KFBK Morning News
October 30, 2024
TRANSCRIPT
Sam Shane: "So, here's how they roll at the state capitol. Lawmakers who do not want you to know about the billions of taxpayer dollars you give them, how they're spending it on projects like, oh, fixing up their offices. They're making people sign non-disclosure agreements. They're known as NDAs. It forces people to keep their mouths shut. Let's go to KFBK's Mark Dempsky, joining us more with the new numbers on NDAs this morning.
Shane: "Good morning, Mark."
Mark Dempsky: "Good morning, Sam. Yeah, for the last six years, more than 2,000 NDAs have served as legal-binding contracts, ordering those involved in the Capitol Annex Project, a $1.2 billion taxpayer-funded building, that they have to keep things confidential, a broad range of information, while threatening legal action against those who don't. Chris Micheli is a constitutional law professor at the McGeorge School of Law."
Chris Micheli: "There's nothing unlawful in what was done. The question is whether or not it's appropriate. Yes, I think there are some instances--narrow instances--such as some of the details of the procurement should be subject to an NDA, but I'm concerned about the scope of that NDA language."
Cristina Mendonsa: "You know, this is amazing. I didn't think this was very widely known. I certainly had not heard of it until a few months ago, because we have the Open Records Act, and you would think this information would be legally available to people, Mark."
Dempsky: "Yeah, many experts I spoke with were certainly alarmed by the use of these NDAs, noting taxpayers and voters are entitled to that information. However, Micheli believes there are a few instances where the NDA makes sense.”
Micheli: “Security is a very legitimate concern for our government institutions. So, if they had, you know, some special security features, or escape routes, or some sort of technological things that would help prevent a terrorist attack, or protect those who are working or in the state Capitol, I think that is a legitimate basis for a confidentiality agreement."
Shane: "Yeah, that makes sense. If it's security, we get it, but if you're fixing up your offices with our money, we'd like to know about that. Mark, I'm curious about the history on all of this. Is this a newer development, or does this go back in history?"
Dempsky: "This goes back. How about six years, Sam? November of 2018, when Jerry Brown was governor, and then that's when the Capitol Annex Project first got off the ground. And in that timeframe, with the information protected under these NDAs, the estimated price tag of the project swelled from $440 million to now $1.2 billion."
Micheli: "It refers to any documents, any diagrams, any information, anything that is in connection with 'any services I may perform in connection with the Capitol Annex Project'. I think that is way too broad an NDA.”
Dempsky: “Also, it's been three years since the legislature has provided any update on this project. Leading this effort, the Joint Rules Committee has used a pair of pending lawsuits as their reason to keep taxpayers in the dark about the project overall. But man, more than 2,000 NDAs, it's--I agree with Chris Micheli, way too broad."
Shane: "Oh, you're not alone, Mark. Most taxpayers do. This is egregious."
Mendonsa: "And even if it was for security, they should at least have to say, we're keeping these portions secret because of security."
Shane: "We're fine with that. We're fine with that. But if you're going to fix up your office, tell us how much you're spending. Open up the books"
Mendonsa: "Unbelievable use."
Shane: "Great report again, Mark, on these. We're going to stay on top of these NDAs.”
