I. Introduction
I respectfully dissent from that part of my colleagues’ opinion which resolves the weighing process required by Government Code section 62551 without an in camera review of the applications at issue. My colleagues *1145correctly have engaged in independent review of the respondent court’s decision. (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1336 [283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 813 P.2d 240]; CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 650-651 [230 Cal.Rptr. 362, 725 P.2d 470].) I agree with my colleagues that the documents which the Governor reviewed are subject to the deliberative process privilege. (NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1975) 421 U.S. 132, 150 [44 L.Ed.2d 29, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1504]; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 1339-1343.) In this regard, I respectfully disagree with the legal conclusion of the respondent court. However, once that legal conclusion is made, the remaining step is to determine pursuant to section 6255 whether the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the legitimate civic justification for disclosing the documents reviewed by the Governor prior to making the appointment. (53 Cal.3d at pp. 1344-1346.) Neither the respondent court, my colleagues, nor I have reviewed the documents read by the Governor before he made the appointments. Hence, unlike my colleagues, I cannot conclude that the public interest in nondisclosure outweighs the justification for disclosure. Therefore, I would: reverse the judgment and remand to allow the respondent court to read the documents in camera as permitted by section 6259, subdivision (a2 reviewed by the Governor prior to the appointment;3 permit the respondent court to make appropriate factual and legal findings; and, if the parties are dissatisfied, they can seek immediate appellate review pursuant to a petition for writ of mandate. Further, during the in camera review of the documents reviewed by the Governor prior to the appointment, the respondent court can determine whether there is any data which might constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy of an applicant or more likely a family member protect-able under either the state Constitution or section 6254. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1; Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 42-44 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 876 P.2d 999]; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 37 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633].)
*1146II. The Deliberative Process Issue
The crucial authority concerning the “deliberative process” factor to be weighed in determining whether to order disclosure of the Governor’s records is that articulated by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pages 1339-1343. Although it is difficult to synthesize that important jurisprudence, the following are the salient points articulated by our Supreme Court: There is a “ ‘deliberative process’ ” privilege; the privilege may, depending on the circumstances, extend to documents read by a Governor prior to making a decision; there is a greater secrecy interest as to documents involving decisions that are yet to be made than in regard to past determinations by a governor; documents reflecting “ ‘purely factual, investigative matters’ ” are treated differently from papers reflecting deliberative or policy making processes; yet, the privilege may extend to purely factual matters which reflect the policy making process. (Ibid.) The key test articulated by the Supreme Court in Times Mirror Co. was as follows: “The key question in every case is ‘whether the disclosure of materials would expose an agency’s decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.’ [Citation.] Even if the content of a document is purely factual, it is nonetheless exempt from public scrutiny if it is ‘actually . . . related to the process by which policies are formulated’ [citation] or ‘inextricably intertwined’ with ‘policy-making processes.’ [Citations.].” (Id. at p. 1342.)
The holding in Times Mirror Co. is conclusive in terms of whether the documents relied upon by Governor Wilson in making the appointment are subject to the deliberative process privilege in this case. In Times Mirror Co., the issue was whether disclosure could be compelled of then Governor George Deukmejian’s “daily, weekly and monthly appointment calendars and schedules” between January 1983 and August 1988. (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1329.) After analyzing federal decisional authority, the Supreme Court held, “The parallel here is evident. Disclosing the identity of persons with whom the Governor has met and consulted is the functional equivalent of revealing the substance or direction of the Governor’s judgment and mental processes; such information would indicate which interests or individuals he deemed to be of significance with respect to critical issues of the moment. The intrusion into the deliberative process is patent.” (Id. at p. 1343.) The same is true in this case. By revealing the contents of the applications of the successful applicant, if he filed one, and those who were rejected, the very documents used by the Governor to make the decisions would be revealed. The Times Mirror Co. test extends to documents “ ‘related to the process by which policy policies *1147are formulated’ ” which are “ ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the ‘policy-making processes.’ ” (Id. at p. 1342.) The documents at issue certainly fall within that test.
