By Kate Wolffe
CalMatters Writer
Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco has once again rolled back her controversial proposal to amend California’s public records rules.
The Downey Democrat alarmed First Amendment advocates in March when she introduced a measure that would make it more expensive for some people to get public records from government agencies, which she said was intended to cut down on malicious or profit-driven requests.
Facing strong opposition, she scaled back the measure. Then, once it passed out of the Assembly, she inserted high fees for records requests and added new ways counties could deny requests, such as if they were submitted through incorrect means or a court found the requester to have “malicious intent.”
After another outcry, they’re back out.
In its current, reduced state, Assembly Bill 1821 would extend the amount of time an agency has to respond to a request from 10 calendar days to 10 business days. The request could be extended by no more than 14 business days, up from 14 calendar days.
“Currently, timelines are calculated in calendar days while the work of reviewing happens during business hours,” said Pacheco. She said she had amended the bill in response to feedback she had received.
The Senate Judiciary Committee passed it Tuesday, sending it to the Senate floor. Sen. Tom Umberg, an Orange County Democrat, thanked Pacheco for bringing “lots and lots of attention to this issue.” A wave of press coverage, including several scathing editorials, revealed broad opposition to the changes.
Pacheco said the bill, which was co-sponsored by the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities, was intended to crack down on voluminous requests from people who planned to use the information for commercial gain, such as to train artificial intelligence systems.
In its June 10 iteration, it would have allowed agencies to charge $22 to $66 an hour to process requests officials deem to be for “commercial use” — a steep increase from current rules that only allow agencies to charge for copies of records, typically between 10 to 50 cents a page.
It would have also allowed agencies to ask local courts to weigh in on whether a request was made with “malicious intent.”
Certain groups would have been exempted from the higher barriers, including many journalists, academics and other government agencies. Still, advocates argued the threat of going to court or being charged a high fee would produce a chilling effect on requesting records.
David Snyder is the executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which vehemently opposed the bill. He said he understands that local governments are facing bad actors, but they already have the ability to refuse “unduly burdensome” requests.
“I think the solution to those problems is not to rewrite the Public Records Act to make it much harder for everybody to get records,” he said. “That’s a bad, bad outcome for everybody.”
Transparency groups respond
The First Amendment Coalition now has a neutral position on the current iteration of the bill, along with ACLU California Action, California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California.
However, dozens of environmental, justicea and transparency groups remain opposed.
“AB 1821’s proposed shift from a calendar to a business day timeline would normalize delay and further disadvantage communities that depend on timely access to information,” wrote the nonprofit Disability Rights California in a statement to the judiciary committee.
Eric Lawyer, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties, told lawmakers Tuesday that a survey the group conducted of public agencies found a nearly 50% increase in public records requests over the past three years and a 56% increase in staff time needed to respond to them.
“We believe it is possible to achieve a better balance in the public’s essential rights to information and ensure public agencies can function effectively and efficiently,” he said.
During the hearing, Los Angeles Democratic Sen. María Elena Durazo said abuses of the system get in the way of “practicing our democracy” and encouraged Pacheco to continue to work on the issue.
Snyder said the First Amendment Coalition is open to helping legislators tackle the problems they describe, however he thinks solutions can be much narrower in scope.
“I sincerely hope that there’s no attempt to revive the kinds of amendments that we saw over the last several weeks. I think that would be very damaging to government transparency and to government accountability in California.”
