991.]
TIMES?MIRROR?COMPANY,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?SACRAMENTO?COUNTY,?Respondent;?THE?STATE?OF?CALIFORNIA?et?al.,?Real?Parties?in?Interest.
(Superior?Court?of?Sacramento?County,?No.?505002,?Fred?K.?Morrison,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk,?J.,?with?Broussard,?J.,?concurring,?and?by?Kennard,?J.,?with?Broussard,?J.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL
Gibson,?Dunn?&?Crutcher,?Stephen?J.?Burns,?Rex?S.?Heinke,?Ragnhild?Reif,?Kelli?L.?Sager?and?Karen?N.?Fredericksen?for?Petitioner.
Pillsbury,?Madison?&?Sutro,?Edward?P.?Davis,?Jr.,?Kevin?M.?Fong?and?Judy?Alexander?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Petitioner.
No?appearance?for?Respondent.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Robert?L.?Mukai,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?N.?Eugene?Hill,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Richard?M.?Frank,?Cathy?A.?Neff?and?Ted?Prim,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Real?Parties?in?Interest.
De?Witt?W.?Clinton,?County?Counsel?(Los?Angeles),?and?David?L.?Muir,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Parties?in?Interest.
OPINION
ARABIAN,?J.
This?case?arises?out?of?a?dilemma?inherent?in?the?very?nature?of?a?free?and?open?society.?An?informed?and?enlightened?electorate?is?essential?to?a?representative?democracy.?Yet?even?democratic?governments?[53?Cal.3d?1329]?require?some?degree?of?confidentiality?to?ensure,?among?other?things,?a?candid?exchange?of?ideas?and?opinions?among?responsible?officials.?This?tension?inevitably?leads?to?conflict,?and?conflict?invariably?leads?to?the?courthouse.
The?question?before?us?is?whether,?under?the?California?Public?Records?Act?(Gov.?Code,???6250?et?seq.;?hereafter?the?Act),fn.?1?the?Governor?of?the?State?of?California?(Governor)?properly?refused?a?request?to?disclose?his?daily,?weekly?and?monthly?appointment?calendars?and?schedules.?For?the?reasons?set?forth?below,?we?conclude?that?the?records?were?properly?withheld.
Factual?and?Procedural?Background
In?August?1988,?a?reporter?for?the?Los?Angeles?Times?(Times)?wrote?the?Governor?requesting,?under?the?Act,?copies?of?his?”appointment?schedules,?calendars,?notebooks?and?any?other?documents?that?would?list?[the?Governor’s]?daily?activities?as?governor?from?[his]?inauguration?in?1983?to?the?present.”?The?Governor’s?legal?affairs?secretary?responded?that?the?information?requested?was?exempt?from?disclosure?under?section?6254,?subdivision?(l)?as?”correspondence?of?and?to?the?Governor?or?employees?of?the?Governor’s?office?….”fn.?2
After?its?request?to?reconsider?this?decision?was?denied,?the?Times?filed?suit?seeking?injunctive?and?declaratory?relief?to?obtain?disclosure?of?the?materials?requested.?In?opposition,?the?Governor?claimed?that?the?records?came?within?the?correspondence?exemption?of?section?6254,?subdivision?(l),?as?well?as?the?public?interest?exemption?of?section?6255,?which?applies?when?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?”clearly?outweighs”?the?public?interest?in?disclosure.fn.?3Specifically,?the?Governor?claimed?that?release?of?his?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?would?(1)?create?a?risk?to?his?personal?security,?and?(2)?inhibit?the?free?and?candid?exchange?of?ideas?necessary?to?the?decisionmaking?process.
In?support?of?his?opposition,?the?Governor?submitted?several?declarations?explaining?the?process?by?which?his?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?[53?Cal.3d?1330]?are?created,?the?function?they?serve,?and?the?implications?of?their?public?disclosure.?Susan?Pederson,?the?Governor’s?scheduling?secretary,?explained?that?after?reviewing?requests?for?meetings?and?invitations,?she?drafts?a?”scheduling?memorandum”?which?is?then?reviewed?with?four?senior?staff?members?of?the?Governor’s?office.?A?final?scheduling?memorandum?and?a?”tentative?month-long?calendar”?are?then?prepared?in?consultation?with?the?Governor;?the?calendar?”is?a?schematic?representation?of?engagements?and?meetings?discussed?in?the?scheduling?memorandum.”?Thereafter,?a?finished?month-long?calendar?is?produced?which?identifies?the?Governor’s?”major?time?commitments?for?public?appearances?and?private?meetings.”?Copies?of?this?calendar?are?given?to?the?Governor,?a?”limited?number”?of?members?of?the?Governor’s?office,?the?Director?of?Finance,?the?Governor’s?security?director?and?those?responsible?for?the?Governor’s?transportation.
Each?week?the?scheduling?secretary?also?formulates?a?schedule?for?the?two?upcoming?weeks,?which?incorporates?information?from?the?monthly?calendar?as?well?as?more?recently?approved?appointments?and?appearances.?The?schedule?for?the?first?week?is?designated?”final,”?and?that?for?the?second?is?designated?”advance.”?Lastly,?a?complete?daily?schedule?is?prepared?on?the?afternoon?or?evening?prior?to?each?working?day;?the?daily?schedule?”accounts?for?all?the?Governor’s?time?from?his?departure?from?home?in?the?morning?until?his?departure?from?the?office?in?the?evening.”?The?two-week?and?daily?schedules?are?distributed?to?the?same?persons?as?the?monthly?calendar.?According?to?Ms.?Pederson,?all?persons?receiving?the?monthly,?two-week?and?daily?schedules?”do?so?with?the?understanding?that?they?are?to?treat?the?schedule[s]?and?any?accompanying?material?as?confidential,?and?destroy?the?schedule?once?they?have?completed?their?use?of?it.”fn.?4?Ms.?Pederson?did?not?indicate?in?her?declaration?whether?or?to?what?extent?copies?of?the?final?calendars?and?schedules?are?normally?retained?by?herself,?the?Governor?or?anyone?else?in?the?Governor’s?office.fn.?5
The?level?of?detail?set?forth?in?the?daily?and?two-week?schedules?is?exhaustive.?Each?reflects,?for?example,?”the?timing?and?details?of?the?Governor’s?arrivals?and?departures?everywhere?he?goes?in?the?course?of?his?day?[53?Cal.3d?1331]?…?whether?and?when?family?members?and?traveling?companions?will?be?with?him,?the?particular?aircraft?or?other?means?of?transportation?to?be?used,?names?of?pilots?and?drivers,?airport?gate?departures,?specific?hotel?accommodations,?[and]?automobile?and?other?ground?arrangements.”?Thus,?according?to?Ms.?Pederson,?the?schedules?and?calendars?necessarily?reflect?the?daily?”patterns?and?habits?of?the?Governor,”?including?the?occasions?”when?he?is?likely?to?be?alone.”
Dennis?Williams,?the?director?of?security?for?the?Governor,?also?submitted?a?declaration.?According?to?Mr.?Williams,?disclosure?of?the?Governor’s?schedule?”at?any?time?in?advance?of?the?period?to?which?they?pertain?would?seriously?impair?the?ability?of?[his]?office?to?assure?the?Governor’s?security,?and?would?constitute?a?potential?threat?to?the?Governor’s?safety,?because?the?information?they?contain?will?enable?the?reader?to?know?in?advance?and?with?relative?precision?when?and?where?the?Governor?may?be?found,?those?persons?who?will?be?with?him,?and?when?he?will?be?alone.”?Even?disclosure?of?outdated?schedules?would?pose?a?a?security?risk,?in?Mr.?Williams’s?opinion,?because?they?would?”enable?the?reader?to?discern?characteristic?habits?and?activity?patterns?followed?by?the?Governor,?from?which?opportunities?for?access?to?the?Governor’s?person?may?be?surmised.”
The?Governor?also?submitted?a?declaration?in?support?of?his?opposition?to?the?Times?complaint.?In?it?he?asserted?that?disclosure?of?his?calendars?and?schedules?would?”be?detrimental?to?the?substantial?public?interest?now?served?by?protection?of?the?confidential?decisionmaking?processes?of?[his]?office?….”?He?explained?that?he?had?always?considered?his?schedules?and?calendars?to?be?confidential?and?had?required?his?advisors?to?treat?them?as?such,?”because?of?the?essential?character?of?many?of?the?meetings?and?appointments?reflected?in?these?papers,?because?of?the?decision?making?reflected?in?…?these?papers,?and?because?of?concerns?pertaining?to?security.”
Elaborating?upon?the?potentially?adverse?consequences?of?disclosure?on?the?decisionmaking?process,?the?Governor?noted?that?his?office?requires?him?to?meet?with?people?of?wide-ranging?views?on?a?multiplicity?of?subjects.?Because?of?the?frequent?sensitivity?of?the?subjects?under?discussion,?”it?is?necessary,”?he?stated,?”that?the?meetings?themselves?be?fundamentally?private,?so?that?those?present?may?feel?free?to?express?their?candid?opinions?to?me?and?so?that?I?can?be?assured?of?the?candor?of?their?expressions?….”?Routine?disclosure?of?the?identities?of?the?persons?with?whom?the?Governor?meets,?he?asserted,?would?inhibit?the?deliberative?process,?in?some?instances?by?discouraging?persons?from?attending?meetings,?in?others?by?leading?to?unwarranted?inferences?about?the?subject?under?discussion.?Furthermore,?the?Governor?argued,?although?the?calendars?and?schedules?contain?”facts”?[53?Cal.3d?1332]?rather?than?opinions?or?advice,?they?necessarily?reflect?the?Governor’s?”deliberative?judgment”?as?to?those?persons,?issues?or?events?he?considers?to?be?of?sufficient?significance?to?occupy?his?time,?and?those?he?does?not.?Thus,?the?Governor?claimed?that?disclosure?of?his?calendars?and?schedules?could?substantially?impair?the?quality?of?his?decisions?and?the?decisionmaking?process?of?his?office.
The?Times’s?motion?for?injunctive?and?declaratory?relief?was?heard?on?November?22,?1988.?Following?the?hearing,?the?trial?court?denied?the?Times’s?motion?for?injunctive?relief?as?well?as?its?request?for?an?in?camera?review,?finding?that?the?records?were?exempt?from?disclosure?for?each?of?the?reasons?urged?by?the?Governor.?However,?the?Court?of?Appeal?reversed,?holding?that?the?records?did?not?constitute?correspondence?under?the?Act;?that?disclosure?would?not?implicate?the?deliberative?process?of?government?”because?information?relating?to?the?content?of?meetings?is?not?sought”;?and?that?any?security?risk?to?the?Governor,?however?slight,?could?not?be?evaluated?without?examining?the?documents?themselves.?Accordingly,?the?Court?of?Appeal?remanded?to?the?superior?court?”for?an?in?camera?review,?segregation?of?any?information?posing?a?legitimate?security?risk,?and?disclosure?of?all?nonexempt?material.”
Because?we?agree?with?the?trial?court?that?the?public?interest?in?not?disclosing?the?records?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?in?disclosure?(??6255),?we?shall?reverse?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.
Discussion
- Scope?of?Review
Before?turning?to?the?merits,?we?address?a?threshold?issue?concerning?the?applicable?scope?of?review.?[1a]?Relying?on?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?and?Freedom?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court?(1986)?186?Cal.App.3d?1102?[231?Cal.Rptr.?189]?(hereafter?sometimes?Freedom?Newspapers),?the?Attorney?General?contends?the?Times?can?prevail?only?if?the?trial?court?acted?in?excess?of?its?jurisdiction.?An?erroneous?interpretation?of?the?Act,?abuse?of?judicial?discretion?or?lack?of?substantial?evidence?to?support?the?judgment?would?not,?he?asserts,?justify?reversal?of?the?trial?court’s?decision.?We?disagree.
Prior?to?1984,?review?of?a?trial?court?order?either?directing?disclosure?of?a?public?record?or?refusing?disclosure?was?by?appeal.?In?1984,?however,?the?Legislature?substituted?a?writ?procedure?for?the?appellate?process?by?amending?section?6259?to?provide?as?follows:?”In?an?action?filed?on?or?after?January?1,?1985,?an?order?of?the?court,?either?directing?disclosure?by?a?[53?Cal.3d?1333]?public?official?or?supporting?the?decision?of?the?public?official?refusing?disclosure,?is?not?a?final?judgment?or?order?within?the?meaning?of?Section?904.1?of?the?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?from?which?an?appeal?may?be?taken,?but?shall?be?immediately?reviewable?by?petition?to?the?appellate?court?for?the?issuance?of?the?extraordinary?writ?of?review?as?defined?in?Section?1067?of?the?Code?of?Civil?Procedure.”?(??6259,?subd.?(c);?Stats.?1984,?ch.?802,???1,?pp.?2804-2805.)fn.?6?Section?1067?of?the?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?states:?”The?writ?of?certiorari?may?be?denominated?the?writ?of?review.”
In?Freedom?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?1102,?the?Court?of?Appeal?considered?the?scope?of?review?available?under?a?writ?of?review?filed?pursuant?to?section?6259,?subdivision?(c).?In?that?case,?a?newspaper?had?filed?a?public-?records?request?for?certain?information?concerning?fees?paid?to?court-?appointed?lawyers?and?investigators?in?an?ongoing?murder?case.?The?trial?court?denied?the?request,?holding?that?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure-the?defendant’s?right?to?a?fair?trial-outweighed?any?public?interest?in?disclosure.
