*1 Dist., B104051.Second Div. Five. Dec. [No. 1996.] WILSON, Governor, etc., Petitioner, PETE COUNTY, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES Respondent; TIMES, LOS ANGELES Real Party Interest.
Counsel Shimomura, General, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney D. Assistant Attor- Floyd General, General, Prim, Linda A. Cabatic and Ted ney Attorneys Deputy Petitioner.
No for Respondent. appearance Hostetler,
Baker & Glen A. Smith and Dennis F. Hernandez for Real Party Interest.
Opinion to the California Public ARMSTRONG, J. made pursuant In (the Code, the Los (Gov. Act et Records seq.),1 §6250 documents, of, Times) copies disclosure other sought among to Governor Pete Wilson seeking appointment submitted by persons the retire created by on the Board of vacancy Orange County Supervisors his Wilson (through ment Gaddi When Governor Supervisor Vasquez. *4 Times access to the affairs declined to deputy legal documents, secretary) grant filed mandate respondent the Times for writ of petition In court. this the Governor court’s proceeding, challenges respondent judg ment the Times’s We hold the are granting exempt petition. applications from disclosure under the act’s interest” or “catchall” “public exemption 6255) (§ because are to the “deliberative they subject process privilege” (Times Mirror Co. (1991) v. Court 53 Cal.3d Superior Cal.Rptr. [283 893, 240]) 813 P.2d in nondisclosure and that the interest clearly interest disclosure. outweighs Background
Facts Procedural 1995, In the summer of Gaddi an- Orange County Supervisor Vasquez 29, 1995, nounced his retirement from the board of On supervisors. August Eric a staff writer for Bailey, the Sacramento bureau the Los Angeles Times, made a under the California Records Act for “access Public to documents which describe or contain the names and informa- background tion about the who have 3rd for soon-to-be-vacant persons applied District seat in An of letters ensued Supervisorial Orange County.” exchange counsel, Goller) between the Times its associate Karlene (through general and the Governor Bonner), his affairs Dale (through deputy legal secretary, whether these the act the Governor to disclose concerning compelled documents. 10, 1995,
On October the Governor Don Saltarelli to fill the appointed created the retirement of vacancy Supervisor Vasquez. 1, 1996,
On March Sal- five months after the Governor Mr. appointed tarelli, the court. Times filed a for writ of mandate in petition respondent
1All statutory further references Code unless otherwise indicated. are the Government The matter was heard brief May hearing 1996. was and the matter submitted was on the filed.2 papers
On
court
May
issued its
ruling granting
order,
as to the
forms
In its minute
the court stated: “The
application
only.
form
Office for
to the Governor’s
completed application
by persons applying
Further,
not
al
does
on the ‘deliberative
impinge
process.’
Office
are directed
the Governor’s
though
applications
Before
made,
‘communications
decision was to have been
do not amount to
they
the decision maker
to the decision’ as
in prior
provided
Mirror
Co.
893, 813 P.2d
The “Authorization and Release” to which the court referred paragraph “I understand that in connection with this provides: application appoint- ment an extensive and business investigation my personal background *5 will be conducted. I authorize the release of and all information hereby any to me or I businesses which information pertaining participated, including of a confidential or nature of or privileged government possession or individuals. I release all or private agencies such indi- hereby agencies viduals who furnish such information from for liability damages may result from furnishing information You are also notified requested. being that a consumer credit be and used in connection with report may requested this The source of the shall be a application appointment. major report TRW, Transunion, national credit such as or reporting agency, Equifax. made, In the event such a a of the should be request copy report provided the credit you by agency.” On July court entered a judgment granting peremptory writ. the court’s order is denominated a the order is Although “judgment,” not and is reviewable of a for writ of appealable only by way petition 6259, mandate. Government Code (c), subdivision that provides order “either disclosure official or directing supporting disclosure, decision of the official is not a final refusing judgment order Civil within of Section of the Code of Procedure meaning 904.1 form, application completed appli
2The Governor’s exhibits included a blank but not the cations themselves.
