California Democrat Advocates for Legislation Raising Fees for Public Records Requests

California’s New Bill Challenges Public Records Access

Recent amendments to a bill in the California Legislature have made it more challenging for residents to acquire government records. Democratic State Representative Blanca Pacheco introduced CA AB 1821, officially known as the California Public Records Act, which allows public agencies to delay responses or hike fees for requests related to “commercial use” records.

Introduced initially in February, the bill now includes a $22.35-per-hour administrative fee and a $66.26-per-hour professional fee for records requests deemed for commercial use, with potential increases tied to inflation adjustments. Proponents argue this is essential for local government operations. However, critics contend it imposes a significant burden on residents, undermining transparency.

The bill also grants agencies the ability to seek a ruling from a higher court on whether a records request is made in “bad faith.” If such a determination is made, the agency can suspend its obligation to fulfill the request until the court reaches a decision. Even if bad faith is established, agencies can still charge fees to cover investigation costs, among other applicable charges.

Currently, California law mandates that agencies must respond quickly to reasonable records requests, charging only copying fees and applicable statutory amounts. Agencies typically charge 10 cents to a dollar per page.

Pacheco expressed hope that these changes would deter abusive requests while still allowing legitimate inquiries to proceed without delay. “Transparency is important to me,” she remarked, emphasizing that these are minor adjustments to improve efficiency.

Recent changes emerged with input from the California League of Cities and the California Association of Counties. Notably, Donald Larkin, representing the California League of Cities, recounted an incident where city officials were asked via email to train AI models intended for sale to local governments. Similarly, Graham Knauss from the California Association of Counties shared a bizarre anecdote about being asked to make a 911 call repeatedly over five years.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear the costs associated with frivolous requests aimed at overwhelming public agencies,” Knauss stated.

On the flip side, critics warn that the bill could create significant barriers for citizens seeking government accountability. David Snyder, of the First Amendment Coalition, remarked that such moves seem designed to evade scrutiny. Meanwhile, Tracy Rosenberg from Oakland Privacy Rights described the amendments as a troubling shift towards government opacity.

David Caillier, a journalism professor, added that if the bill passes, it could make California one of the most secretive states in the U.S. There are also allegations that Pacheco pursued amendments after the bill’s initial passage, which critics say is a tactic often seen in the state legislature.