The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed,?despite?the?majority’s?view?that?the?ruling?was?erroneous.?Citing?the?seminal?cases?of?Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal?(1941)?17?Cal.2d?280,?288?[109?P.2d?942,?132?A.L.R.?715],?and?Auto?Equity?Sales,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court?(1962)?57?Cal.2d?450,?454?[20?Cal.Rptr.?321,?369?P.2d?937],?the?court?noted?that?the?granting?of?a?writ?of?review?or?certiorari?is?generally?confined?to?circumstances?in?which?the?trial?court?has?exceeded?its?jurisdiction,?either?in?the?fundamental?sense?that?it?lacks?power?over?the?person?or?subject?matter?of?the?litigation,?or?in?the?broader?sense?that?its?act?exceeds?the?defined?power?of?the?court,?whether?that?power?be?defined?by?the?Constitution,?a?statute,?or?a?court-developed?rule?under?the?doctrine?of?stare?decisis.?By?that?standard,?the?Court?of?Appeal?concluded,?[53?Cal.3d?1334]?the?trial?court?had?not?exceeded?its?jurisdiction?as?no?statute,?constitutional?provision?or?clearly?controlling?precedent?based?on?the?Act?compelled?a?contrary?result.?(Freedom?Newspapers,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1109.)
The?Court?of?Appeal?in?this?matter?purported?to?distinguish?Freedom?Newspapers?on?the?ground?that?the?trial?court’s?decision?in?the?latter?case?was?merely?”arguably?incorrect,”?while?the?lower?court’s?ruling?here?was?”fundamentally?erroneous”?under?settled?law.?The?distinction?is?not?persuasive.?As?discussed?in?the?following?section,?the?question?of?access?to?the?Governor’s?personal?calendars?and?schedules?is?a?difficult?and?unsettled?legal?issue;?whatever?its?substantive?merits,?nothing?in?the?record?suggests?that?the?trial?court’s?decision?constituted?an?act?in?excess?of?jurisdiction.?(Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal,?supra,?17?Cal.2d?at?p.?288.)
Nevertheless,?we?are?not?persuaded?that?our?scope?of?review?is?as?limited?as?the?Governor?urges?or?as?the?Freedom?Newspapers?court?concluded.?Both?assume?that?by?use?of?the?term?”writ?of?review”?the?Legislature?clearly?and?unambiguously?intended?to?preclude?review?of?lower?court?orders?on?the?merits.?That?assumption?is?unwarranted.?Apart?from?providing?for?issuance?of?the?extraordinary?writ?of?review?as?defined?in?section?1067?of?the?Code?of?Civil?Procedure,?which?merely?states?that?”writ?of?review”?may?be?used?as?an?alternative?to?writ?of?certiorari,?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?is?silent?as?to?the?scope?of?review?to?be?accorded?orders?under?the?Act.
To?be?sure,?the?writ?of?review?is?traditionally?limited?to?acts?in?excess?of?jurisdiction.?(Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal,?supra,?17?Cal.2d?228.)?[2]?[1b]?However,?the?legislative?history?of?the?1984?amendment?to?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?reveals?that?the?exclusive?purpose?of?the?amendment?was?to?speed?appellate?review,?not?to?limit?its?scope.fn.?7?The?bill?which?contained?the?amendment,?Senate?Bill?No.?2222,?1983-1984?Regular?Session,?was?sponsored?by?a?news?organization,?the?California?Newspaper?Publishers’?Association.?It?was?inspired?by?a?case?in?which?a?newspaper?had?successfully?sued?in?the?superior?court?to?obtain?[53?Cal.3d?1335]?government?records,?but?was?forced?to?wait?several?years?while?the?case?was?on?appeal,?by?which?time?the?story?was?no?longer?newsworthy.
The?perceived?evil?at?which?the?bill?was?aimed,?according?to?a?Senate?Judiciary?Committee?analysis,?was?”delays?of?the?appeal?process,?[by?means?of?which]?public?officials?are?frustrating?the?intent?of?the?laws?for?disclosure?….”?”The?sponsors?of?this?bill,”?the?analysis?continued,?”seek?to?correct?an?injustice?they?perceive?due?to?…?the?potential?for?…?public?agencies?to?delay?the?disclosure?of?public?documents.”?Accordingly,?the?amendment’s?goal?was?”to?prohibit?public?agencies?from?delaying?the?disclosure?of?public?records?by?appealing?a?trial?court?decision?and?using?continuances?in?order?to?frustrate?the?intent?of?the?Public?Records?Act.”?(Sen.?Com.?on?Judiciary,?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?2222?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.).)
The?synopsis?of?the?bill?prepared?for?the?Assembly?Committee?on?the?Judiciary?was?to?the?same?effect:?”The?bill?is?intended?to?expedite?appellate?review?of?judicial?rulings?relating?to?the?withholding?of?public?records?by?providing?for?the?review?to?be?by?petition?for?issuance?of?a?writ?rather?than?by?appeal.”?Although?the?Assembly?analysis?noted?that?writ?review?might?occasionally?result?in?a?summary?denial?rather?than?an?adjudication?on?the?merits,?there?is?no?indication?that?the?Legislature?intended?to?preclude?review?on?the?merits?altogether?in?every?case.?(Assem.?Com.?on?Judiciary,?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?2222?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.)?Aug.?6,?1984.)
Moreover,?we?believe?such?an?interpretation?to?be?more?fully?in?accord?with?the?Act’s?express?purpose?of?broadening?the?public’s?access?to?public?records.?(CBS,?Inc.?v.?Block?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?646,?651?[230?Cal.Rptr.?362,?725?P.2d?470].)?There?is?no?indication?that?the?Legislature,?in?amending?section?6259,?intended?sub?silentio?to?shelter?trial?court?orders,?particularly?those?denying?disclosure?of?public?records,?from?appellate?oversight.?Nor,?in?light?of?our?responsibility?to?avoid?absurd?results?(County?of?Sacramento?v.?Hickman,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?at?p.?849,?fn.?6),?can?we?believe?that?the?Legislature?could?have?intended?the?chaos?which?might?otherwise?result?from?a?construction?of?the?statute?disallowing?review?on?the?merits?of?conflicting?decisions?in?the?trial?courts.
Finally,?we?note?that?effective?January?1,?1991,?the?Legislature?has?provided?that?orders?under?the?Act?”shall?be?immediately?reviewable?by?petition?to?the?appellate?court?for?issuance?of?an?extraordinary?writ.”?(??6259,?subd.?(c);?Stats.?1990,?ch.?908,???2.)?The?amendment?also?added?two?new?provisions:?(1)?the?petition?for?extraordinary?writ?must?be?filed?within?ten?days?after?receipt?of?notice?of?the?trial?court?order,?and?(2)?no?stay?of?the?trial?court?order?shall?be?permitted?”unless?the?petitioning?party?demonstrates?[53?Cal.3d?1336]?it?will?otherwise?sustain?irreparable?damage?and?probable?success?on?the?merits.”?(Ibid.)
The?effect?of?the?1990?amendment?providing?for?review?by?”extraordinary?writ,”?including?presumably?writ?of?mandate,?is,?of?course,?to?make?it?plain?that?review?of?orders?subject?to?the?amendment?is?not?confined?to?acts?in?excess?of?jurisdiction.?The?analysis?of?the?bill?prepared?for?the?Assembly?Committee?on?the?Judiciary?indicates?that?the?recent?amendment?was?a?response?to?Freedom?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?1102,?and?was?intended?to?overrule?that?decision?by?”clarifying”?that?the?purpose?of?writ?review?is?to?speed?appellate?review,?not?to?preclude?reviw?on?the?merits.?As?the?analysis?explains,?”[T]he?courts?[(an?apparent?reference?to?Freedom?Newspapers)]?…?have?narrowly?interpreted?[the?1984?amendment]?to?review?questions?of?jurisdiction?and?not?broader?as?intended?by?the?original?statute.?This?bill?expands?the?extraordinary?writ?by?clarifying?that?courts?can?rule?quickly?on?substantive?issues.”?(Assem.?Com.?on?Judiciary,?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?2272?(1989-1990?Reg.?Sess.),?italics?added.)
Thus,?while?logic?and?history?support?a?broad?interpretation,?we?need?not?ultimately?determine?the?meaning?of?the?1984?amendment;?its?replacement?makes?plain?the?Legislature’s?intent?that?trial?court?orders?under?the?Act?shall?be?reviewable?on?their?merits.?As?a?practical?matter,?therefore,?declining?to?reach?the?substantive?issues?presented?here?would?only?delay?their?resolution?to?a?future?day;?judicial?economy?and?the?significance?of?the?questions?presented?militate?in?favor?of?a?decision?sooner?rather?than?later.?Therefore,?as?we?have?in?the?past,?we?shall?conduct?an?independent?review?of?the?trial?court’s?ruling;?factual?findings?made?by?the?trial?court?will?be?upheld?if?based?on?substantial?evidence.?(CBS,?Inc.?v.?Block,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?650-651.)
- Disclosure?of?the?Records
We?turn?to?the?merits?of?the?Times’s?request?for?disclosure?of?the?Governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?from?his?inaugural?to?the?date?of?the?request,?a?period?of?approximately?five?years.?As?noted?earlier,?the?Governor?claimed?that?the?records?were?exempt?from?disclosure?on?three?separate?grounds:?the?correspondence?exemption?set?forth?in?section?6254,?subdivision?(l);?the?deliberative?process?privilege,?as?subsumed?under?the?”public?interest”?exception?of?section?6255;?and?the?threat?to?the?Governor’s?personal?security,?also?pursuant?to?section?6255.
- The?Correspondence?Exemption
The?Court?of?Appeal?rejected?the?contention,?however,?ruling?that?Webster’s?definition?of?correspondence?as?”communication?by?letters”?(Webster’s?New?Collegiate?Dict.?(9th?ed.?1984)?p.?293)?was?more?in?conformity?with?the?”ordinary?import?of?the?language”?of?the?statute?and?the?underlying?legislative?intent.?(People?ex?rel.?Younger?v.?Superior?Court?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?30,?43?[127?Cal.Rptr.?122,?544?P.2d?1322].)
The?Court?of?Appeal?was?correct.?Prior?to?1975,?the?Act?exempted?from?disclosure?all?records?”[i]n?the?custody?of?or?maintained?by?the?Governor?or?employees?of?the?Governor’s?office?employed?directly?in?his?office?….”?(Stats.?1970,?ch.?1295,???1.5,?p.?2397.)?In?1975,?this?exemption?was?amended?to?limit?the?exemption?to?correspondence?of?or?to?the?Governor?and?his?staff.?(Stats.?1975,?ch.?1246,???3,?p.?3209.)?”Where?changes?have?been?introduced?to?a?statute?by?amendment?it?must?be?assumed?the?changes?have?a?purpose?….”?(Louisiana-Pacific?Corp.?v.?Humboldt?Bay?Mun.?Water?Dist.?(1982)?137?Cal.App.3d?152,?159?[186?Cal.Rptr.?833].)
The?Governor’s?suggested?definition?of?correspondence?as?”written?communications”?is?so?broad?as?to?encompass?nearly?every?document?generated?by?the?Governor’s?office,?effectively?reinstating?the?original?exemption?and?rendering?the?1975?amendment?a?nullity.?Refining?the?definition,?as?the?Governor?suggests,?to?written?communications?”directed?to?an?identifiable?person?or?person?for?the?purpose?of?establishing?contact?with?the?recipient,”?accomplishes?little.?Even?under?this?definition,?the?exception?would?swallow?the?rule.
Therefore,?we?conclude?that?for?purposes?of?the?Act,?the?correspondence?exemption?must?be?confined?to?communications?by?letter.?The?Governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?plainly?do?not?meet?this?definition,?and?therefore?are?not?exempt?from?disclosure?under?section?6254,?subdivision?(l).
- The?Public?Interest?Exemption
The?Act?replaced?a?hodgepodge?of?statutes?and?court?decisions?relating?to?disclosure?of?public?records.?(American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?440,?447?[186?Cal.Rptr.?235,?651?P.2d?822];?Shaffer?et?al.,?A?Look?at?the?California?Records?Act?and?Its?Exemptions?(1974)?4?Golden?Gate?L.Rev.?203,?210-213.)?Its?preamble?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.”?(??6250;?American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?p.?447.)?In?this?and?other?respects?the?Act?was?modeled?on?its?federal?predecessor,?the?Freedom?of?Information?Act?(5?U.S.C.???552?et?seq.;?hereafter?FOIA),?which?was?”broadly?conceived”?(EPA?v.?Mink?(1973)?410?U.S.?73,?80?[35?L.Ed.2d?119,?128,?93?S.Ct.?827])?to?require?”full?agency?disclosure?unless?information?is?[statutorily]?exempted?….”?(Federal?Open?Market?Committee?v.?Merrill?(1979)?443?U.S.?340,?351?[61?L.Ed.2d?587,?598,?99?S.Ct.?2800].)?The?legislative?history?and?judicial?construction?of?the?FOIA?thus?”serve?to?illuminate?the?interpretation?of?its?California?counterpart.”?(American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?p.?447;?CBS,?Inc.?v.?Block,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?651.)
The?Act?sets?forth?numerous?categories?of?records?exempt?from?compelled?disclosure.?(??6254.)?[5]?In?addition,?section?6255?establishes?a?”catchall”?exemption?that?permits?the?government?agency?to?withhold?a?record?if?it?can?demonstrate?that?”on?the?facts?of?a?particular?case?the?public?interest?served?by?not?making?the?record?public?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?served?by?disclosure?of?the?record.”