1141 taken, but shall be from which an be reviewable appeal may immediately court for the issuance of an writ.” extraordinary The petition appellate must be filed within 20 of service of notice of days entry 9, The court’s was served on the Governor on court’s order. judgment July 1996, 29, This filed therefore July timely. 1996. petition, review of court’s conducted an Having independent judgment 1336; Court, 53 Cal. 3d at Rogers Mirror Co. v. v. Superior p. 469, 412]), 475 (1993) we Cal.Rptr.2d Court 19 Superior Cal.App.4th [23 the Times’s “does not im- conclude the court’s determination ” substantial is not evi- supported by on the ‘deliberative process’ pinge dence. we Accordingly, grant petition.3
Discussion Act) after the (the is modeled The California Public Records Act a com Because the two have (FOIA). federal Freedom of Information Act to construe the mon federal decisions under the FOIA used purpose, Act. “The of the FOIA thus legislative judicial construction history ” (Times ‘serve to illuminate the of its California counterpart.’ interrelation Court, 1338.) Mirror Co. v. 3d at 53 Cal. Superior p.
The Act was enacted in “for the of explicit purpose 1968 ‘increasing freedom of information’ ‘access to information in by giving ” 646, (CBS, (1986) of Inc. v. Block Cal.3d possession public agencies.’ 470].) 725 P.2d The Act was intended to Cal.Rptr. safeguard [230 it and makes access to accountability government public, records a fundamental governmental (Rogers right citizenship. declared in supra, 19 Cal.App.4th Legislature enacting the measure that “access to information the conduct of the concerning business people’s is a fundamental and necessary right every person *6 6250.) (§ this state.” The Act provides “every right that has a to person record, Thus, 6253) as hereafter inspect any public (§ except provided.” records must be disclosed unless within or more of the public come one they 6254) of documents from In addi categories (§ disclosure. exempt tion, 6255, referred to in Times Mirror as the interest” or “public (53 1337-1338), “catchall” a means exemption pp. provides by which an withhold a which would not be agency may record public exempt 6254, delineated under in section if the any specific exemptions makes a agency that “on the facts of the case showing particular interest served not the record by making clearly outweighs interest served disclosure of the record.” by 3Having privi protected by process determined the deliberative that the are
lege, points judgment. we need not address the other court’s
1142
Section 6255
from
exempts
disclosure documents which are pro
by
(Times
tected
deliberative
Mirror
process privilege.
Co. v. Superior
Court,
1325.)
53
The
supra,
(known
Cal. 3d
deliberative
as
process privilege
law)
“executive
under federal
privilege”
materials
protects
delib
reflecting
(EPA
(1973)
erative
v.
decisionmaking processes.
Mink
would to expose such a agency’s decisionmaking process way candid discussion within the and undermine discourage agency thereby ” its (Times to functions.’ Mirror Co. v. agency’s ability perform 53 supra, Dept. Cal.3d Communications v. Dudman citing 1987) 1565, (D.C. 364].) Air Force 815 Cir. F.2d 1568 App.D.C. [259 the deliberative to materials Although is process privilege designed protect factual, deliberative or and reflecting not policymaking processes, “purely Mink, (EPA matters” 410 at investigative supra, U.S. L.Ed.2d p. [35 133]), the been has held to privilege factual information which protect “compromises deliberative process,” docu including “predecisional” ments, is, that documents which are assist an to decision- prepared agency maker a decision. “To making prevent to of executive injury quality decisions, the courts been have to particularly vigilant protect communica tions to the decisionmaker before the decision made. is ‘Accordingly, . . . courts have drawn a distinction uniformly predecisional between com munications, [citations]; which are and communications made privileged it, after the decision are designed which not.’ ...” explain Co., 1341, omitted.) Mirror át p. Cal.3d citation “As Cox Professor in his seminal article on executive privilege explained, has protecting predecisional gives deliberative the chief executive ‘the process freedom loud,” “think out which enables him to test ideas and debate policy uninhibited his personalities tentative but danger rejected will become thoughts discussion. subjects Usually, information decisions; sought respect the need even if the past stronger ” Cox, demand comes while is still (Ibid., policy being developed.’ citing (1974) Executive 122 U. Privilege Pa. L.Rev. Co.,
In TimesMirror held that the Supreme Court contents of document, factual, even if though from disclosure purely exempt . . . related to the they “actually policies are formu- *7 lated” or (Times intertwined” with “inextricably processes. policymaking Co. 1342.) Mirror v. Superior 53 Cal.3d that p. Applying rule, the court held that the deliberative the process privilege protected Governor’s schedules and of appointment “Disclosing identity calendars: with whom the Governor has is the persons met and consulted functional of or direction of the revealing substance Governor’s equivalent judg- ment and mental such information would indicate which processes; interests deemed to be of critical individuals he issues significance respect intrusion of the moment. The into the deliberative patent.” Co., Mirror
The in issue here at least present an applications compelling for of the as did the and schedules argument application privilege appoint ment calendars at issue in Times Mirror. The applications predecisional documents sole is to purpose whose aid Governor selecting guberna torial a process which appointees, depends upon comparison qualifi confidential, cations of the candidates as shown in and candid discussion of the candidates’ professional political competence, views and conduct. private form itself solicits and em- application highly occasionally personal information be-
barrassing regarding applicant’s background, political liefs and associations. This includes medical informa- and financial history tion An otherwise the constitutional of protected by right applicant privacy. answers with the will that his or her remain candidly expectation responses confidential.
