Advocates for transparency are expressing strong discontent over recent modifications to a California bill. This legislation aims to complicate the process of obtaining information about government activities and could even lead to legal action against individuals seeking public records.
The bill, known as Congressional Bill 1821 and introduced by Rep. Blanca Pacheco (D), was initially focused on extending the time frame for government agencies to respond to public records requests. However, it has since been altered to enable agencies to impose higher administrative fees, now set at $22.35 per hour, and $66.26 per hour for “expert fees” when searching for publicly accessible records. These fees may rise along with the cost of living.
Additionally, the revised bill allows the government to request judicial intervention if it believes the person asking for records has “malice,” effectively halting the request pending a court’s decision.
The First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit group advocating for free speech, criticized this new provision, indicating that obtaining government records would become significantly more costly, as agencies currently can only charge for copying records.
David Snyder, the coalition’s executive director, pointed out that the clause regarding “malicious intent” could easily be misused by government agencies looking to obstruct transparency, citing similar issues in other regions. For many years, California law has made it clear that agencies cannot sue individuals who request records.
A representative for Pacheco explained that the bill is designed to assist smaller government entities, which are in favor of the measure, in managing excessive records requests. For instance, they highlighted a case from late 2021 to early 2022, where the request for records led to more than 42,000 potential files, complicating the county’s ability to fulfill the request.
Pacheco’s office stated that the “bad faith” clause aims to address unique instances where public records laws are exploited to disrupt government functions or to unfairly use public resources without providing a correlating benefit to the public.
Pacheco described the court’s involvement in these matters as a “safety net” and clarified that the bill does not permit punitive measures against those requesting records.
Furthermore, supporters argue that the new fee structure mainly targets commercial entities requesting records for profit, rather than those in academia or journalism.
Graham Knauss, from the California Association of Counties, suggested that invoking legal proceedings for a “bad faith” finding would be an infrequent occurrence, emphasizing that an unbiased court should determine such matters instead of the agencies themselves.
He added that the rise of artificial intelligence has made submitting records requests much simpler, and that unreasonable requests could incur substantial costs, ultimately harming the public.
“We don’t think taxpayers should bear the burden of costs associated with AI frameworks that overwhelm municipal capabilities to serve residents,” he noted.
Despite these arguments, Snyder warned that the legislation could “chill” public access to governmental information, raising concerns about its implications for Pacheco, who has previously criticized former President Donald Trump for lack of transparency.
“The principles of our democracy are currently under pressure in the U.S., and now is not the time for California to regress toward unaccountability,” Snyder asserted.
Lawmakers have until the end of August to submit the bill to the governor, and it has already passed through the Assembly, now progressing in the state Senate.