The?Act?does?not?specifically?identify?the?public?interests?that?might?legitimately?be?”served?by?not?making?the?record?public”?under?section?6255.?The?nature?of?those?interests,?however,?may?be?fairly?inferred,?at?least?in?part,?from?the?specific?exemptions?contained?in?section?6254.?As?one?commentator?has?observed:?”[S]ection?6255?was?designed?to?act?as?a?catchall?for?those?individual?records?similar?in?nature?to?the?categories?of?records?exempted?by?section?6254,?but?which?the?Legislature?determined,?in?balancing?the?competing?interests,?would?not?justify?disclosure?as?a?general?rule?….?[T]he?provisions?of?section?6254?will?provide?appropriate?indicia?as?to?the?nature?of?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?and?will?thus?aid?the?courts?in?determining?the?disclosability?of?a?document?under?section?6255.”?(Note,?The?California?Public?Records?Act:?The?Public’s?Right?of?Access?to?Governmental?Information?(1976)?7?Pacific?L.J.?105,?119-120,?italics?added;?see?also?American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?p.?462?(conc.?and?dis.?opn.?of?Bird,?C.?J.)?[“The?specific?[53?Cal.3d?1339]?exemptions?of?section?6254?are?of?considerable?aid?in?ascertaining?the?Legislature’s?conception?of?’the?public?interest?served?by?not?making?[a]?record?public?….’?”].)
While?the?specific?exemptions?set?forth?in?section?6254?may?be?helpful?in?identifying?certain?interests?to?be?protected?under?section?6255,?they?are?not?exclusive.?Nothing?in?the?text?or?the?history?of?section?6255?limits?its?scope?to?specific?categories?of?information?or?established?exemptions?or?privileges.?Each?request?for?records?must?be?”considered?on?the?facts?of?the?particular?case”?in?light?of?the?competing?”public?interests.”?(??6255.)
[4b]?With?these?broad?principles?in?mind,?we?turn?to?the?question?whether,?on?the?facts?presented,?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?of?the?Governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?”clearly?outweighs”?the?public?interest?in?disclosure?of?the?records.?(??6255.)- The?Deliberative?Process?Privilege
(1)?The?Public?Interest?in?Nondisclosure
Although?not?covered?by?the?specific?exemption?for?”preliminary?drafts,?notes,?or?…?memoranda”?set?forth?in?section?6254,?subdivision?(a),fn.?8?the?Governor?nevertheless?contends?that?disclosure?of?his?appointment?schedules?and?calendars?would?jeopardize?the?decisionmaking?or?”deliberative?process”?which?this?exemption?was?designed?to?protect.fn.?9?More?specifically,?he?argues?that?disclosure?of?the?records?in?question,?which?identify?where,?when?and?with?whom?he?has?met,?would?inhibit?access?to?the?broad?spectrum?of?persons?and?viewpoints?which?he?requires?to?govern?effectively.
While?state?precedents?relating?to?the?deliberative?process?or?”executive”?privilege?are?relatively?scarce,?federal?cases?are?abundant.fn.?10?The?FOIA?[53?Cal.3d?1340]?equivalent?to?section?6254,?subdivision?(a)?is?contained?in?exemption?5?(5?U.S.C.???552(b)(5)).fn.?11?As?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?explained:?”That?Congress?had?the?Government’s?executive?privilege?specifically?in?mind?in?adopting?Exemption?5?is?clear?….?The?cases?uniformly?rest?the?privilege?on?the?policy?of?protecting?the?’decision?making?processes?of?government?agencies’?….”?(NLRB?v.?Sears,?Roebuck?&?Co.?(1975)?421?U.S.?132,?150?[44?L.Ed.2d?29,?47,?95?S.Ct.?1504].)
In?adopting?exemption?5,?Congress’s?main?concern,?made?plain?in?a?Senate?Report,?was?that?”frank?discussion?of?legal?or?policy?matters”?might?be?inhibited?if?”subjected?to?public?scrutiny,”?and?that?”efficiency?of?Government?would?be?greatly?hampered”?if,?with?respect?to?such?matters,?government?agencies?were?”forced?’to?operate?in?a?fishbowl.’?”?(EPA?v.?Mink,?supra,?410?U.S.?at?p.?87?[35?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?132],?quoting?from?Sen.Rep.?No.?813,?89th?Cong.,?1st?Sess.,?p.?9;?NLRB?v.?Sears,?Roebuck?&?Co.,?supra,?421?U.S.?at?p.?150?[44?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?47].)?As?the?high?court?has?observed?in?an?analogous?context:?”Human?experience?teaches?that?those?[53?Cal.3d?1341]?who?expect?public?dissemination?of?their?remarks?may?well?temper?candor?with?a?concern?for?appearances?…?to?the?detriment?of?the?decisionmaking?process.”?(United?States?v.?Nixon,?supra,?418?U.S.?at?p.?705?[41?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?1062].)
To?prevent?injury?to?the?quality?of?executive?decisions,?the?courts?have?been?particularly?vigilant?to?protect?communications?to?the?decisionmaker?before?the?decision?is?made.?”Accordingly,?the?…?courts?have?uniformly?drawn?a?distinction?between?predecisional?communications,?which?are?privileged?[citations];?and?communications?made?after?the?decision?and?designed?to?explain?it,?which?are?not.”?(NLRB?v.?Sears,?Roebuck?&?Co.,?supra,?421?U.S.?at?pp.?151-152?[44?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?48].)?As?Professor?Cox?in?his?seminal?article?on?executive?privilege?has?explained,?protecting?the?predecisional?deliberative?process?gives?the?chief?executive?”the?freedom?’to?think?out?loud,’?which?enables?him?to?test?ideas?and?debate?policy?and?personalities?uninhibited?by?the?danger?that?his?tentative?but?rejected?thoughts?will?become?subjects?of?public?discussion.?Usually?the?information?is?sought?with?respect?to?past?decisions;?the?need?is?even?stronger?if?the?demand?comes?while?policy?is?still?being?developed.”?(Cox,?Executive?Privilege?(1974)?122?U.Pa.L.Rev.?1383,?1410.)
In?determining?whether?a?document?falls?within?the?parameters?of?exemption?5,?the?federal?courts?have?also?recognized?”that?it?requires?different?treatment?for?materials?reflecting?deliberative?or?policy-making?processes?on?the?one?hand,?and?purely?factual,?investigative?matters?on?the?other.”?(EPA?v.?Mink,?supra,?410?U.S.?at?p.?89?[35?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?133].)?The?courts?have?readily?acknowledged,?however,?that?the?fact/opinion?dichotomy?may?be?misleading,?and?have?refused?to?apply?it?in?a?mechanical?or?unthinking?manner.?The?privilege,?as?one?appeals?court?has?written,?”is?intended?to?protect?the?deliberative?process?of?government?and?not?just?deliberative?material.”?(Mead?Data?Cent.,?Inc.?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Air?Force?(D.C.?Cir.?1977)?566?F.2d?242,?256?[184?App.D.C.?350],?italics?added;?accord,?National?Wildlife?Federation?v.?U.S.?Forest?Serv.?(9th?Cir.?1988)?861?F.2d?1114,?1118-119.)?Accordingly,?in?some?circumstances?”the?disclosure?of?even?purely?factual?material?may?so?expose?the?deliberative?process?…?that?it?must?be?deemed?exempted?by?[5?United?States?Code]?section?552(b)(5).”?(Mead?Data?Cent.,?Inc.?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Air?Force,?supra,?566?F.2d?at?p.?256.)?Decisions?holding?the?exemption?to?be?applicable?even?to?”purely?factual?material”?are?legion.?(See,?e.g.,?Montrose?Chemical?Corporation?of?California?v.?Train?(D.C.?Cir.?1974)?491?F.2d?63,?67-71?[160?App.D.C.?270];?Lead?Industries?Ass’n?v.?Occup.?S.?&?H.?Admin.?(2d?Cir.?1979)?610?F.2d?70,?85-86?[60?A.L.R.Fed.?390];?Ryan?v.?Department?of?Justice?(D.C.?Cir.?1980)?617?F.2d?781,?790?[199?App.D.C.?199];?Russell?v.?Department?of?the?Air?Force?(D.C.?Cir.?1982)?682?F.2d?1045,?1048?[221?[53?Cal.3d?1342]?App.D.C.?96];?Dudman?Communications?v.?Dept.?of?Air?Force?(D.C.?Cir.?1987)?815?F.2d?1565,?1568?[259?App.D.C.?364];?Wolfe?v.?Department?of?Health?and?Human?Services?(D.C.?Cir.?1988)?(in?bank)?839?F.2d?768,?774?[268?App.D.C.?89];?National?Wildlife?Federation?v.?U.S.?Forest?Serv.,?supra,?861?F.2d?at?pp.?1118-1119.)
In?short,?the?courts’?focus?in?exemption?5?cases?is?less?on?the?nature?of?the?records?sought?and?more?on?the?effect?of?the?records’?release.?[6]?The?key?question?in?every?case?is?”whether?the?disclosure?of?materials?would?expose?an?agency’s?decisionmaking?process?in?such?a?way?as?to?discourage?candid?discussion?within?the?agency?and?thereby?undermine?the?agency’s?ability?to?perform?its?functions.”?(Dudman?Communications?v.?Dept.?of?Air?Force,?supra,?815?F.2d?at?p.?1568.)?Even?if?the?content?of?a?document?is?purely?factual,?it?is?nonetheless?exempt?from?public?scrutiny?if?it?is?”actually?…?related?to?the?process?by?which?policies?are?formulated”?(Jordan?v.?United?States?Dept.?of?Justice?(D.C.?Cir.?1978)?591?F.2d?753,?774?[192?App.D.C.?144])?or?”inextricably?intertwined”?with?”policy-making?processes.”?(Ryan?v.?Department?of?Justice,?supra,?617?F.2d?at?p.?790;?Soucie?v.?David?(D.C.?Cir.?1971)?448?F.2d?1067,?1078?[145?App.D.C.?144].)
[4c]?Although?the?precise?question?presented?here-whether?the?Governor?may?properly?invoke?the?deliberative?process?privilege?with?respect?to?his?appointment?calendars?and?schedules-has?not?heretofore?been?adjudicated,?any?number?of?decisions?offer?useful?points?of?comparison.fn.?12?Montrose?Chemical?Corporation?of?California?v.?Train,?supra,?491?F.2d?63,?[53?Cal.3d?1343]?for?example,?illustrates?how?the?seemingly?straightforward?distinction?between?fact?and?opinion?blurs?when?the?facts?themselves?reflect?on?the?deliberative?process.?In?that?case,?the?plaintiffs?sought?two?summaries?of?evidence?presented?at?a?public?hearing?which?had?been?prepared?by?staff?for?the?Administrator?of?the?Environmental?Protection?Agency.?Although?the?summaries?contained?only?factual?material,?the?court?of?appeals?nevertheless?held?that?the?deliberative?process?privilege?applied.?The?documents?revealed?the?authors’?evaluative?judgment?as?to?the?relative?significance?of?the?facts?in?the?record;?the?plaintiffs?were?attempting?to?discover,?in?advance?of?the?administrator’s?decision,?what?facts?he?considered?to?be?important?or?unimportant.?(Id.?at?pp.?67-70.)?Thus,?”[t]o?probe?the?summaries?of?record?evidence,”?the?court?concluded,?”would?be?the?same?as?probing?the?decision-making?process?itself.”?(Id.?at?p.?68;?see?also?Lead?Industries?Ass’n?v.?Occup.?S.?&?H.?Admin.,?supra,?610?F.2d?at?p.?85?[“Disclosing?factual?segments?from?the?[agencies’]?summaries?would?reveal?the?deliberative?process?of?summarization?itself?by?demonstrating?which?facts?in?the?massive?rule-making?record?were?considered?significant?by?the?decisionmaker?and?those?assisting?her.”];?Washington?Research?Proj.,?Inc.?v.?Department?of?H.,?E.?&?W.?(D.C.?Cir.?1974)?504?F.2d?238,?250-251?[164?App.D.C.?169]?[“[T]he?judgmental?element?arises?through?the?necessity?to?select?and?emphasize?certain?facts?at?the?expense?of?others.”];?Farmworkers?Legal?Services?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Labor?(E.D.N.C.?1986)?639?F.Supp.?1368,?1373?[“Because?the?list?sought?here?is?composed?of?selective?fact,?it?…?could?reveal?the?deliberative?process.”].)The?parallel?here?is?evident.?Disclosing?the?identity?of?persons?with?whom?the?Governor?has?met?and?consulted?is?the?functional?equivalent?of?revealing?the?substance?or?direction?of?the?Governor’s?judgment?and?mental?processes;?such?information?would?indicate?which?interests?or?individuals?he?deemed?to?be?of?significance?with?respect?to?critical?issues?of?the?moment.?The?intrusion?into?the?deliberative?process?is?patent.