In of the Governor’s support petition, Times’s opposition Justus, Governor’s Julia stated both the candi- appointments secretary, that dates who and those provide information about them are assured that any information will be to the Governor and his senior provided only divulged staff. This that assures will and enhances the applicants forthcoming Governor’s ability attract the most and to make qualified applicants educated and informed choices in his that selecting Were not the appointees. case, dwindle, pool qualified would applicants quickly remaining not would or truthful and applicants provide candid responses, would not be assured it is servants to which entitled. qualified public Moreover, the threat of would encourage disclosure and only secrecy of “back room” which the type Act was decisionmaking designed eliminate.
The Times that visible office should argues applicants highly expect their will be to close qualifications background subjected difference, We do not There is a considerable public scrutiny. disagree. however, between such to the Gover- applicant’s disclosing information nor for of a such purposes possible having political appointment, information disseminated in the press.
The Times also that the to information argues access importance and that the of an regarding high government posts manifest *8 (one five) to of a of the board of only supervisors county individual from is of utmost interest. we do not public Again, emerging bankruptcy in however is whether the interest disclosure disagree. question, public interest in of these nondisclosure. applications clearly outweighs public this issue we take the approved by In resolving pragmatic approach Court in Times Mirror: “The deliberative process privilege Supreme in the unromantic of it rests on the reality understanding grounded politics; Governor were entitled to that if the and the same public precisely affair; information, receive Politics is an neither would it. ecumenical likely conceivable interest: and it embraces persons groups every and Democratic and every and unpopular; Republican par- private; popular between; left, every in and center. To disclose right private tisan stripe decisionmaking of the Governor and expect association meeting is to nature and contrary to function human effectively, deny (Times common sense and Mirror v. experience. [Citation.]” 1345.) it enacted 53 Cal.3d at As the when p. Legislature recognized 6255, and the Court when it decided Times Supreme recognized Mirror, which, clear mandate for there are instances Act’s despite disclosure, documents must be to a test to determine subjected balancing whether the interest served not the document clearly by making Mirror, interest served it. outweighs by disclosing 53 Cal.3d at conducted the test balancing Having compelled Mirror, we conclude the should not be made question public.
Disposition Let a writ issue court to vacate its directing peremptory entered and enter a new and different order judgment July denying of the Los Times for a writ of mandate. Each party bear its own costs of this proceeding. Perez, J., concurred.
