CA’s fight over remote public meetings

Among the many changes caused by the COVID pandemic, remote work has continued — and that applies to public meetings as well.

California officials are still trying to find the right balance: While the Legislature and local elected boards are back to meeting in-person, state lawmakers agreed last year to allow state advisory boards to keep the flexible COVID meeting rules.

But legislators have rejected the same exemption for local government advisory boards, CalMatters Capitol reporter Sameea Kamal explains. Last week, the Senate committee on local government failed to advance a proposal to allow these local groups to meet with only one staffer at a physical meeting location. Board members would not have to be there, though they’d have to be on camera.

Press and open government advocates say that the bill’s failure is a victory for democracy, and it ensures a longstanding law that guarantees Californians the right to participate in meetings with local agencies and officials. 

But the bill’s proponents argue that requiring in-person meetings reduces representation and participation on these advisory boards.

Janie Whiteford, president of the California IHSS Consumer Alliance and member of a Santa Clara advisory committee on in-home supportive services: “California is a huge state, and most counties have a large geographic area, and members find it very difficult, if not impossible, to attend meetings.”

Learn more about the remote meetings debate in Sameea’s story.

Speaking of public information: CalMatters’ Alexei Koseff reports that weeks after proponents shelved a bill to fund journalism jobs through a fee on major tech companies, another similar proposal is being revived in the Legislature.

Assembly Bill 886 passed the Assembly overwhelmingly last year before Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, the Oakland Democrat carrying the measure, hit pause to address a split in the media industry over how the money would be distributed. With Wicks rolling out a set of amendments Monday, the Senate recently set the bill for a hearing on June 25.

In the latest version, large online platforms that scrape or link to news stories — namely Google and Meta — would be required to pay an annual fee or enter arbitration with the media outlets that produce those articles. The fee amount is still to be determined, but it would be apportioned to newsrooms based on their size rather than web traffic, a prior proposal that raised concerns about encouraging clickbait. Media companies would be required to spend their funding primarily on journalists who serve California audiences.

Wicks, in a statement: “These amendments to the California Journalism Preservation Act help ensure journalism providers both large and small benefit from its provisions and provide a more straightforward framework. While the bill remains a work in progress, I am hopeful stakeholders will see this as a step in the right direction.”

Intense opposition from the tech and business communities, which sank Sen. Steve Glazer’s journalism fee measure last month, is likely to continue. This spring, Google temporarily removed links to California news websites from its search results in protest and warned that it might stop funding nonprofit newsrooms nationwide.

But AB 886 may face better odds in the Legislature because it needs only a majority vote to advance, not the two-thirds support required of Glazer’s journalism fee bill.

A federal appeals court upheld a California law Monday requiring companies such as Uber to provide employment rights to its drivers. But how this ruling will impact the state’s 1.4 million workers who do app-based driving and delivery work depends on another case before the state Supreme Court, writes CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay.

In 2019, California passed a law requiring ride-hailing and delivery companies to treat workers as employees rather than independent contractors. But because the law, known as AB 5, didn’t apply to all gig companies, Uber sued the state, arguing that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause in both the California and U.S. constitutions.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, contending that the Legislature has “plausible reasons” for regulating Uber differently because it determined that Uber was among the biggest offenders of misclassifying workers.

Lorena Gonzalez, chief officer of the California Labor Federation and former Assemblymember who authored the measure, in a statement: “This is a victory for all workers in the state, but especially the chronically misclassified workers in rideshare and delivery jobs.”

Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court is considering a case challenging Proposition 22, an industry-backed ballot measure that voters approved in 2020. Prop. 22 exempted Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and others from AB 5, allowing them to classify workers as independent contractors.

If Prop. 22 is upheld, Uber and the other companies could still be found liable for potential violations of worker classification laws before Prop. 22 took effect. If Prop. 22 is thrown out, Monday’s ruling could mean these companies will not be able to exempt themselves from providing basic employment protections.

Read more about both gig worker cases in Levi’s story.

A bill to regulate law enforcement’s use of facial recognition technology is getting pushback from civil rights advocates who argue that the proposal does not go far enough to protect marginalized communities from police overreach, explains CalMatters tech reporter Khari Johnson.

Today, the Senate Public Safety Committee is expected to consider AB 1814, which would prohibit police from using facial recognition technology as the “sole basis” for making an arrest, conducting a search, or seeking a warrant. Instead, officers must have corroborating evidence in addition to the facial recognition match.

The author of the bill, Democratic Assemblymember Phil Ting of San Francisco, also authored a 2019 law banning police from using facial recognition software in body cameras, but it sunsetted in January 2023. Ting argues his bill is a “precautionary step” to protect people’s privacy and due process rights.

But critics of the bill, who include reproductive rights, privacy and racial justice advocates, say Ting’s proposal is “a woefully inadequate band-aid” that could potentially expand police use of facial recognition tools. 

Three Black men who have pending wrongful arrest lawsuits are also speaking out against the bill. In 2020, Detroit police officers arrested Robert Williams for stealing watches after facial recognition software matched a surveillance video to a photo of Williams in a state database. Williams is urging legislators not to “settle for half measures that won’t actually protect people like me.”

Williams: “Once the facial recognition software told them I was the suspect, it poisoned the investigation. This technology is racially biased and unreliable and should be prohibited.”

Learn more about the facial recognition bill in Khari’s story.

California’s transition to electric vehicles can’t succeed unless there are enough chargers all over the state. CalMatters climate reporter Alejandro Lazo and producer Robert Meeks have a video segment on Alejandro’s story on the county that is the worst EV “charging desert” as part of our partnership with PBS SoCal. Watch it here. 

SoCalMatters airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal and is available on YouTube. Read more about this venture from our engagement team.