Brockway?v.?Department?of?the?Air?Force?(8th?Cir.?1975)?518?F.2d?1184?illuminates?another?pertinent?facet?of?the?issue?before?us.?The?father?of?an?Air?Force?pilot?sought?disclosure?of?certain?witnesses’?statements?concerning?an?airplane?crash?in?which?his?son?was?killed.?Although?the?information?was?factual?rather?than?advisory?in?nature,?the?court?nevertheless?held?that?confidentiality?was?necessary?to?prevent?”?’inhibition?of?the?free?flow?of?information’?”?to?the?Air?Force.?(Id.?at?p.?1193,?quoting?Note,?The?Freedom?of?Information?Act?and?the?Exemption?for?Intra-Agency?Memoranda?(1976)?86?Harv.L.Rev.?1047,?1052-1053.)?”[W]ithout?the?assurances?of?confidentiality,”?the?court?concluded,?the?”flow?of?information?to?the?Air?Force”?might?be?sharply?curtailed,?and?the?deliberative?processes?and?efficiency?of?the?agency?greatly?hindered.?(518?F.2d?at?pp.?1193-1194.)?[53?Cal.3d?1344]
The?reasoning?of?the?federal?court?applies?with?equal?force?here.?If?the?law?required?disclosure?of?a?private?meeting?between?the?Governor?and?a?politically?unpopular?or?controversial?group,?that?meeting?might?never?occur.?Compelled?disclosure?could?thus?devalue?or?eliminate?altogether?a?particular?viewpoint?from?the?Governor’s?consideration.?Even?routine?meetings?between?the?Governor?and?other?lawmakers,?lobbyists?or?citizens’?groups?might?be?inhibited?if?the?meetings?were?regularly?revealed?to?the?public?and?the?participants?routinely?subjected?to?probing?questions?and?scrutiny?by?the?press.
In?sum,?while?the?raw?material?in?the?Governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?is?factual,?its?essence?is?deliberative.?Accordingly,?we?are?persuaded?that?the?public?interest?in?withholding?disclosure?of?the?Governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?is?considerable.fn.?13
(2)?Balancing?the?Interests
[7]?Having?so?concluded,?however,?the?lingering?question?nevertheless?remains?whether?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?”clearly?outweighs”?the?public?interest?in?disclosure.?(??6255.)?On?the?facts?presented,?we?are?persuaded?that?it?does.The?Times?asserts?that,?”in?a?democratic?society,?the?public?is?entitled?to?know?how?[the?Governor]?performs?his?duties,?including?the?identity?of?persons?with?whom?he?meets?in?the?performance?of?his?duties?as?Governor.”?Although?the?Times?makes?no?effort?to?elaborate?on?this?statement,?its?meaning?is?abundantly?clear.?In?politics,?access?is?power?in?its?purest?form.?Entrance?to?the?executive?office?is?the?passport?to?influence?in?the?decisions?of?government.?The?public’s?interest?extends?not?only?to?the?individual?they?elect?as?Governor,?but?to?the?individuals?their?Governor?selects?as?advisors.
One?could?readily?imagine?additional?public?benefits?accruing?from?disclosure?of?the?Governor’s?private?itinerary,?as?well.?It?could?be?argued,?for?[53?Cal.3d?1345]?example,?that?the?prospect?of?publicity?would?expand?rather?than?contract?the?number?and?variety?of?persons?meeting?with?the?Governor.?Disclosure?might?also?reveal?whether?the?Governor?was,?in?fact,?receiving?a?broad?range?of?opinions,?and?ultimately?whether?the?state’s?highest?elected?officer?was?attending?diligently?to?the?public?business.
Moreover,?in?response?to?the?assertion?that?disclosure?could?chill?the?flow?of?information?to?the?executive?office,?one?might?argue,?as?the?Court?of?Appeal?concluded,?that?the?Governor’s?advisors?should?be?made?of?”sterner?stuff”;?we?need?not?assume?that?the?Governor,?or?those?otherwise?inclined?to?confer?with?the?Governor,?would?be?deterred?by?the?mere?specter?of?publicity.
The?answer?to?these?arguments?is?not?that?they?lack?substance,?but?pragmatism.?The?deliberative?process?privilege?is?grounded?in?the?unromantic?reality?of?politics;?it?rests?on?the?understanding?that?if?the?public?and?the?Governor?were?entitled?to?precisely?the?same?information,?neither?would?likely?receive?it.?Politics?is?an?ecumenical?affair;?it?embraces?persons?and?groups?of?every?conceivable?interest:?public?and?private;?popular?and?unpopular;?Republican?and?Democratic?and?every?partisan?stripe?in?between;?left,?right?and?center.?To?disclose?every?private?meeting?or?association?of?the?Governor?and?expect?the?decisionmaking?process?to?function?effectively,?is?to?deny?human?nature?and?contrary?to?common?sense?and?experience.?(See?United?States?v.?Nixon,?supra,?418?U.S.?at?p.?705?[41?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?1062].)
Furthermore,?whatever?merit?disclosure?might?otherwise?warrant?in?principle?is?simply?crushed?under?the?massive?weight?of?the?Times’s?request?in?this?case:?the?newspaper?seeks?almost?five?years?of?the?Governor’s?calendars?and?schedules,?covering?undoubtedly?thousands?of?meetings,?conferences?and?engagements?of?every?conceivable?nature.?We?are?not?persuaded?that?any?identifiable?public?interest?supports?such?a?wholesale?production?of?documents.
Accordingly,?on?the?present?record,?we?conclude?that?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?in?disclosure.?(??6255.)
Lest?there?be?any?misunderstanding,?however,?we?caution?that?our?holding?does?not?render?inviolate?the?Governor’s?calendars?and?schedules?or?other?records?of?the?Governor’s?office.?There?may?be?cases?where?the?public?interest?in?certain?specific?information?contained?in?one?or?more?of?the?Governor’s?calendars?is?more?compelling,?the?specific?request?more?focused,?and?the?extent?of?the?requested?disclosure?more?limited;?then,?the?court?might?properly?conclude?that?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?does?not?[53?Cal.3d?1346]?clearly?outweigh?the?public?interest?in?disclosure,?whatever?the?incidental?impact?on?the?deliberative?process.?Plainly,?that?is?not?the?case?here.fn.?14
- The?Governor’s?Security?Interest
Our?conclusion?that?the?trial?court?properly?denied?the?Times’s?request?under?the?public?interest?exemption?(??6255)?finds?additional?support?in?the?evidence?relating?to?the?potential?threat?to?the?Governor’s?physical?security.
As?noted?earlier,?the?Governor’s?daily?and?weekly?schedules?set?forth?in?exhaustive?detail?the?particulars?of?the?Governor’s?meetings?and?travel:?time?and?location?of?arrivals?and?departures;?traveling?companions;?hotel?accommodations;?and?ground?transportation.?The?revelation?of?such?information,?the?Governor’s?security?director?reasonably?asserts,?”would?seriously?impair?[his]?…?ability?to?assure?the?Governor’s?security,?and?would?constitute?a?potential?threat?to?the?Governor’s?safety,?because?the?information?…?will?enable?the?reader?to?know?in?advance?and?with?relative?precision?when?and?where?the?Governor?may?be?found,?those?persons?who?will?be?with?him,?and?when?he?will?be?alone.”?Confining?disclosure?to?outdated?calendars?and?schedules?might?mitigate?but?would?not?altogether?eliminate?the?threat;?it?is?plausible?to?believe?that?an?individual?intent?on?doing?harm?could?use?such?information?to?discern?activity?patterns?of?the?Governor?and?identify?areas?of?particular?vulnerability.
The?Times?argues?that?the?Governor?has,?in?effect,?waived?any?security?interest?by?voluntarily?releasing?”public?schedules”?for?each?coming?week.?The?contention?lacks?merit.?The?”public?schedules”?set?forth?in?the?record?reveal?little?more?than?the?time?and?place?of?the?Governor’s?scheduled?public?speaking?engagements;?they?contain?none?of?the?specific?details?characteristic?of?his?personal?calendars?and?schedules.
Nor?are?we?persuaded?that?the?trial?court?erred,?as?the?Times?contends,?in?refusing?to?order?an?in?camera?review?of?the?requested?records?to?segregate?information?which?might?pose?a?legitimate?security?risk?from?other?material,?such?as?outdated?schedules?and?calendars,?which?purportedly?would?not.?[53?Cal.3d?1347]?As?noted,?the?trial?court?could?properly?find,?based?on?the?declarations,?that?an?individual?intent?on?doing?harm?to?the?Governor?might?be?able?to?reconstruct?the?Governor’s?daily?habits?and?patterns?using?outdated?schedules.fn.?15
Conclusion
“Give?every?man?thy?ear,?but?few?thy?voice,”?Shakespeare’s?Polonius?advised.fn.?16?Those?in?policymaking?positions?of?government?would?do?well?to?abide?the?admonition.?Access?to?a?broad?array?of?opinions?and?the?freedom?to?seek?all?points?of?view,?to?exchange?ideas,?and?to?discuss?policies?in?confidence,?are?essential?to?effective?governance?in?a?representative?democracy.?Accordingly,?we?are?persuaded,?on?the?instant?record,?that?the?public?interest?served?by?not?disclosing?the?Governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?clearly?and?substantially?outweighs?the?public?interest?in?their?disclosure.?(??6255.)
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?and?Baxter,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.,
Dissenting.
The?dissent?of?Justice?Kennard?is?irrefutable,?and?I?agree?completely?with?her?opinion?on?the?law.?I?write?separately?only?on?the?issue?of?public?policy.
Secrecy?has?always?been?deemed?anathema?to?democratic?government.?Time?and?again?justices?of?the?Supreme?Court?have?deplored?secrecy?in?government.?Justice?Frankfurter?declared?that,?”Secrecy?is?not?congenial?to?truth?seeking.”?(Anti-Fascist?Committee?v.?McGrath?(1951)?341?U.S.?123,?171?[95?L.Ed.?817,?854,?71?S.Ct.?624].)?Justice?Stevens?wrote?that,?”Neither?our?elected?nor?our?appointed?representatives?may?abridge?the?free?flow?of?information?simply?to?protect?their?own?activities?from?public?scrutiny.”?(Press-Enterprise?Co.?v.?Superior?Court?(1986)?478?U.S.?1,?19[92?L.Ed.2d?1,?17,?106?S.Ct.?2735].)?Justice?Douglas?quoted?Henry?Steele?Commager,?the?noted?historian:?”?’The?generation?that?made?the?nation?thought?secrecy?in?government?one?of?the?instruments?of?Old?World?tyranny?and?committed?[53?Cal.3d?1348]?itself?to?the?principle?that?a?democracy?cannot?function?unless?the?people?are?permitted?to?know?what?their?government?is?up?to.’?”?(EPA?v.?Mink?(1973)?410?U.S.?73,?105?[35?L.Ed.2d?119,?142,?93?S.Ct.?827].)?Justice?Douglas?also?quoted?James?Madison:?”?’A?popular?government,?without?popular?information,?or?the?means?of?acquiring?it,?is?but?a?Prologue?to?a?Farce?or?a?Tragedy;?or,?perhaps?both.?Knowledge?will?forever?govern?ignorance:?And?a?people?who?mean?to?be?their?own?Governors,?must?arm?themselves?with?the?power?which?knowledge?gives.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?110?[35?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?145].)?Justice?Brennan?wrote?that?secrecy?”can?only?breed?ignorance?and?distrust”?and?that,?conversely?”free?and?robust?reporting,?criticism,?and?debate?can?contribute?to?public?understanding?…?as?well?as?improve?the?quality?of?that?system?by?subjecting?it?to?the?cleansing?effects?of?exposure?and?public?accountability.”?(Nebraska?Press?Assn.?v.?Stuart?(1976)?427?U.S.?539,?587?[49?L.Ed.2d?683,?714,?96?S.Ct.?2791].)?Justice?Blackmun?declared?that?information?is?necessary?”?’to?ensure?an?informed?citizenry,?vital?to?the?functioning?of?a?democratic?society,?needed?to?check?against?corruption?and?to?hold?the?governors?accountable?to?the?governed.’?”?(John?Doe?Agency?v.?John?Doe?Corp.?(1989)493?U.S.?146,?152?[107?L.Ed.2d?462,?471,?110?S.Ct.?471,?475].)
Countless?similar?observations?by?justices?and?commentators?could?be?cited.?In?short,?the?lessons?of?history?tell?us?over?and?over?that?secrecy?in?government,?except?as?provided?by?law,?causes?lack?of?public?confidence?and?various?other?ills.?We?would?do?well?to?heed?the?words?of?Justice?Brandeis:?”sunlight?is?said?to?be?the?best?of?disinfectants.”
Secrecy?is?inconsistent?with?the?duty?of?public?officials?to?keep?the?public?informed?of?their?activities,?including?the?identity?of?those?persons?who?have?access?to?them.?That?this?is?not?an?unreasonable?requirement?is?made?clear?on?the?national?scene.
It?is?common?knowledge?that?the?schedule?of?the?President?of?the?United?States?is?released?to?broadcast?and?print?media?by?his?press?secretary?every?day,?in?advance?of?events.?In?contrast,?the?daily?schedule?of?the?Governor?is?shrouded?in?secrecy?both?before?and?long?after?the?events?have?transpired,?indeed?permanently.?It?is?difficult?to?rationalize?justification?for?the?Governor?of?this?state?being?more?furtive?in?his?scheduling?than?the?President?of?the?United?States.?Certainly?the?problems?of?the?state?are?not?more?significant,?more?potentially?devastating,?than?those?involving?the?nation’s?security?and?welfare?with?which?the?President?is?concerned.
It?is?true?that?the?national?media?are?requested?not?to?release?the?President’s?schedule?in?advance?of?events.?But,?having?been?advised?of?the?events?and?appointments,?they?are?free?to?publish?the?information?immediately?[53?Cal.3d?1349]?afterwards.?Here?the?petitioner?does?not?seek?the?Governor’s?schedule?in?advance,?but?only?after?the?events?and?appointments?have?transpired.
