Do taxpayers fund the legitimate defense of California legislators?

Legislative leaders in California do not believe that the public should know whether federal agents are investigating state -owned public corruption legislators, nor do they believe that taxpayers should know how much of their money the legislature spends on criminal defense lawyers.

After recent reports that Southern California Senator Susan Rubio has been questioned in Federal public investigation into corruptionCalmatters submitted requests to the State Assembly and the Senate, which request copies of federal summonses for law enforcement and search orders, dating to 2020.

Calmatters is also sought under the California Legislative Law on Open Records or Other Records, showing how much money has spent 2020 laws on legal bills related to federal criminal investigations.

Identical letters from the Committees for Rules for Assembly and the Senate cited four reasons for refusing requests for records, including “the public interest served, not making a public file, apparently exceeds the public interest served by the recording.”

The offices of Assembly President Robert Rivas and Senate President Mike McGuire did not respond to requests for a CalMatters interview.

But secrecy alarms the defenders of the Open Government.

“The public has absolutely the right to know if … one of their representatives or civil servants is under criminal investigation,” said Sean McMoris of the California General Cause, a non -party, non -party organization that is advocating for the transparency and accountability of the government.

David Loy, the legal director of the first amendment coalition, another government group for intercession for transparency, said the quote for the announcement did not serve the public interest “is the last Scoundrel refuge and calls every time someone wants to refuse something uncomfortable.”

The Law on Legislative RecordsFor the first time signed in 1975, it gave lawmakers and their employees more discretion to withdraw records than most other public agencies under the similar Public Record Law in California.

But Loy said that even if they had a legitimate right to hold records, public agencies usually have a wide judgment to release them. In other words, they could release these records in the interest of transparency if they wanted.

“Even if (a secret) can be resolved in accordance with the legal letter in some circumstances, this is not a position that I think serves the public well,” he said. “We have to make mistakes on the part of disclosure. Society has the right to know. “

In addition to citing public interest, Senate and Assembly letters cite three other reasons for refusing records. It states that the legislative law of open records allows the documents to be “released from compulsory disclosure” if the records:

• “Are in custody of the legislative lawyer.”
• Are prohibited or not required for release under a state or federal law.
• Include problems with the privilege of a client.

“Records responsive to your request, as far as existence, fall within the exceptions above and will not be produced,” the letters said.

Rubio’s service did not answer questions on Tuesday whether she or her office received any orders for search or summons, who is her lawyer and whether the taxpayers’ funds were spent on her legal protection.

Federal employees have not identified Rubio by name in the corruption probe that has embedded a handful to other officials in San Bernardino County, Compton, Trade and Park BaldwinS

However, no one else matches the description of “man 20” who was accused of Recently released Federal Court Documents To ask for $ 240,000 bribes from a cannabis company and to accept $ 30,000 illegal campaign contributions.

The allegations stem from when Rubio was a member of the Baldwin Park Municipal Council.

Rubio categorically denied accepting bribes in an interview with Calmatters reporting partner, CBS News that aired in JanuaryS But when she asked him if she denied that she was “man 20”, she replied, “I’m not saying that.”

“I just say you read the report,” she continued. “And whatever happens there, it happens there, but I think (investigators) will have to contact me to be part of something.”

Rubio’s office before In front of the Los Angeles Times In a statement that she “voluntarily participated in her hours”, assisting the authorities in their investigation and that “there is no reason to believe that it will be included in any criminal charges.”

Legislative Republicans called for an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, but the Committee declined to say that the long -standing Senate rules were prohibiting investigation into allegations that were more than three years old.

“Since alleged activities occurred many years ago, the Committee has no jurisdiction to review this issue,” Commission chief adviser Erin V. told Calmatters last month.

Republican leader of the Assembly James Gallagher, a lawyer who represents the Chico area, said that everyone, including legislators, has the right to be considered innocent in criminal investigations.

But taxpayers also have the right to know, he said: “What kind of taxpayer money has been spent on protecting people in federal investigations.”