Miss. ranks last for online access

Complaints against attorneys start at the Mississippi Bar Association, which has not computer database of disciplinary action, The Clarion-Ledger reported. Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the bar, said such a listing may be considered when the site is updated. Such are the problems facing Mississippi's online access to public records.

Can you go onto the Internet and see if any serious disciplinary actions have been taken against your doctor or lawyer? In Mississippi, the answer is yes - sort of.

For physicians, decisions can be found on the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure's Web site by sifting through reports of board's monthly disciplinary actions.

For lawyers, any public disciplinary decisions would be available in scant detail from the online docket of the Mississippi Supreme Court, unless the action arrived at the court on appeal. In those cases, the court's official opinion would be on its Web site.

More here.

That was quick: police disciplinary records remain a secret in Cali

Despite lobbying efforts by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, an Assembly committee Tuesday killed a bill that would have cleared the way for the Los Angeles Police Department to make officers' disciplinary hearings and records open to the public.

The bill faced stiff opposition from many of the state's powerful police unions, which argued that the measure would compromise officer safety. LAPD Chief William J. Bratton, normally a Villaraigosa ally, pointedly chose not to take a position on the bill and Tuesday expressed concerns about it.

Three Democrats on the seven-member Public Safety Committee refused to cast a vote. Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) voted for the measure, and Assemblymen Greg Aghazarian (R-Stockton), Joel Anderson (R-San Diego) and Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) opposed it.

The bill's author, state Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), lashed out against the members who abstained. They were Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana), the committee's chairman, and Assemblymen Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) and Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge).

"I was really taken aback by the [bill's] death by silence," Romero said. "The fear, you could feel it -- the fear of what will happen if you look out for the public's interests when they may differ from the interests of the law enforcement lobby."...

The legislation, SB 1019, would have allowed, but not required, the LAPD to return to its long-standing policy of releasing officer's disciplinary records and allowing the news media and other members of the public to attend disciplinary hearings. Acting on the advice of City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, the department sharply curtailed its disclosure policy in 2006 in light of a state Supreme Court decision.

More here.

Some Good News (At Last!)

After a morning of new exemptions, some good news from Arizona:

The state Senate gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill that would make public the disciplinary records of state employees.

On a voice vote, the Senate approved House Bill 2159 and amended it to say that employee phone numbers and addresses would remain private.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Jonathan Paton, a Tucson Republican, was introduced as part of a series of reforms to Child Protective Services following the deaths of two Tucson children, and the presumed death of a third local child, who were being monitored by the state agency.

More here.

Access to Police Disciplinary Hearings Subject of Cali Bill

A state senator hopes to revive a controversial bill that would increase media access to disciplinary hearings and records involving Los Angeles Police Department officers.

The legislation, according to Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), was encouraged by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and has already generated sharp criticism from the union that represents LAPD officers.

Last year, Romero sponsored similar, yet more far-reaching, legislation that sought to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that effectively barred law enforcement agencies from releasing personnel information.

The legislation passed the Senate, but stalled in the Assembly's public safety committee. Members of the panel refused to discuss it or vote on it after leaders from several influential law enforcement unions spoke vociferously against it.

Union leaders argued that the law would endanger police officers' lives by making it easier for disgruntled members of the public to track them down -- although they could not cite cases in which officers had suffered such harm before the Supreme Court's ruling, when the public enjoyed greater access to disciplinary information.

More here.