Though?the?majority?do?not?tell?us,?one?must?wonder?whether?under?their?theory?this?secrecy?in?scheduling?applies?not?merely?to?the?Governor?but?to?the?entire?executive?branch?of?our?state?government,?to?secretaries,?cabinet?officers,?chairpersons?of?boards?and?commissions.?And?if?it?is?a?prerogative?of?the?executive?branch,?does?it?also?apply?to?county?executives?and?local?mayors??If?we?are?not?to?be?discriminatory,?the?secrecy?pit?is?bottomless.
The?majority,?in?their?footnote?14,?observe?that?the?Commission?on?Judicial?Performance?conducts?its?investigations?in?confidence,?pursuant?to?a?constitutional?provision.?They?make?my?point:?if?there?is?to?be?governmental?secrecy?it?must?be?pursuant?to?law.?There?is?no?statutory?or?constitutional?provision?specifically?granting?the?right?of?secrecy?to?the?Governor.
The?conclusion?is?inescapable,?as?Justice?Kennard?declares?in?her?discussion?of?the?applicable?law,?that?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?should?be?affirmed.
Broussard,?J.,?concurred.
KENNARD,?J.
I?dissent.
To?support?its?holding?that?a?governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?are?exempt?from?disclosure,?the?majority?relies?primarily?on?the?deliberative?process?privilege.?Because?the?requested?documents?reveal?the?identity?of?those?with?whom?a?governor?has?met,?the?majority?reasons?that?their?disclosure?would?reveal?”the?substance?or?direction?of?the?Governor’s?judgment?and?mental?processes”?(maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?1343)?or?”devalue?or?eliminate?altogether?a?particular?viewpoint?from?the?Governor’s?consideration”?(maj.?opn.?ante,?p.?1344)?and?thereby?”chill?the?flow?of?information?to?the?executive?office”?(maj.?opn.?ante,?p.?1345).?I?am?not?persuaded.
The?documents?at?issue?disclose?only?the?fact?of?meetings,?not?the?contents?of?communications.?With?rare?exceptions,?the?deliberative?process?is?not?compromised?by?disclosing?merely?the?identity?of?the?participants?in?policy?discussions.?Even?assuming?that?the?documents?at?issue?contain?some?material?protected?by?the?deliberative?process?privilege,?the?government?has?not?made?the?detailed?and?specific?showing?required?to?establish?such?a?claim,?and?such?protected?matter,?if?it?exists,?could?be?easily?segregated?[53?Cal.3d?1350]?from?the?bulk?of?the?requested?public?records.fn.?1?I?conclude?also?that?concerns?about?a?governor’s?security?do?not?warrant?complete?exemption?of?the?requested?records.
I
The?California?Public?Records?Act?(Gov.?Code,???6250?et?seq.;?hereafter?the?Act)fn.?2?was?modeled?on?the?federal?Freedom?of?Information?Act?(5?U.S.C.???552;?hereafter?the?FOIA).?The?purpose?of?both?the?Act?and?the?FOIA?is?to?require?that?public?business?be?conducted?”under?the?hard?light?of?full?public?scrutiny”?(Tennessean?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Federal?Housing?Admin.?(6th?Cir.?1972)?464?F.2d?657,?660),?and?thereby?”to?permit?the?public?to?decide?for?itself?whether?government?action?is?proper”?(Washington?Post?Co.?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Health,?etc.?(D.C.?Cir.?1982)?690?F.2d?252,?264,?italics?in?original).?The?Act?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.”?(??6250.)?For?both?the?FOIA?and?the?Act,?”disclosure,?not?secrecy,?is?the?dominant?objective.”?(Dept.?of?Air?Force?v.?Rose?(1976)?425?U.S.?352,?361?[48?L.Ed.2d?11,?21,?96?S.Ct.?1592].)
Because?the?FOIA?provided?a?model?for?the?Act,?and?because?they?have?a?common?purpose,?the?Act?and?its?federal?counterpart?”should?receive?a?parallel?construction.”?(American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?440,?451?[186?Cal.Rptr.?235,?651?P.2d?822].)?Therefore,?federal?decisions?under?the?FOIA?may?be?used?to?construe?the?Act.?(Braun?v.?City?of?Taft?(1984)?154?Cal.App.3d?332,?342?[201?Cal.Rptr.?654];?San?Gabriel?Tribune?v.?Superior?Court?(1983)?143?Cal.App.3d?762,?772,?777?[192?Cal.Rptr.?415].)
It?is?undisputed?that?the?Act?protects?the?deliberative?processes?of?government?agencies?and?officials,?but?it?is?not?clear?whether?it?does?so?through?subdivisions?(a)?or?(k)?of?section?6254?(see?maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?1339,?fns.?8?&?[53?Cal.3d?1351]?9),?through?section?6255,?or?through?all?of?these.?(See?53?Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.?136?(1970).)?The?majority?proceeds?on?the?assumption?that?the?Act?protects?the?deliberative?process?through?section?6255.fn.?3?Although?it?would?seem?that?the?deliberative?process?privilege?is?more?properly?located?in?subdivision?(a)?of?section?6254?(see?Citizens?for?a?Better?Environment?v.?Department?of?Food?&?Agriculture?(1985)?171?Cal.App.3d?704,?712?[217?Cal.Rptr.?504]),?I?will?likewise?assume,?for?purposes?of?this?case?only,?that?it?may?properly?be?asserted?under?section?6255.
The?role?of?the?deliberative?process?privilege?under?the?FOIA?has?been?well?defined.?The?privilege?is?included?within?the?ambit?of?what?is?commonly?referred?to?in?FOIA?cases?as?exemption?5.fn.?4(See?EPA?v.?Mink,?supra,?410?U.S.?73,?85-86?[35?L.Ed.2d?119,?131-132].)?Because?the?deliberative?process?privilege?has?been?the?subject?of?intense?and?careful?scrutiny?in?the?context?of?the?FOIA,?consideration?of?the?cases?and?commentaries?construing?the?federal?legislation?is?crucial?to?a?proper?resolution?of?the?issue?presented?here.
The?deliberative?process?privilege?protects?an?agency’s?internal?working?papers?consisting?of?advice,?recommendations,?opinions,?and?other?material?reflecting?deliberative?or?policymaking?processes.?(Wu?v.?National?Endowment?for?Humanities?(5th?Cir.?1972)?460?F.2d?1030,?1034;?Soucie?v.?David?(D.C.?Cir.?1971)?448?F.2d?1067,?1077?[145?App.D.C.?144].)?Like?all?exemptions?under?both?the?FOIA?and?the?Act?(see?United?States?Dept.?of?Justice?v.?Julian,?supra,?486?U.S.?1,?8[100?L.Ed.2d?1,?11];?New?York?Times?Co.?v.?Superior?Court?(1990)?218?Cal.App.3d?1579,?1585?[268?Cal.Rptr.?21]),?it?is?to?be?narrowly?construed.
The?privilege?has?three?policy?bases:?”First,?it?protects?creative?debate?and?candid?consideration?of?alternatives?within?an?agency,?and,?thereby,?[53?Cal.3d?1352]?improves?the?quality?of?agency?policy?decisions.?Second,?it?protects?the?public?from?the?confusion?that?would?result?from?premature?exposure?to?discussions?occurring?before?the?policies?affecting?it?had?actually?been?settled?upon.?And?third,?it?protects?the?integrity?of?the?decision-making?process?itself?by?confirming?that?’officials?should?be?judged?by?what?they?decided[,]?not?for?matters?they?considered?before?making?up?their?minds.’?”?(Jordan?v.?United?States?Dept.?of?Justice?(D.C.?Cir.?1978)?591?F.2d?753,?772-773?[192?App.D.C.?144],?fns.?omitted.)?The?ultimate?purpose?of?the?deliberative?process?privilege?is?”to?prevent?injury?to?the?quality?of?agency?decisions.”?(NLRB?v.?Sears,?Roebuck?&?Co.?(1975)?421?U.S.?132,?151?[44?L.Ed.2d?29,?47,?95?S.Ct.?1504].)
To?qualify?for?exemption?under?the?deliberative?process?privilege,?a?document?or?a?portion?of?a?document?must?be?both?predecisional?and?deliberative.?(NLRB?v.?Sears,?Roebuck?&?Co.,?supra,?421?U.S.?132,?151-154?[44?L.Ed.2d?29,?47-49];?Mead?Data?Cent.,?Inc.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.?of?Air?Force?(D.C.?Cir.?1977)?566?F.2d?242,?257?[184?App.D.C.?350].)?To?establish?that?a?document?is?predecisional,?an?agency?must?identify?an?agency?decision?or?policy?to?which?the?document?contributed?(Senate?of?Puerto?Rico?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Justice?(D.C.?Cir.?1987)?823?F.2d?574,?585?[262?App.D.C.?166]),?or?at?least?must?show?”that?the?document?is?in?fact?part?of?some?deliberative?process”?(1?Braverman?&?Chetwynd,?Information?Law?(1985)???9-4.3.1,?p.?364,?italics?in?original;?NLRB?v.?Sears,?Roebuck?&?Co.,?supra,?421?U.S.?at?p.?151,?fn.?18?[44?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?48]).
In?this?case,?the?government?has?satisfied?neither?of?these?foundational?requirements?for?invoking?the?deliberative?process?privilege.
First,?the?government?has?not?shown?that?the?documents?are?predecisional.?It?has?not?identified?particular?policies?or?decisions?that?resulted?from?particular?meetings?mentioned?in?the?calendars?and?schedules?or?otherwise?shown?that?the?meetings?were?each?part?of?some?deliberative?process.?Indeed,?it?seems?likely?that?many?of?the?meetings?were?ceremonial?occasions?unrelated?to?any?policy?or?decision,?and?that?others?consisted?of?explanation?of?policies?already?formulated?or?the?formulation?of?plans?and?strategies?for?their?implementation.?The?deliberative?process?privilege?can?have?no?application?to?such?postdecisional?or?nondecisional?meetings.
Second,?the?government?has?not?shown?that?the?documents?are?deliberative.?To?qualify?as?deliberative,?a?document?generally?must?consist?of?opinions?or?recommendations.?Purely?factual?material?may?be?withheld?only?if?it?is?”inextricably?intertwined?with?policy-making?processes”?(Soucie?v.?David,?supra,?448?F.2d?1067,?1077-1078,?fn.?omitted),?if?it?would?expose?the?deliberative?process?by?the?manner?in?which?the?factual?material?is?[53?Cal.3d?1353]?organized?or?presented?(Ryan?v.?Department?of?Justice?(D.C.?Cir.?1980)?617?F.2d?781,?790?[199?App.D.C.?199]),?or?if?it?would?compromise?the?agency’s?ability?to?gather?information?in?the?future?(Brockway?v.?Department?of?Air?Force?(8th?Cir.?1975)?518?F.2d?1184,?1191-1192).
The?majority?relies?on?an?analogy?between?agency?summaries?of?factual?material,?which?are?exempt?from?disclosure?if?they?reveal?the?deliberative?process?by?the?manner?in?which?material?is?summarized,?and?appointment?calendars?showing?the?persons?with?whom?a?high?government?official?has?met.?The?majority?encapsulates?this?reasoning?in?the?following?sentence:?”Disclosing?the?identity?of?persons?with?whom?the?Governor?has?met?and?consulted?is?the?functional?equivalent?of?revealing?the?substance?and?direction?of?the?Governor’s?judgment?and?mental?processes;?such?information?would?indicate?which?interests?or?individuals?he?deemed?to?be?of?significance?with?respect?to?critical?issues?of?the?moment.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?1343.)
The?analogy?is?inapt.?The?selection?of?a?fact?for?inclusion?in?a?summary?indicates?clearly?and?directly?that?the?person?making?the?summary?considers?it?important?to?the?decision.?But?information?that?a?governor?has?met?or?will?meet?with?an?individual?on?a?particular?date?has?no?such?unambiguous?significance.?Although?disclosure?of?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?does?provide?glimpses?into?the?inner?workings?of?the?governor’s?office,?and?thereby?serves?a?substantial?public?interest,?these?glimpses?are?so?indirect?that?they?will?injure?the?decisional?process?only?in?rare?instances.
Consider?first?a?list?of?the?occasions?on?which?a?governor?has?met?or?will?meet?with?members?of?his?or?her?personal?staff?or?with?the?heads?of?executive?branch?agencies.?Without?information?as?to?both?the?topics?discussed?and?the?advice?or?opinions?offered,?such?a?list?would?reveal?nothing?about?the?status?of?the?governor’s?thinking?about?”critical?issues?of?the?moment.”?Although?information?that?a?governor?seldom?or?never?meets?with?an?agency?director?could?signify?that?the?governor?has?little?confidence?in?the?individual’s?advice?(it?could?also?indicate?a?preference?for?communication?by?telephone?or?written?memorandum),?it?would?disclose?nothing?about?the?substance?of?the?governor’s?thinking?on?any?issue?and?so?would?pose?no?threat?of?injury?to?the?deliberative?process.