Of additional consequence, the very purpose for which the documents are sought is to report on the decisionmaking process. The request had its genesis in the appointment by Governor Pete Wilson of former Tustin City Council Member Don Saltarelli to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Prior to the appointment, the Orange County edition of the Los Angeles Times carried a story on how to apply to Governor Wilson for the vacancy on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. On October 12, 1995, the Orange County edition of the Los Angeles Times carried an article which described the appointment of Supervisor Saltarelli to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The article related the views of those who supported and opposed the appointment. The article also adverted to Supervisor Saltarelli’s past relationship with the Irvine Company. The article stated: “Saltarelli, who served 15 years on the Tustin council from 1972 to 1987, has worked in real estate since 1972 and for half a dozen years as a stockbroker. He has also run a part-time consulting business since 1988-89 and is now a resident of Orange. ¶ In recent years, he has worked on land-use permit issues in Tustin for the Irvine Co., the development giant headed by Wilson benefactor and Newport Beach billionaire Donald Bren. Saltarelli’s stint as a consultant for the firm has been no secret, and on Wednesday sparked some hard feelings among residents who believe the Irvine Co. holds too much sway in local and state government. Ffl] ‘This is a major mistake by Gov. Wilson,’ said Patrick Quaney, local issues coordinator of the Orange County Chapter of United We Stand America. ‘This is an Irvine Co.-initiated appointment, in my opinion. It is an attempt to maintain the status quo.’ [*J0 . . . [H Others suggested that any boost Saltarelli got from the Irvine Co. shouldn’t overshadow his attributes. [U T think having a relationship with the Irvine Co. certainly doesn’t hurt,’ said Doy Henley, president of the Lincoln Club of Orange County, an influential Republican organization whose members are generally wealthy political contributors. ‘But I think he will serve all of the people. He’ll do a good job.’ [f] Irvine Co. officials and a spokesman for the governor downplayed any role the company might have had. Larry Thomas, an Irvine Co. spokesman, said the governor’s staff asked the firm for a reaction on half a dozen different finalists, [f] ‘We told them that all of the one’s with whom we were familiar would have been sound appointments,’ Thomas said. ‘We didn’t advocate a single candidate nor did we oppose any potential candidate.’ [^Q ‘A number of political and business leaders in the community were consulted,’ added Paul Kranhold, Wilson’s spokesman. ‘Mr. Saltarelli wasn’t the choice of any one organization. He was the governor’s choice because Pete Wilson felt he was best prepared for *1148the tough job that lies ahead.’ ” (Bailey & Lait, Ex-Tustin Official to Join O. C. Board, L.A. Times (Oct. 12, 1995) p. Al.) The remainder of the article, which was largely favorable of the appointment focused upon: Supervisor Saltarelli’s extensive background in public service and business; his willingness to serve out an unexpired term and not to seek election because of his sense of public duty; and reactions by other members of the community to the appointment.4 Before the foregoing October 12, 1995, article was published, a journalist and counsel for the Los Angeles Times requested certain documents from the Governor. After an exchange of correspondence, on March 1, 1996, the Los Angeles Times filed a mandate petition to compel compliance with the California Public Records Act. (§ 6250 et seq.)
The papers filed in support of the mandate petition illustrate precisely why the documents are subject to the deliberative process privilege. In its points and authorities in support of its request for the completed application forms, counsel for the newspaper wrote: “The public should be entrusted with enough information to allow them to intelligently evaluate the process that resulted in his selection.” (Italics added.) At another place in the points and authorities, the newspaper’s counsel wrote, “The Times is requesting the basic data that went into the decision-making process.” (Italics added.) Another stated purpose of disclosure in the same points and authorities was that because of the importance of such an appointment given the fact Orange County was in bankruptcy, the selection was a “key decision of utmost public interest to the” electorate. In the return to our order to show cause, counsel for the Los Angeles Times argued that disclosure was necessitated because of the Governor’s “unbridled discretion” in appointing Supervisor Saltarelli and, citing to the opinion in CBS, Inc. v. Block, supra, 42 Cal.3d at page 655, noted “the degree of subjectivity involved in exercising the discretion cries out for public scrutiny.” Finally, at oral argument counsel for the Los Angeles Times admitted with admirable candor that release of the completed application forms would shed light on the process which led to the appointment. He argued: “Our request isn’t solely based on the expectation that there may have been influence by the Irvine Company. I think that the reporters and the public ... are curious to know the qualifications of those people who were considered ... in order to evaluate the process.” The entire reason the competed applications considered by Governor Wilson in *1149making the appointment are being sought is to shed light on the deliberative process and such records are privileged. (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1342.) In this respect, I agree with my colleagues and disagree with the respondent court. Hence, it is necessary to weigh the public interest served in not making the documents relied upon by Governor Wilson public with the civic importance which would result from disclosure. (Id. at pp. 1344-1346; § 6255.)
