Every so often, the California Legislature decides to “clean up” this or that series of laws, – sort of like that Saturday project where you dump out the “junk drawer” in your kitchen and organize it. And by the next Saturday, of course, it’s all back to where it was before.
A lot of the problem is that the Legislature treats statutes the way the rest of us do that first potato chip or piece of candy – once it starts, it just can’t help itself. The two sets of statutes I work with the most, for example, are the Ralph Brown Act, governing public meetings in California, and the Public Records Act, requiring state and local entities to make public records, well . . . public.
The Brown Act’s basic principle is that public bodies are only allowed to meet and make decisions in a public setting. When it was originally adopted in 1953 it had 668 words. Today, by a rough count, it has more than 25,000.
Some of those refinements may have been necessary, for clarity. On the other hand, one finds many passages in the Brown Act like this: “For purposes of this subdivision, a health authority means any entity created pursuant to Sections 14018.7, 14087.31, 14087.35, 14087.36, 14087.38, and 14087.9605 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, any joint powers authority created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 for the purpose of contracting pursuant to Section 14087.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and any advisory committee to a county-sponsored health plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1340) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code if the advisory committee has 12 or more members.”
Oh yes, of course. That’s much clearer.
The Public Records Act is a California version of the federal Freedom of Information Act. Originally adopted in 1968, it’s intended to ensure that members of the public can inspect and get copies of “public records,” a term broadly defined in that statute. I’ll leave for another day some of the problems that this can cause public entities, especially small ones with tiny staffs.
Instead, I’ll note that the Public Records Act used to be found beginning at Government Code section 6250. Its main provisions all had four digits – 6250, 6252, 6253, etc. New provisions were often added by making existing statutes longer – that is, by adding new subdivisions.
The list of records that were exempt from disclosure, for example, were in section 6254. And every new year, one of my guilty pleasures was checking what new subdivisions had been added to section 6254 to satisfy this or that narrow interest group.
Thus, when the California Supreme Court decided cities and counties had to release names of the folks holding concealed firearm permits, the Legislature quickly stepped in to plug that “loophole.” Section 6254 eventually got so long that the Legislature ran out of letters; after subdivision (z), it had to start over with (aa), (bb), etc.
I’d worked with this law for so long that I came to know most of its main provisions from memory, especially the subdivisions of section 6254. But sadly, all of this ended in 2023. Because the Legislature decided to “recodify” the Public Records Act, “cleaning up” all the miscellaneous statutes that, it decided, had been added haphazardly over the years. To clean out that “junk drawer,” metaphorically.
In doing this, the Legislature exercised its most important principle: the One Rule it follows above all else. And that Rule is: if you can add more digits to a statute, by all means do so.
Thus, the former, easily-remembered four-digit statutes were replaced by a new, almost incomprehensible seven-digit system – or, rather, a “4-digit (dot) 3-digit” system. Thus, section 6250 became section 7921.000.
All the newly-renumbered laws begin with a “79,” but that’s about the only consistent thing. Some of the new statutes begin with “7920,” some with “7921,” and many with “7922” and “7923.” But there are also random statutes beginning with “7926” and “7927.” Some old statutes, or subdivisions of section 6254, were split between two or more new statutes. The seven subdivisions of former section 6252 now straddle seven separate laws. It was all done without much rhyme or reason, and seems to have depended on the mood of the sadist who designed this Jenga-tower of a “reform.”
Thankfully, the Legislature did publish a “derivation table” and a “disposition table,” cross-indexing the two versions. I literally keep them by my desk now. It’s the most well-thumbed item in my library.
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
Hence then, the article about judicial follies one rule above all was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: One rule above all )
Also on site :