Consider?next?a?list?of?occasions?on?which?a?governor?has?met?with?persons?outside?state?government.?Although?the?list?would?not?disclose?the?topics?discussed?or?the?advice?or?opinions?expressed,?these?could?sometimes?be?inferred?if?the?persons?with?whom?the?governor?met?had?publicly?advocated?particular?positions?on?issues?that?required?a?decision?by?the?governor.?Even?in?these?cases,?however,?information?that?the?Governor?met?with?an?[53?Cal.3d?1354]?advocate?for?a?particular?position?reveals?little?about?how?the?governor?is?inclined?to?decide?the?issue.?Governors?do?not?meet?only?with?advocates?whose?views?they?are?inclined?to?favor.?A?governor?may?wish?to?test?a?tentative?decision?or?inclination?against?the?arguments?of?those?advocating?a?different?course,?or?the?governor?may?choose?to?hear?the?opposing?arguments?as?a?matter?of?courtesy,?political?expediency,?or?public?relations.?And?if?a?governor?has?met?with?representatives?of?all?points?of?view,?what?can?this?possibly?reveal?about?”the?substance?and?direction?of?the?governor’s?judgment”?as?to?the?question?at?issue??Thus,?information?that?a?governor?has?met?with?an?individual?does?not?reveal?the?Governor’s?judgment?about?the?merits?of?the?position?the?individual?is?advocating,?and?so?poses?no?discernible?threat?of?injury?to?the?deliberative?process.
On?the?other?hand,?there?is?a?very?substantial?public?interest?in?disclosure?of?the?occasions?on?which?a?governor?has?met?with?persons?outside?government?who?seek?to?influence?the?governor’s?decisions?on?critical?issues.?This?interest?is?reflected?in?the?many?decisions?under?the?FOIA?holding?that?the?deliberative?process?privilege?does?not?protect?communications?by?interested?parties?seeking?to?influence?government?decisions.?(Van?Bourg,?Allen,?Weinberg?&?Roger?v.?N.L.R.B.?(9th?Cir.?1985)?751?F.2d?982,?985;?County?of?Madison,?N.?Y.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.?of?Justice?(1st?Cir.?1981)?641?F.2d?1036,?1040-1042;?Mead?Data?Cent.,?Inc.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.?of?Air?Force,?supra,566?F.2d?242,?257-258;?NAACP?Legal?Defense?Fund?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Justice?(D.D.C.?1985)?612?F.Supp.?1143,?1146-1147;?see?also?Weaver?&?Jones,?The?Deliberative?Process?Privilege?(1989)?54?Mo.L.Rev.?279,?300;?Project:?Government?Information?and?the?Rights?of?Citizens?(1975)?73?Mich.L.Rev.?971,?1071;?Note,?The?Freedom?of?Information?Act:?A?Seven-?year?Assessment?(1974)?74?Colum.L.Rev.?895,?942;?Note,?The?Freedom?of?Information?Act?and?the?Exemption?for?Intra-agency?Memoranda?(1973)?86?Harv.L.Rev.?1047,?1065.)?The?public?interest?in?monitoring?the?activities?of?those?who?seek?to?gain?private?advantage?by?influencing?government?decisions?is?also?reflected?in?the?detailed?regulatory?system?enacted?to?control?the?practice?of?lobbying.?(??86100?et?seq.)
Although?the?majority?defends?its?holding?with?citation?to?Brockway?v.?Department?of?Air?Force,?supra,?518?F.2d?1184,?examination?of?that?decision?exposes?the?weakness?of?the?majority’s?position.?The?Brockway?court?held?that?the?deliberative?process?privilege?protects?an?agency?document?containing?the?statements?of?witnesses?to?an?airplane?crash.?Yet?in?that?case?the?agency?voluntarily?revealed?the?names?of?the?witnesses?it?had?interviewed.?(Id.?at?p.?1186.)?No?claim?was?ever?made?that?disclosing?merely?the?fact?of?the?interviews,?as?opposed?to?what?was?said,?would?harm?the?deliberative?[53?Cal.3d?1355]?process?privilege.fn.?5?(See?also?8?Wright?&?Miller,?Federal?Practice?and?Procedure?(1970)???2019,?pp.?160-161?[“Frequently?statutes?requiring?particular?kinds?of?reports?to?be?made?to?government?will?provide?that?such?reports?are?to?be?kept?confidential.?…?The?fact?that?a?person?has?made?a?report?of?this?kind?is?not?privileged,?even?though?the?contents?of?the?report?may?be.”].)
Many?other?FOIA?decisions?also?weigh?heavily?against?the?majority’s?conclusion.?Under?the?FOIA,?courts?and?commentators?alike?have?concluded?that?the?identities?of?persons?who?participate?in?the?process?of?formulating?policy?within?a?governmental?agency?by?giving?opinions,?advice,?or?recommendations?are?essentially?factual?rather?than?deliberative,?and?that?disclosure?of?documents?revealing?the?names?of?participants?in?policy?formulation?will?not?compromise?the?deliberative?process.
For?instance,?in?two?cases?in?which?it?was?alleged?that?the?government?had?charged?exorbitant?prices?for?homes?sold?to?low-income?buyers,?courts?ordered?disclosure?of?the?identity?of?the?appraisers?on?whom?the?government?had?relied.?(Tennessean?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Federal?Housing?Admin.,?supra,?464?F.2d?657;?Philadelphia?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Department?of?H.?&?U.?D.?(E.D.Pa.?1972)?343?F.Supp.?1176.)?One?of?these?courts?observed?that?the?appraisers’?names?were?outside?the?deliberative?process?privilege?because?names?are?”essentially?factual.”?(Philadelphia?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Department?of?H.?&?U.?D.,?supra,?at?p.?1178.)?The?other?court,?recognizing?the?public’s?interest?in?disclosure?of?conflicts?of?interest,?remarked?that?the?”name?of?an?appraiser?could?be?sufficient?to?establish?a?motivation?sufficient?to?trigger?an?investigation.”?(Tennessean?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Federal?Housing?Admin.,?supra,?at?p.?660.)
In?another?case,?a?federal?district?court?ordered?the?Federal?Trade?Commission?to?disclose?the?names?of?outside?experts?it?had?consulted?during?the?process?of?formulating?a?regulation.?The?court?stated:?”The?government?has?attempted?to?expand?the?policy?of?exemption?5-encouragement?of?a?frank?discussion?of?legal?and?policy?matters?in?order?to?enhance?the?quality?of?agency?decisions-beyond?its?necessary?and?proper?limits.?The?FOIA?[53?Cal.3d?1356]?’creates?a?liberal?disclosure?requirement,?limited?only?by?specific?exemptions?which?are?to?be?narrowly?construed.’?[Citation.]?Outside?expert?consultants?would?not?be?chilled?in?their?advice?or?recommendations?to?the?agency?if?it?were?known?that?they?had?rendered?advice.?After?all,?as?experts?they?are?members?of?a?profession?which?demands?the?rendition?of?advice?to?many?groups.?They?should?expect?the?fact?of?rendition?to?eventually?become?public.?Protection?of?the?content?of?the?advice?rendered?would?adequately?serve?the?purpose?of?encouraging?frank?discussion,?and?therefore?the?names?and?addresses?of?the?outside?expert?consultants?will?be?ordered?disclosed.”?(Assn.?of?National?Advertisers,?Inc.?v.?FTC?(D.D.C.?1976)?C.A.No.?75-1304,?1976-2?Trade?Cas.?(CCH)???61,021,?pp.?69,491,?69,493;?see?also?Assn.?of?National?Advertisers,?Inc.?v.?FTC?(D.D.C.?1976)?C.A.No.?75-0896,?1976-2?Trade?Cas.?(CCH)???61,112,?pp.?70,041,?70,045.)
Commentators?have?reached?the?same?conclusion:?”A?requirement?that?names?be?disclosed?is?supported?in?the?most?mechanical?sense?by?the?observation?that?names?are?factual?and?that?factual?material?falls?outside?the?ambit?of?the?exemption’s?protection.?More?importantly,?the?same?kind?of?policy?analysis?that?underlies?the?factual?material?limitation?of?exemption?(5)?argues?for?disclosure?of?names.?Few?outside?consultants?would?be?discouraged?from?providing?recommendations?by?the?mere?prospect?that?their?names?would?be?disclosed,?without?the?content?of?their?advice;?indeed,?the?most?likely?cases?for?such?discouragement?are?those?of?blatantly?prejudiced?potential?consultants?who?would?fear?the?public?imputation?of?malice.?And?there?is?of?course?a?public?interest?in?knowing?who?is?being?consulted?by?the?Government?and?contributing?to?its?decisions.”?(Note,?The?Freedom?of?Information?Act?and?the?Exemption?for?Intra-agency?Memoranda,?supra,?86?Harv.L.Rev.?1047,?1065-1066,?fn.?omitted;?see?also?O’Reilly,?Federal?Information?Disclosure?(1989)???15.16,?pp.?15-78?to?15-79.)
Disclosure?of?the?identity?of?participants?in?policy?formulation?occurs?routinely?in?FOIA?cases.?Often,?the?agency?has?made?the?disclosure?voluntarily.?(See,?e.g.,?Washington?Post?Co.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.?of?Heath,?etc.,?supra,?690?F.2d?252,?257.)?In?other?cases,?the?trial?court?has?mandated?disclosure?by?requiring?the?agency?to?prepare?a?Vaughn?index?(named?after?Vaughn?v.?Rosen?(D.C.?Cir.?1973)?484?F.2d?820?[157?App.D.C.?340]),?and?to?furnish?the?index?to?both?the?court?and?the?requesting?party.
A?Vaughn?index?identifies?the?author,?recipient,?and?subject?matter?of?each?document?that?the?agency?has?withheld?in?whole?or?in?part?under?a?claim?of?exemption.?(see?Osborn?v.?I.R.S.?(6th?Cir.?1985)?754?F.2d?195,?196;?Weaver?&?Jones,?op.?cit.?supra,?54?Mo.L.Rev.?279,?301-302.)?The?purpose?of?the?index?is?to?give?the?court?and?the?opposing?party?sufficient?information?about?the?withheld?document,?or?portion?of?a?document,?to?assess?the?[53?Cal.3d?1357]?validity?of?the?agency’s?exemption?claim.?(Vaughn?v.?Rosen,?supra,?484?F.2d?820.)?The?government?must?provide?a?Vaughn?index?before?the?court?makes?its?decision?”in?most?FOIA?cases.”?(Osborn?v.?I.R.S.,?supra,?at?p.?197.)
Although?the?participants?in?the?process?of?policy?formulation?and?rule-?making?are?disclosed?through?the?Vaughn?indexes,?this?has?not?prevented?the?courts?from?making?them?a?standard?procedure?in?FOIA?cases.?Rather,?the?federal?courts’?continued?use?of?the?Vaughn?index?implies?a?determination?that?disclosing?the?names?of?agency?employees?who?have?authored?internal?documents,?the?contents?of?which?are?or?may?be?privileged,?will?work?no?harm?to?an?agency’s?deliberative?process?in?the?vast?majority?of?cases.?(See?1?Braverman?&?Chetwynd,?op.?cit.?supra,???9-4.3.2,?at?p.?371.)fn.?6
Because?the?schedules?and?calendars?at?issue?disclose?only?the?identity?of?persons?who?have?met?with?the?Governor,?and?not?what?was?said?at?those?meetings,?the?deliberative?process?privilege?can?have?little,?if?any,?application.?The?frank?exchange?of?views?is?unlikely?to?be?compromised?by?public?knowledge?of?the?occasions?on?which?a?governor?has?met?in?the?past?with?other?government?officials,?with?particular?members?of?the?governor’s?personal?staff,?or?with?persons?outside?state?government.?The?majority?holding,?under?which?documents?containing?the?names?of?persons?who?might?have?participated?in?policy?formulation?may?be?withheld?from?the?public,?finds?no?support?in?the?deliberative?process?privilege.
II
The?majority?also?relies?to?some?extent?on?concern?for?a?governor’s?physical?safety.?The?government?submitted?evidence?in?the?trial?court?that?disclosure?of?former?Governor?Deukmejian’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?would?have?revealed?his?characteristic?patterns?of?movement?while?in?office?and?would?have?disclosed?particular?times?when?he?would?likely?have?been?alone.?The?government?argues?that?this?information?could?be?useful?to?a?potential?assailant,?and?that?it?therefore?should?be?kept?confidential.
This?argument?should?be?rejected.?The?government?has?not?shown?that?disclosure?of?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?would?elevate?the?risk?above?that?which?high?public?officials?normally?must?accept.?For?example,?[53?Cal.3d?1358]?those?elected?to?the?Legislature?must?attend?its?public?sessions,?as?judges?must?attend?the?public?sessions?of?court.?Although?such?public?appearances,?at?preannounced?times?and?places,?carry?a?certain?risk?to?the?safety?of?legislators?and?judges,?the?risk?is?one?that?is?deemed?acceptable.fn.?7?Greater?safety?for?public?officials?might?be?obtainable?at?the?cost?of?total?secrecy?in?government,?but?the?price?would?be?unacceptably?high.
III
The?government?may?be?able?to?establish?that?parts?of?a?governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?are?exempt?from?disclosure?under?the?Act,?even?though?it?has?not?established?an?exemption?for?these?public?records?as?a?whole.
The?public?official?or?agency?invoking?an?exemption?bears?the?burden?of?establishing?that?it?applies.?(??6255;?Senate?of?Puerto?Rico?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Justice,?supra,?823?F.2d?574,?585;?Church?of?Scientology,?etc.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.?(9th?Cir.?1979)?611?F.2d?738,?742;?Braun?v.?City?of?Taft,?supra,?154?Cal.App.3d?332,?345.)?To?discharge?its?burden,?an?agency?may?not?rely?upon?conclusory?and?generalized?allegations.?(Senate?of?Puerto?Rico?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Justice,?supra,?at?p.?585;?Church?of?Scientology,?etc.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.,?supra,?at?p.?742.)?Instead,?it?must?provide?a?”detailed?factual?justification”?for?each?exemption?claim?(Washington?Post?Co.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.?of?Health,?etc.,?supra,690?F.2d?252,?269;?see?also?Mead?Data?Cent.,?Inc.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.?of?Air?Force,?supra,?566?F.2d?242,?258?[an?agency?”must?show?by?specific?and?detailed?proof?that?disclosure?would?defeat,?rather?than?further,?the?purpose?of?the?FOIA”];?Black?v.?Sheraton?Corporation?of?America?(D.D.C.?1974)?371?F.Supp.?97,?101?[“To?recognize?such?a?broad?claim?[of?privilege,]?in?which?the?[government]?has?given?no?precise?or?compelling?reasons?to?shield?these?documents?from?outside?scrutiny,?would?make?a?farce?of?the?whole?procedure.”].)