Godoy TURNER, J.,P. Concurring Dissenting.—
I. Introduction I dissent from that colleagues’ opinion respectfully part my Government Code section 62551 resolves weighing process required by without at issue. My colleagues camera review the applications withholding any agency justify 1Government Code section 6255 states: “The shall record by demonstrating question exempt provisions the record in of this express under
1145 have in review the court’s independent correctly engaged respondent 1325, (1991) v. 53 1336 Superior decision. Mirror Co. Court Cal.3d CBS, 893, 240]; 646, (1986) 813 Inc. v. Block 42 Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. P.2d [283 362, 470].) 725 P.2d I with that agree colleagues 650-651 Cal.Rptr. my [230 the documents which the Governor reviewed are to the deliberative subject Sears, 132, (NLRB (1975) Co. 421 v. Roebuck & U.S. 150 process privilege. 29, 47, 1504]; Co. L.Ed.2d 95 S.Ct. Times Mirror v. [44 1339-1343.) I In this regard, disagree 53 pp. respectfully However, with conclusion of the court. once that legal respondent legal the made, the is remaining conclusion to determine step pursuant 6255 the interest served outweighs whether nondisclosure public by clearly the civic for the documents reviewed by legitimate justification disclosing 1344-1346.) the (53 the Governor Cal.3d prior making appointment. pp. court, the Neither the nor I have reviewed respondent my colleagues, Hence, documents read the Governor before the by he made appointments. unlike I cannot conclude the in nondis my colleagues, interest public Therefore, closure the for I would: re outweighs justification disclosure. verse the and remand to allow to read the judgment respondent the court 6259, (a2 documents camera as rev by section subdivision permitted iewed the Governor to the by prior permit the appointment;3 respondent and, court to make factual and if appropriate legal findings; parties the dissatisfied, can they seek immediate review ato appellate pursuant petition Further, for writ of mandate. the during in camera review of documents the the reviewed by Governor the the court can prior appointment, respondent determine whether there is data which any constitute an unwarranted might invasion of of an or more a privacy likely member applicant family protect- Const., able either I, under the state (Cal. Constitution or section 6254. art. 1; 30, Heller Norcal (1994) Mutual Ins. Co. 8 Cal.4th 42-44 § [32 200, 999]; 876 P.2d Hill Cal.Rptr.2d Collegiate v. National Assn. Athletic 1, (1994) 834, Cal.4th 633].) 7 37 P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d [26 chapter on or that the facts of particular public making the case the interest served the by not clearly outweighs by record the interest disclosure of served the record.” Unless noted, otherwise all statutory future references are to the Government Code. 6259, (a), documents, permits 2Section subdivision camera review of states: appear by petition superior county “Whenever it made to verified court of the where some part being records or situated improperly thereof are that certain records are withheld from a public, person charged member of the the court the officer shall order withholding the records to why disclose record or show cause he or she should not camera, permitted do so. The shall examining by court decide the case after record in if (b) Code, subdivision of Section by parties any 915 of the Evidence filed papers oral argument and additional the court evidence as allow.” 3On held May hearing was before court on respondent the mandate Angeles compel upon by filed the Los Times to disclosure of documents relied 23, filling vacancy Orange Supervisors. May Governor County on Board of At the hearing, suggested possible Los in camera review to the upon making appointment. court of the documents relied Governor Wilson in
II. Deliberative Process Issue The crucial authority the “deliberative concerning factor to process” *10 in weighed whether to order determining disclosure of the Governor’s records is that articulated the by California Court’s decision in Supreme Court, Times Mirror Co. v. Superior supra, 53 Cal.3d at pages 1339-1343. it is Although difficult to synthesize important jurisprudence, the fol are lowing the salient articulated our points by Supreme Court: There is a “ ” ‘deliberative process’ privilege; privilege may, on the depending circumstances, extend to documents read a Governor to by a prior making decision; there is a interest as to documents greater secrecy involving decisions that are to be made yet than in to determinations regard past by “ ” factual, documents governor; matters’ are reflecting ‘purely investigative treated from differently deliberative or papers reflecting policy making processes; extend yet, privilege factual matters which purely reflect the (Ibid.) policy The test making process. articulated key Court in Supreme Times Mirror Co. was as follows: “The key question case is every ‘whether the disclosure of materials would expose agency’s in such a decisionmaking process candid discussion way discourage within the undermine agency thereby agency’s ability its perform functions.’ factual, Even if the content of a document is [Citation.] it purely is nonetheless from exempt if it is public scrutiny . . . related to ‘actually which process by are policies formulated’ or ‘inextricably [citation] intertwined’ with ‘policy-making (Id. 1342.) at processes.’ p. [Citations.].”
The in Times Mirror holding Co. is conclusive in terms of whether the documents relied Governor upon Wilson in making appointment subject Co., deliberative process this case. In Times privilege Mirror the issue was whether disclosure could be of then Governor compelled George Deukmejian’s “daily, weekly monthly calendars and schedules” between 1983 and January 1988. August Mirror Co. v. Superior 1329.) After p. federal analyzing held, decisional authority, Supreme Court “The here is evident. parallel Disclosing identity with whom the persons Governor has met and consulted is the functional equivalent the substance or direction revealing of the Governor’s and mental judgment such information would processes; indicate which interests or individuals he deemed to be of significance with to critical issues of the respect moment. The intrusion into the deliberative (Id. at patent.” The p. same true this case. By revealing the contents of the of the successful if he applicant, one, filed and those who were rejected, the documents used very by the Governor to make the decisions would be revealed. The Times Mirror Co. “ test extends to documents ‘related to the process by policy policies “ ” which are intertwined’ with the ‘inextricably are formulated’ ‘policy- ” (Id. 1342.) The documents at fall issue certainly making processes.’ within that test.