III. The Weighing Process
The Governor relies on Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pages 1344-1346 to support the conclusion that the section 6255 weighing process should result in continued nondisclosure of the documents relied upon by him in making the appointment. In Times Mirror Co., the Supreme Court determined that nondisclosure of Governor Deukmejian’s “daily, weekly and monthly appointment calendars and schedules” outweighed the public interest in disclosure. (53 Cal.3d at pp. 1329, 1344-1346.) The judicial determination not to order disclosure without an in camera inspection involved over five and one-half years of calendars and schedules. The present case is materially distinguishable from Times Mirror Co. The present case involves a narrow request for disclosure of certain documents relied upon by Governor Wilson relating to a single appointment. Unlike the years’ worth of papers at issue in Times Mirror Co., the present case involves a constricted request for one set of documents, applications relied upon by Governor Wilson in making a rare gubernatorial decision, the appointment to one seat on the board of supervisors in a single county.
However, even though Times Mirror Co. is distinguishable on its facts, that does not answer the question of whether after the weighing process mandated by section 6255 is completed, the appropriate judicial decision is to order disclosure. I am unable to judiciously determine whether the completed questionnaires will reveal anything that furthers the public interest because I have not seen the documents. I am left to speculate whether the public interest in nondisclosure is clearly outweighed by those served by disclosure. Because the respondent court concluded the deliberative process privilege did not apply, it never engaged in the weighing process or conducted any fact-finding. I would remand for the respondent court to examine the completed application forms in camera and engage in the weighing process as suggested by counsel for the Los Angeles Times at the May 23, 1996, hearing.
There are sufficient considerations identified by counsel for the Los Angeles Times which would permit the respondent court to conclude that the *1150interest in nondisclosure does not clearly outweigh the justification for disclosure. Among the considerations which militate in favor of disclosure are: the Governor appointed a person who had a business relationship with a political supporter; the appointee would normally be subject to public scrutiny because under most circumstances he would have been subjected to the elective rather than the appointive process; the process, which involved the selection of a person for an important position, was largely accomplished in a confidential setting; and the appointment occurred at a unique point in Orange County history, in the midst of the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history. Also weighing in favor of disclosure is the mandate of section 6250 which states: “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” Moreover, the interests in favor of disclosure may very well be stronger as to Supervisor Saltarelli’s application, if he filed one, than as to other persons considered by the Governor. As the Los Angeles Times correctly notes, other jurisdictions have ordered disclosure of applications similar to those relied upon by Governor Wilson in making the appointment in the present case. (E.g., State ex rel. Plain Dealer v. Cleveland (1996) 75 Ohio St.2d 31 [661 N.E.2d 187, 190-192]; City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers (Alaska 1982) 642 P.2d 1316, 1324.) However, it may very well be that some or all of the applications shed no light on the appointive process. Moreover, documents underlying personnel decisions by a Governor may in some circumstances, like hiring decisions in the private sector, warrant complete confidentiality. Some of the applications may contain evidence of an expectation of privacy by the applicant which surely should be weighed by the respondent court. However, in the absence of the applications themselves, I cannot, exercising my independent review responsibilities (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1336; CBS, Inc. v. Block, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 650-651), judiciously engage in the weighing process mandated by section 6255.
IV. Conclusion
I would remand for the respondent court to engage in the section 6255 weighing process.
On January 21, 1997, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. The petition of real party in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 26, 1997. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
Government Code section 6255 states: “The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this *1145chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” Unless otherwise noted, all future statutory references are to the Government Code.
Section 6259, subdivision (a), which permits for in camera review of documents, states: “Whenever it is made to appear by verified petition to the superior court of the county where the records or some part thereof are situated that certain public records are being improperly withheld from a member of the public, the court shall order the officer or person charged with withholding the records to disclose the public record or show cause why he or she should not do so. The court shall decide the case after examining the record in camera, if permitted by subdivision (b) of Section 915 of the Evidence Code, papers filed by the parties and any oral argument and additional evidence as the court may allow.”
On May 23, 1996, a hearing was held before the respondent court on the mandate petition filed by the Los Angeles Times to compel disclosure of the documents relied upon by the Governor in filling the vacancy on the Orange County Board of Supervisors. At the May 23, 1996, hearing, the Los Angeles Times suggested possible in camera review to the respondent court of the documents relied upon by Governor Wilson in making the appointment.
Also before the respondent court was a letter written by Larry Thomas, a former press secretary for Governor Deukmejian, who was senior vice-president for communications and public affairs of the Irvine Company, directed to a reporter at the Los Angeles Times. Mr. Thomas’s letter indicated the article was misleading in that it inferred that the Irvine Company played any significant role in the selection of Supervisor Saltarelli. There is no evidence that any Irvine Company employees did anything else other than set forth in the body of the opinion or engaged in any unlawful or unethical actions. Similarly, there is no evidence of any unethical or illegal conduct by the Governor or his staff.