Although?a?heavy?burden?is?thus?imposed?on?a?public?official?or?agency?seeking?to?avoid?disclosure,?the?burden?is?not?impossible?to?discharge.?In?this?case,?there?may?well?be?portions?of?the?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?at?issue?that?are?protected?by?the?deliberative?process?privilege,?by?the?interest?in?protecting?the?Governor’s?safety,?or?by?other?important?[53?Cal.3d?1359]?public?interests.?For?this?reason,?I?agree?with?the?Court?of?Appeal?that?the?case?should?be?remanded?to?give?the?government?an?opportunity?to?provide?the?detailed?factual?justification?required?to?establish?that?portions?of?the?schedules?and?calendars?are?exempt?from?disclosure.?If?a?factual?dispute?remained?after?a?sufficiently?detailed?justification?had?been?provided,?the?proper?procedure?would?have?been?for?the?trial?court?to?conduct?an?in?camera?review?of?the?documents,?or?at?least?of?a?representative?sample.?(See?EPA?v.?Mink,?supra,?410?U.S.?73,?93?[35?L.Ed.2d?119,?135];?Church?of?Scientology,?etc.?v.?U.?S.?Dept.,?supra,?611?F.2d?738,?742.)
When?the?government?succeeds?in?establishing?that?parts?of?requested?documents?are?exempt,?those?portions?are?deleted?and?the?rest?disclosed.?This?is?mandated?by?section?6257,?which?provides:?”Any?reasonably?segregable?portion?of?a?record?shall?be?provided?to?any?person?requesting?such?record?after?deletion?of?the?portions?which?are?exempt?by?law.”?(See?also?Johnson?v.?Winter?(1982)?127?Cal.App.3d?435,?440?[179?Cal.Rptr.?585];?Anderson?v.?Department?of?Health?&?Human?Services?(10th?Cir.?1990)?907?F.2d?936,?941.)
IV
A?former?United?States?Attorney?General?has?remarked:?”Nothing?would?be?so?alien?to?our?form?of?government?as?pervasive?secrecy,?for?people?cannot?govern?themselves?if?they?cannot?know?the?actions?of?their?government.?Yet?it?is?elementary?that?the?welfare?of?the?nation?and?that?of?its?citizens?may?require?that?some?information?be?kept?in?confidence.”?(Richardson,?Freedom?of?Information?(1974)?20?Loyola?L.Rev.?45.)?The?FOIA?and?the?Act?seek?to?accommodate?these?competing?concerns?by?mandating?a?general?policy?of?full?disclosure,?with?specific?and?narrowly?drawn?exemptions.
To?establish?an?exemption?under?section?6255,?an?agency?must?show?”that?on?the?facts?of?the?particular?case?the?public?interest?served?by?not?making?the?record?public?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?served?by?disclosure?of?the?record.”?(Italics?added.)?When?conducting?this?balancing?process,?the?public’s?right?to?know?what?public?officials?are?doingfn.?8?provides?”a?heavy?and?constant?weight”?in?favor?of?disclosure.?(Comment,?The?California?Public?Records?Act:?The?Public’s?Right?of?Access?to?Governmental?Information?(1976)?7?Pacific?L.J.?105,?119;?see?also?Citizens?for?a?Better?Environment?v.?Department?of?Food?&?Agriculture,?supra,?171?Cal.App.3d?[53?Cal.3d?1360]?704,?715?[“If?the?records?sought?pertain?to?the?conduct?of?the?people’s?business?there?is?a?public?interest?in?disclosure.”].)?The?weight?varies,?however,?in?accordance?with?”the?gravity?of?the?governmental?tasks?sought?to?be?illuminated?and?the?directness?with?which?the?disclosure?will?serve?to?illuminate.”?(Citizens?for?a?Better?Environment?v.?Department?of?Food?&?Agriculture,?supra,?at?p.?715.)?How?our?state?governors?spend?their?working?hours,?and?how?they?go?about?obtaining?advice?and?formulating?policy?are?matters?of?great?public?importance,?and,?as?already?noted,?disclosure?of?the?names?of?the?persons?with?whom?a?governor?has?met?during?office?hours?will?illuminate?this?subject?in?significant?ways.
The?public?interest?in?secrecy?has?not?been?shown?to?clearly?outweigh?this?interest?in?disclosure.?The?government?has?made?no?specific?and?detailed?demonstration?that?the?requested?documents,?and?all?reasonably?segregable?portions?of?those?documents,?must?be?withheld?to?protect?the?deliberative?processes?or?the?physical?safety?of?our?state?governors.?By?holding?that?the?public?has?no?right?to?know?the?identity?of?persons?with?whom?a?governor?has?met,?the?majority?expands?the?deliberative?process?privilege?well?beyond?its?proper?ambit?and?disregards?the?wisdom?of?the?federal?courts?and?legal?commentators.?I?would?hold?that?neither?the?deliberative?process?privilege,?nor?concern?for?the?physical?safety?of?our?governors,?nor?the?two?combined,?justifies?a?blanket?exemption?for?a?governor’s?personal?appointment?calendars?and?schedules.?I?therefore?would?affirm?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.
Broussard,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Government?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?Section?6254,?subdivision?(l)?exempts?from?disclosure?under?the?Act:?”Correspondence?of?and?to?the?Governor?or?employees?of?the?Governor’s?office?or?in?the?custody?of?or?maintained?by?the?Governor’s?legal?affairs?secretary,?provided?that?public?records?shall?not?be?transferred?to?the?custody?of?the?Governor’s?legal?affairs?secretary?to?evade?the?disclosure?provisions?of?this?chapter.”
FN?3.?Section?6255?provides?in?full:?”The?agency?shall?justify?withholding?any?record?by?demonstrating?that?the?record?in?question?is?exempt?under?the?express?provisions?of?this?chapter?or?that?on?the?facts?of?the?particular?case?the?public?interest?served?by?not?making?the?record?public?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?served?by?disclosure?of?the?record.”
FN?4.?Ms.?Pederson?stated?in?her?declaration?that?the?daily?schedules?frequently?include?attachments?in?the?nature?of?briefing?memoranda?to?acquaint?the?Governor?with?the?particulars?of?individual?meetings,?appearances?or?functions.?To?the?extent?such?attachments?actually?contain?advisory?opinions,?the?Times?indicated?in?its?briefing?that?it?did?not?seek?disclosure?of?these?documents.
FN?5.?Although?the?record?is?unclear,?it?appears?that?the?Governor?does?retain?superseded?appointment?calendars?and?schedules.?While?this?matter?was?pending,?the?Times?moved?for?an?order?barring?the?Governor?from?transferring?any?of?the?requested?records?to?the?State?Archives?and?placing?a?limitation?on?public?access,?pursuant?to?section?6268.?The?Governor?filed?an?opposition?to?the?motion.?We?granted?the?motion?to?preserve?the?subject?matter?of?the?litigation?pending?final?determination?of?the?appeal.
FN?6.?As?noted,?post,?at?page?1335,?the?Legislature?recently?amended?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?to?provide:?”In?an?action?filed?on?or?after?January?1,?1991,?an?order?of?the?court,?either?directing?disclosure?by?a?public?official?or?supporting?the?decision?of?the?public?official?refusing?disclosure?…?shall?be?immediately?reviewable?by?petition?to?the?appellate?court?for?the?issuance?of?an?extraordinary?writ.”?(Stats.?1990,?ch.?908,???2,?No.?5?Deering’s?Adv.?Legis.?Service,?p.?3265.)
We?requested?briefing?at?oral?argument?on?the?question?whether?that?portion?of?section?6259,?subdivision?(c),?prohibiting?review?by?appeal?contravenes?article?VI,?section?11?of?the?California?Constitution,?which?confers?appellate?jurisdiction?upon?the?Courts?of?Appeal?over?every?cause?as?to?which?the?”superior?courts?have?original?jurisdiction.”?The?Attorney?General,?on?behalf?of?the?Governor,?submits?that?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?is?constitutional.?Times?Mirror?does?not?take?a?clear?position,?but?appears?to?view?the?statute?as?constitutionally?valid,?as?well.?While?the?question?is?an?interesting?one,?we?need?not?decide?it?in?this?case.?Whatever?the?merits?of?the?provision?purporting?to?preclude?review?by?appeal,?we?discern?no?constitutional?impediment?to?the?Legislature?providing,?as?it?has?here,?an?avenue?of?relief?by?means?of?writ?review.?As?noted?above,?we?interpret?the?statute?to?permit?review?of?a?trial?court?order?on?the?merits.
FN?7.?The?Governor?argues?that?the?text?of?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?is?clear?and?unambiguous?and?therefore?cannot?be?construed?in?light?of?its?legislative?history.?We?disagree.?As?noted?above,?the?statute?does?not?squarely?set?forth?a?standard?of?review.?Thus,?the?language?is?not?altogether?clear?and?unambiguous.?Moreover,?while?ambiguity?is?generally?thought?to?be?a?condition?precedent?to?interpretation,?this?is?not?always?the?case.?”The?literal?meaning?of?the?words?of?a?statute?may?be?disregarded?to?avoid?absurd?results?or?to?give?effect?to?manifest?purposes?that,?in?light?of?the?statute’s?legislative?history,?appear?from?its?provisions?considered?as?a?whole.”?(Silver?v.?Brown?(1966)?63?Cal.2d?841,?845?[48?Cal.Rptr.?609,?409?P.2d?689];?accord?Friends?of?Mammoth?v.?Board?of?Supervisors?(1972)?8?Cal.3d?247,?259?[104?Cal.Rptr.?761,?502?P.2d?1049]?[“Once?a?particular?legislative?intent?has?been?ascertained,?it?must?be?given?effect?’?”even?though?it?may?not?be?consistent?with?the?strict?letter?of?the?statute.”?’?”];?County?of?Sacramento?v.?Hickman?(1967)?66?Cal.2d?841,?849,?fn.?6?[59?Cal.Rptr.?609,?428?P.2d?593].)
FN?8.?Section?6254,?subdivision?(a)?exempts?”Preliminary?drafts,?notes,?or?interagency?or?intra-agency?memoranda?which?are?not?retained?by?the?public?agency?in?the?ordinary?course?of?business,?provided?that?the?public?interest?in?withholding?such?records?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?in?disclosure?….”
FN?9.?Although?not?cited?by?the?Governor,?we?note?that?section?6254,?subdivision?(k)?is?also?arguably?relevant.?That?section?exempts?records?”the?disclosure?of?which?is?exempted?or?prohibited?pursuant?to?provisions?of?federal?or?state?law,?including,?but?not?limited?to,?provisions?of?the?Evidence?Code?relating?to?privilege.”?Section?1040?of?the?Evidence?Code?establishes?a?privilege?for?”official?information,”?defined?as?”information?acquired?in?confidence?by?a?public?employee?in?the?course?of?his?or?her?duty?and?not?open,?or?officially?disclosed,?to?the?public?prior?to?the?time?the?claim?of?privilege?is?made.”?(Evid.?Code,???1040,?subd.?(a).)?Under?subdivision?(k)?of?section?6254,?therefore,?the?instant?records?might?arguably?be?exempt?from?disclosure?pursuant?either?to?the?common?law?”mental?process”?(see?fn.?11,?post,?at?p.?1340)?or?the?statutory?”official?information”?privilege.
FN?10.?The?terms?”executive?privilege”?and?”deliberative?process?privilege”?refer?to?the?same?concept?and?will?be?used?interchangeably?in?this?opinion.?(See?Killington,?Ltd.?v.?Lash?(Vt.?1990)?572?A.2d?1368,?1371-1372,?fn.?3;?Babets?v.?Secretary?of?Executive?Office?(1988)?403?Mass.?230?[526?N.E.2d?1261,?1262,?fn.?3].)?It?should?be?noted,?however,?that?the?term?”executive”?privilege?as?used?here?and?by?the?federal?courts?interpreting?the?FOIA?does?not?refer?to?whatever?constitutional?content?the?doctrine?might?have?(see?United?States?v.?Nixon?(1974)?418?U.S.?683[41?L.Ed.2d?1039,?94?S.Ct.?3090]),?but?rather?to?the?traditional?common?law?privilege?that?attached?to?confidential?intraagency?advisory?opinions,?a?privilege?which?was?later?codified?in?exemption?5.?(Kaiser?Aluminum?&?Chemical?Corp.?v.?United?States?(Ct.?Cl.?1958)?157?F.Supp.?939,?946?[141?Ct.Cl.?38];?EPA?v.?Mink,?supra,?410?U.S.?at?pp.?86-87?[35?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?131-?132].)
