Assembly member-by-member budgets allocating tens of millions of dollars and any changes made to them throughout the year are public records that must be disclosed, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled Thursday.

Judge Timothy M. Frawley's decision was tentative, but it became final hours later when the Assembly opted not to contest it.

Frawley ruled on a suit filed by The Bee and Los Angeles Times after the Assembly balked at releasing member budgets in the wake of a claim by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino that his funding had been cut for casting the lone Democratic vote against this year's budget.

"The court is persuaded that the strong public interest in disclosure outweighs any reason for keeping the records secret," Frawley's 12-page ruling said.

The decision applies not only to the budgets and expenditures of each Assembly member but to policy committees as well.

Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez and Assembly Rules Committee Chairwoman Nancy Skinner released a one-paragraph written statement noting that the lower house's current disclosure policies mirror those in effect for decades.

"As we review the court's opinion, we will revise our procedures accordingly," their statement said. "We remain committed to improving public access to information about the operations of the California State Assembly."

Robin Swanson, Pérez's spokeswoman, said there are no immediate plans to appeal Frawley's ruling but that "we're reviewing the court's decision."

Stephen Burns, attorney for The Bee, said only that "we're very happy with the court decision and look forward to receiving the documents in the near future."

Portantino, D-La Cañada-Flintridge, hailed the judge's ruling as a "huge victory for transparency and accountability."

"Frankly, it saddens me that Assembly leaders have spent so much time fighting for secrecy," he said.

Frawley said that California law "reflects a strong presumption in favor of public access to legislative records" and that exemptions "should be narrowly construed to ensure maximum disclosure of the conduct of governmental operations."

Though the Legislature wrote the state's Legislative Open Records Law, Frawley said that judges do not have to accept lawmakers' interpretation of the law's rights and responsibilities.

The 36-year-old open-records law, known as LORA, assures public access to many, but not all, Capitol records.

LORA begins with a declaration that "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business by the Legislature is a fundamental and necessary right of every citizen in this state."

Exemptions from disclosure are provided for various Assembly and Senate records, however, including preliminary drafts, correspondence and personnel matters.

State law also contains a "deliberative process privilege" that allows withholding of documents that could harm candid discussion within government by intruding upon deliberations.

The Assembly characterized member budgets and changes to them as preliminary drafts because they can change throughout the year; as correspondence because they are sent to members; and as confidential documents because they can contain personnel information, such as whether an employee will take a leave of absence.

Frawley ruled that none of LORA's exemptions apply to the budget documents sought by The Bee and Los Angeles Times, which had argued that the public has a "profound interest" in monitoring how the Assembly allocates its $146.7 million annual budget.

Frawley ruled that member-by-member budgets reflect final decisions and, thus, are not preliminary drafts. The Assembly's position would allow virtually all of its documents to be withheld because each theoretically can be changed throughout the year, he said.

The judge also turned thumbs down on the notion that the documents are "correspondence" that can be kept from the public – rather than "communications" that must be disclosed – simply because they are sent to legislators' offices.

The Assembly consistently has said that it releases other ample data to monitor its spending – staff rosters detailing each employee's salary, and an itemized list of expenditures by member and by committee after they occur.

The lawsuit disagreed that the data released are adequate, contending that the Assembly's spending reports – typically released 12 months after a legislative year ends – obscure how much money lawmakers truly spend to run their offices, partly by failing to identify salaries of personal aides that are paid with committee funds.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Call Jim Sanders, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5538.

• Read more articles by Jim Sanders