Advocates for government transparency and some members of the California Legislature are expressing concerns regarding a proposal that could lead to higher costs for Californians seeking government records.
This initiative, introduced by Democratic Representative Blanca Pacheco, seeks to amend the California Public Records Act. The proposed Congressional Bill 1821 would enable public agencies to delay records requests they consider “improperly filed,” litigate potentially “bad faith” requests, and charge hourly fees to locate and review requested records.
The latest iteration of the bill, which has support from both the California League of Cities and the California Association of Counties, would permit charges ranging from $22 to $66 per hour for the search, review, and provision of records categorized as for “commercial use.”
Currently, California law mandates that state or local agencies must promptly provide requested records at just the cost of reproduction. This new bill could significantly impact response times, allowing agencies to slow down the processing of requests. They would also be able to take legal action if they suspect that requests are made in bad faith.
Pacheco has stated that this legislation aims to curb frivolous requests, particularly those created by artificial intelligence systems, which can produce numerous unwarranted requests without accountability.
“Transparency is important to me,” Pacheco said in an interview. “We just want to operate efficiently, and these are just minor amendments or tweaks to the Public Records Act.”
Donald Larkin, representing the League of California Cities, recalled receiving an email from a city official in 2023 asking him to train an AI program. In another instance, pranksters in Fresno County requested five years’ worth of 911 call records without following through, as noted by Graham Knauss, CEO of the California Association of Counties. These examples highlight the challenges Pacheco aims to address.
“Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the costs of AI business models that seek to overwhelm public authorities for fun,” Knauss stated.
“We hope this will deter the bad guys,” Pacheco commented, adding that they do not anticipate legitimate requests being hampered.
However, First Amendment advocates argue that existing state laws already empower agencies to reject frivolous requests categorized as “unreasonably burdensome.” Even in cases where requests are valid, delays of several months or longer to fulfill them have been commonplace.
“The only way government is held accountable is for people to know what their government is doing,” remarked David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. “This appears to be an effort to avoid responsibility.”
He further warned that the measure could be easily weaponized by agencies wishing to hinder transparency and accountability.
David Cuillier, a member of the Federal Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee, expressed concern that the proposed changes would position California as the most secretive state in the nation.