The?common?law?privilege?protecting?the?”mental?processes”?of?legislators?is?also?well?settled?in?California?(see?City?of?Fairfield?v.?Superior?Court?(1975)?14?Cal.3d?768,?772-773?[122?Cal.Rptr.?543,?537?P.2d?375];?State?of?California?v.?Superior?Court?(1974)?12?Cal.3d?237,?257-258?[115?Cal.Rptr.?497,?524?P.2d?1281])?although?the?analogous?”deliberative?process”?privilege?has?not?been?litigated.?Other?states,?however,?have?specifically?held?that?a?governor,?in?the?discharge?of?official?duties,?is?entitled?to?an?executive?privilege?to?protect?the?governor’s?internal?mental?or?deliberative?processes.?(See,?e.g.,?Hamilton?v.?Verdow?(1980)?287?Md.?544?[414?A.2d?914,?922,?10?A.L.R.4th?333]?[investigative?report?prepared?for?the?Governor?concerning?a?state?mental?hospital?entitled?to?confidentiality?to?protect?”deliberative?communications?between?officials?and?those?who?assist?them?in?formulating?…?governmental?action.”];?Doe?v.?Alaska?Superior?Ct.,?Third?Jud.?Dist.?(1986?Alaska)?721?P.2d?617,?622-623?[Governor’s?file?concerning?a?candidate?for?appointment?to?state?office?entitled?to?confidentiality?under?the?executive?privilege?protecting?”the?deliberative?and?mental?processes?of?decision-?makers.”];?Nero?v.?Hyland?(1978)?76?N.J.?213?[386?A.2d?846,?853]?[executive?privilege?protects?character?investigation?report?on?candidate?for?state?government?prepared?at?the?request?of?the?Governor];?Killington,?Ltd.?v.?Lash,?supra,?572?A.2d?at?p.?1374?[“Both?the?constitutional?and?common-law?roots?of?the?[executive]?privilege?strongly?require?its?recognition?in?Vermont”?to?protect,?under?the?Vermont?Access?to?Public?Records?statute,?deliberative?material?in?the?possession?of?the?Governor];?but?cf.?Babets?v.?Secretary?of?Executive?Office,?supra,?526?N.E.2d?1261?[Massachusetts?high?court?refused?to?recognize?executive?privilege?based?on?the?common?law?or?the?state?constitution?to?protect?documents?in?the?possession?of?the?department?of?social?services].)
FN?11.?Title?5?United?States?Code?section?552(b)(5)?provides?that?agencies?need?not?disclose?”inter-agency?or?intra-agency?memorandums?or?letters?which?would?not?be?available?by?law?to?a?party?other?than?an?agency?in?litigation?with?the?agency.”
FN?12.?Several?federal?and?state?decisions?have?addressed?the?question?whether?a?public?official’s?personal?appointment?records?and?schedules?constitute?”agency?records”?within?the?meaning?of?the?FOIA?or?its?local?counterpart.?(See?Bureau?of?Nat.?Affairs?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Justice?(D.C.?Cir.?1984)742?F.2d?1484?[239?App.D.C.?331];?Washington?Post?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?State?(D.D.C.?1986)?632?F.Supp.?607;?Yacobellis?v.?City?of?Bellingham?(1989)?55?Wn.App.?706?[780?P.2d?272];?Kerr?v.?Koch?(N.Y.?1988)?15?Media?L.Rptr.?1579.)?These?cases?have?uniformly?focused?on?whether?the?records?relate?to?official?agency?business?as?opposed?to?purely?private?matters;?none?has?addressed?the?question?of?executive?privilege?presented?here,?although?one?expressly?left?that?issue?open.?(Washington?Post?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?State,?supra,?632?F.Supp.?at?p.?616?[“The?Court’s?decision?that?the?records?of?schedule?are?subject?to?disclosure?does?not?limit?the?defendant’s?right?to?withhold?portions?of?the?documents?under?a?valid?claim?of?statutory?exemption?pursuant?to?the?Act.”].)
The?Governor?concedes?that?his?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?constitute?”public?records”?under?the?Act.?(See???6252,?subd.?(d)?[“?’Public?records’?includes?any?writing?containing?information?relating?to?the?conduct?of?the?public’s?business?prepared,?owned,?used,?or?retained?by?any?state?or?local?agency?regardless?of?physical?form?or?characteristics.?’Public?records’?in?the?custody?of?the?Governor?means?any?writing?prepared?on?or?after?January?6,?1975.”].)?It?would?be?difficult?indeed?to?argue?to?the?contrary,?inasmuch?as?the?records?clearly?appear?to?”relat[e]?to?the?conduct?of?the?public’s?business.”?In?any?event,?as?noted,?the?Governor?does?not?contend?that?the?information?sought?lies?outside?the?scope?of?the?Act.?He?asserts,?rather,?that?the?records?are?exempt?from?disclosure?under?sections?6254,?subdivision?(l)?and?6255.
FN?13.?Our?conclusion?is?not?altered?by?the?Times’s?subsequent?willingness,?expressed?in?its?briefs?and?at?oral?argument,?to?exclude?from?disclosure?any?information?relating?to?future?events.?The?Times?apparently?believes?that?past?events?cannot?qualify?as?”predecisional”?and?therefore?do?not?merit?protection?under?exemption?5?of?the?FOIA.?(See?NLRB?v.?Sears,?Roebuck?&?Co.,?supra,?421?U.S.?at?pp.?151-152?[44?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?47-?48],?and?the?discussion,?ante,?at?page?1341.)?As?noted?earlier,?however,?the?question?under?section?6255?is?not?whether?a?document?qualifies?in?every?particular?for?protection?under?federal?law,?but?whether?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?in?disclosure.?Moreover,?the?risks?of?disclosure?outlined?above?apply?in?many?cases?regardless?of?whether?the?meetings?are?past?or?future.?Participants?may?be?chilled?and?discouraged?by?the?knowledge?that?a?meeting?will?routinely?be?disclosed,?and?executive?judgments?in?ongoing?policy?matters?may?be?prematurely?revealed.?Indeed,?the?Times’s?dogged?determination?to?obtain?even?past?schedules?and?calendars?of?the?Governor?is?telling?testimony?to?their?continued?vitality?and?relevance?to?the?decisionmaking?process.
FN?14.?In?his?dissenting?opinion,?Justice?Mosk?asserts?that?”secrecy?is?inconsistent?with?the?duty?of?officials?to?keep?the?public?informed?of?their?activities?…”?and?suggests?that?our?holding?represents?a?departure?from?both?democratic?principles?and?judicial?precedent.?On?the?contrary,?express?statutory?and?constitutional?provisions?recognize?the?need?for?confidentiality?in?governmental?deliberations.?Thus,?it?has?been?held?that?the?activities?of?judges?under?investigation?by?the?Commission?on?Judicial?Performance-activities?which?the?public?would?presumably?be?most?interested?in?learning-are?nevertheless?not?subject?to?disclosure?pursuant?to?the?provisions?of?article?VI,?section?18?of?the?California?Constitution?and?for?reasons?of?”sound?public?policy.”?(Mosk?v.?Superior?Court?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?474,?491,?499?[159?Cal.Rptr.?494,?601?P.2d?1030].)
FN?15.?Nor?are?we?persuaded?by?the?Times’s?contention?that?the?trial?court?abused?its?discretion?simply?by?failing?to?review?the?records?in?camera.?Section?6259,?subdivision?(a),?provides?that?the?trial?court?may?order?disclosure?where?it?appears?that?records?are?being?improperly?withheld,?and?states?that?”[t]he?court?shall?decide?the?case?after?examining?the?record?in?camera,?if?permitted?by?subdivision?(b)?of?Section?915?of?the?Evidence?Code,?papers?filed?by?the?parties?and?such?oral?argument?and?additional?evidence?as?the?court?may?allow.”?We?have?never?construed?this?section?to?compel?an?in?camera?review?where-as?here-such?review?is?unnecessary?to?the?court’s?decision,?and?we?decline?to?do?so?here.
FN?16.?Hamlet,?act?I,?scene?3.
FN?1.?It?bears?emphasis?that?a?governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?are?indeed?public?records.?The?government?has?conceded?as?much?in?this?case,?and?courts?have?so?held?in?regard?to?similar?documents?prepared?for?executive?branch?officials?(Washington?Post?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?State?(D.D.C.?1986)?632?F.Supp.?607?[records?of?schedule?of?Secretary?of?State?Alexander?Haig];?Bureau?of?Nat.?Affairs?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?Justice?(D.D.C.?1984)?742?F.2d?1484,?1495?[239?App.D.C.?331]?[daily?agendas?of?Assistant?Attorney?General?William?Baxter];?Kerr?v.?Koch?(N.Y.?1988)?15?Media?L.Rptr.?1579?[appointment?calendar?of?New?York?City?mayor]).
As?the?majority?points?out?(maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?1342,?fn.?12),?in?one?of?these?cases?the?court?remarked?that?its?decision?”does?not?limit?the?defendant’s?right?to?withhold?portions?of?the?documents?under?a?valid?claim?of?statutory?exemption?pursuant?to?the?Act.”?(Washington?Post?v.?U.S.?Dept.?of?State,?supra,?632?F.Supp.?607,?616,?italics?added.)?None?of?the?cases?in?any?way?suggests?that?calendars?and?schedules?might?be?entirely?exempt?from?disclosure.
FN?2.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Government?Code,?unless?otherwise?stated.
FN?3.?Section?6255?contains?a?residuary?or?”catchall”?exemption.?It?provides:?”The?agency?shall?justify?withholding?any?record?by?demonstrating?that?the?record?in?question?is?exempt?under?express?provisions?of?this?chapter?or?that?on?the?facts?of?the?particular?case?the?public?interest?served?by?not?making?the?record?public?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?served?by?disclosure?of?the?record.”?(Italics?added.)?Note?that?this?public?interest?exemption?applies?to?individual?records,?rather?than?to?entire?classes?of?records.
FN?4.?Exemption?5,?which?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?termed?a?”somewhat?Delphic?provision”?(United?States?Dept.?of?Justice?v.?Julian?(1988)?486?U.S.?1,?11?[100?L.Ed.2d?1,?13,?108?S.Ct.?1606]),?permits?an?agency?to?withhold?from?disclosure?”inter-agency?or?intra-agency?memorandums?or?letters?which?would?not?be?available?by?law?to?a?party?other?than?an?agency?in?litigation?with?the?agency.”?(5?U.S.C.???552(b)(5).)?It?was?intended?to?incorporate?the?substance?of?certain?privileges,?including?the?deliberative?process?privilege,?that?would?be?available?to?the?government?during?litigation?to?shield?internal?agency?documents.?(See?United?States?v.?Weber?Aircraft?Corp.?(1984)?465?U.S.?792?[79?L.Ed.2d?814,?104?S.Ct.?1488].)?The?high?court?has?cautioned,?however,?that?discovery?rules?should?be?applied?to?FOIA?cases?only?”by?way?of?rough?analogies.”?(EPA?v.?Mink?(1973)?410?U.S.?73,?86?[35?L.Ed.2d?119,?131,?93?S.Ct.?827].)
FN?5.?Moreover,?it?seems?unlikely?that?a?governor’s?meetings?would?involve?the?kind?of?factual?investigation?at?issue?in?Brockway,?supra,?518?F.2d?1184,?as?such?investigations?are?normally?conducted?at?lower?levels?of?the?executive?branch.?If?a?governor?did?meet?in?confidence?with?an?individual?to?acquire?information,?and?disclosure?of?the?meeting?could?jeopardize?a?governor’s?ability?to?acquire?similar?confidential?information?in?the?future,?a?claim?of?privilege?should?be?recognized.?(See?53?Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.,?supra,?136,?149?[“The?need?of?a?governmental?agency?to?preserve?its?informational?input?channels?has?been?recognized?by?the?courts?and?the?Legislature?in?this?State?as?vital?to?the?efficient?operation?of?government.”].)?But?such?instances?must?be?quite?rare,?and?the?government?bears?the?burden?of?identifying?them?to?the?extent?they?exist?within?the?requested?material,?as?discussed?below?in?part?III?of?this?dissent.
FN?6.?There?are?specific?exceptions?to?this?general?rule?of?disclosure.?For?example,?it?has?twice?been?held?that?the?identity?of?persons?who?rendered?advice?need?not?be?disclosed?when?the?content?of?their?advice?has?already?been?made?public?and?disclosure?could?discourage?candid?advice?in?the?future.?(Tax?Reform?Research?Group?v.?I.R.S.?(D.D.C.?1976)?419?F.Supp.?415,?423-424;?Wu?v.?Keeney?(D.D.C.?1974)?384?F.Supp.?1161,?1166.)?Here,?the?government?has?not?made?the?showing?required?to?establish?any?such?exception.
FN?7.?The?schedules?apparently?contain?detailed?information?about?airport?gate?departures?and?arrivals,?means?of?ground?transportation,?hotel?accommodations,?and?the?like.?This?level?of?detail?may?well?elevate?the?risk?above?that?which?high?government?officials?normally?must?accept,?but?the?briefs?of?the?requesting?party?reveal?that?it?does?not?now?seek?such?information?and?it?could?be?deleted?from?the?documents?before?disclosure.?The?essence?of?the?request?is?for?documents?revealing?the?identity?of?the?persons?with?whom?former?Governor?Deukmejian?met?and?the?dates?and?times?of?the?meetings.
FN?8.?The?clearest?and?most?emphatic?expression?of?this?right?appears?in?section?54950:?”The?people,?in?delegating?authority,?do?not?give?their?public?servants?the?right?to?decide?what?is?good?for?the?people?to?know?and?what?is?not?good?for?them?to?know.?The?people?insist?on?remaining?informed?so?that?they?may?retain?control?over?the?instruments?they?have?created.”
[End?of?Volume?53?Cal.3d]