Of for which the documents are purpose additional consequence, very is to on the had its sought decisionmaking process. report genesis in the Governor Pete Wilson of former Tustin appointment by City Don Council Member Saltarelli to the Board of Orange Supervisors. County Prior to the edition of the Los appointment, Orange County on Times carried a how to to Governor for the story Wilson apply vacancy on the Board Orange County On October Supervisors. *11 of
Orange edition the Los Times an County Angeles carried article which described the Saltarelli to the appointment Supervisor Orange County Board of The article related the views of who Supervisors. those supported and The article also opposed appointment. adverted to Sal Supervisor tarelli’s with the past Irvine The article stated: “Sal relationship Company. tarelli, who served on the Tustin council years from 1972 to has worked in real estate since half a 1972 and for dozen as a stockbroker. years He has also run a part-time business since and 1988-89 is now a consulting resident of In he Orange. recent has land-use years, worked on permit ¶ Co., issues in Tustin for Irvine headed development giant by Wilson benefactor and Beach Newport billionaire Donald Bren. Saltarelli’s stint as a secret, consultant for firm has been no and on Wednesday some sparked hard feelings residents among who believe the Irvine holds too Co. much in local state sway and ‘This is government. a mistake Gov. major Ffl] Wilson,’ said Patrick local issues Quaney, coordinator of the Orange County We Chapter United Stand America. ‘This is an Irvine Co.-initiated appointment, It is an to my opinion. maintain the status attempt quo.’ [*J0 . . . Others suggested that Saltarelli any [H boost from the Irvine Co. got shouldn’t overshadow his T attributes. think a having relationship [U hurt,’ the Irvine Co. doesn’t certainly said Doy Henley, president Lincoln Club of Orange an influential County, organization Republican whose members are generally political contributors. ‘But I think he wealthy will serve all of the He’ll do a Co. people. good job.’ Irvine officials and [f] a for spokesman governor role the have downplayed any company might Thomas, had. an Irvine Larry Co. said the staff asked spokesman, governor’s finalists, the firm for a reaction on half a dozen different ‘We told them [f] that all of the one’s with whom we were familiar have been would sound Thomas appointments,’ said. ‘We didn’t advocate a candidate nor did single we [^Q candidate.’ ‘A oppose any number of business potential political consulted,’ Kranhold, leaders in the were added community Paul Wilson’s ‘Mr. Saltarelli spokesman. wasn’t the choice of one He any organization. was the choice governor’s because Pete Wilson felt he was best for prepared ” Lait, that lies ahead.’ & Ex-Tustin tough job (Bailey Join O. Official Board, 12, 1995) Al.) article, (Oct. L.A. Times C. The remainder of the
which was favorable of the focused largely upon: Supervisor business; Saltarelli’s extensive service and his background willing- ness to serve out an term and not to seek election because of his unexpired sense of and reactions other members of the public duty; community 12, 1995, Before the October article was appointment.4 foregoing pub- lished, and counsel for the Los journalist Angeles certain requested documents from the After Governor. on correspondence, exchange March the Los Times filed a mandate petition compel with the California Public Records 6250 et (§Act. compliance seq.) filed in of the mandate illustrate papers support why precisely the documents are to the deliberative In its subject process privilege. points forms, and authorities in of its for the support completed application counsel wrote: “The should be entrusted with newspaper information to allow them to enough evaluate the intelligently (Italics added.) resulted in his selection.” At another place points authorities, wrote, counsel “The Times is newspaper’s requesting added.) basic (Italics data that went into the decision-making process.” *12 Another stated of disclosure in the same and authorities purpose was points that because of the of such an the fact importance given appointment Orange inwas the selection was a decision of County bankruptcy, utmost “key cause, interest to the” electorate. In the return to our order to public show counsel for the Los that disclosure was necessitated Angeles argued because of the Governor’s “unbridled discretion” in appointing Supervisor and, CBS, Block, Saltarelli in 42 Inc. v. Cal.3d at citing opinion supra, 655, noted “the involved in the page degree subjectivity exercising discretion cries out for at oral counsel for public scrutiny.” Finally, argument the Los Times admitted with admirable candor that release of the Angeles forms would shed on the led to completed application process which light the He “Our isn’t based on the appointment. argued: solely request expecta- tion that there have been influence the Irvine I think that Company. the and the ... are curious to know the reporters qualifications those who were considered ... in the The order evaluate people process.” entire reason the considered Governor Wilson in competed applications Thomas, 4Also before respondent by Larry press court was a letter written a former secretary Deukmejian, for Governor vice-president who was senior for communications and public affairs of Company, reporter the Irvine directed to a at the Los Times. Mr. Thomas’s letter misleading indicated the article was it inferred that the Irvine any Company played significant Supervisor role in the selection of Saltarelli. There no any Company evidence that Irvine employees anything did else other than set forth body opinion engaged Similarly, or any there is no unlawful unethical actions. any evidence of unethical or illegal conduct by the Governor or his staff. are is to shed on the deliberative sought light making appointment being Mirror Co. v. and such records privileged. Superior Court, 1342.) In this I agree 53 Cal.3d at with respect, my Hence, court. it is necessary colleagues disagree served in not the documents relied interest weigh making upon by Governor Wilson with the civic would result from importance 1344-1346; (Id. disclosure. at pp. § Weighing
III. Process relies on Times Mirror Co. v. The Governor conclusion section 6255 1344-1346 to that the support Cal.3d pages should result in continued nondisclosure of the documents weighing process Co., him in In Times Mirror making relied upon by appointment. Court determined that nondisclosure of Governor Deukmejian’s Supreme out- calendars and schedules” “daily, weekly monthly appointment (53 interest in 1344- weighed disclosure. pp. 1346.) The determination not to disclosure without an in order judicial camera involved over five and one-half of calendars and inspection years schedules. The case is from Times Mirror present materially distinguishable Co. The case narrow for disclosure of involves a certain present request relied documents Governor Wilson to a upon by relating single appointment. Co., Unlike the worth at issue in Times Mirror years’ papers present documents, case involves a constricted for one set of decision, relied Governor Wilson in a rare upon by making gubernatorial to one seat on the board of in a supervisors single county. *13 However, facts, even Times Mirror on though Co. its distinguishable that does not answer the of whether after the question weighing process mandated section 6255 is the decision is by completed, appropriate judicial to order I disclosure. am unable to determine whether the judiciously will reveal furthers inter- the completed questionnaires anything est because I have not seen the I the documents. am left whether speculate interest in nondisclosure is those served clearly outweighed by by disclosure. Because the court concluded the deliberative respondent process did not it never in the or con- privilege apply, engaged weighing process ducted I would remand for the court to examine any fact-finding. respondent the forms in camera and in the completed weighing application engage 23, counsel for the Los Times at the suggested by Angeles May 1996, hearing.
There are sufficient for the Los considerations identified counsel by Times the which would the to conclude that Angeles permit court respondent 1150
interest in
does not
nondisclosure
the
clearly outweigh
justification
Among
disclosure.
the
which
in
of
considerations
militate
favor
disclosure
who
are: the Governor
a
had a business
appointed person
relationship
the
political
would
scru-
supporter;
appointee
normally
subject
most
he
because under
circumstances would have
tiny
subjected
been
elective rather than the
the
which involved the
appointive process;
process,
selection of a
for an
was
in
person
important position,
largely accomplished
a confidential
and the
setting;
occurred at a
in
appointment
unique point
in the
the
Orange County history,
midst of
in
largest municipal bankruptcy
American
Also
of
favor
disclosure is
mandate of
history.
weighing
section 6250 which states: “In
this
mindful
Legislature,
enacting
chapter,
of
finds
individuals
and declares that access to
right
privacy,
information
conduct of
business is a fundamen-
concerning
people’s
Moreover,
tal and
of
in this
the interests
right
state.”
necessary
every person
in favor of disclosure
well be
as to
Saltarelli’s
may very
stronger
Supervisor
one,
if
filed
to other
he
than as
considered
application,
by
persons
notes,
Governor.
Los
As the
other
correctly
jurisdictions
have ordered disclosure of
similar to those relied
applications
upon by
Governor Wilson
in the
case.
State
making
present
(E.g.,
187,
ex
(1996)
rel. Plain Dealer v. Cleveland
650-651), judiciously engage weighing process mandated 6255.
IV. Conclusion *14 I would remand court to section 6255 engage weighing process.
On modified to January opinion printed was read above. of real interest for review Court was petition party Supreme Mosk, Kennard, J., J., denied March 1997. were of opinion should granted.