Californians asking their government for public records could soon face hourly billing — and a potential lawsuit — under legislation set for a Senate hearing five days from now.
Assembly Bill 1821 goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday, June 30. The bill would allow state and local agencies to charge requesters they classify as “commercial users” $22.35 per hour in administrative fees and $66.26 per hour in professional fees. That’s for the time staff spends searching for, reviewing, and redacting records. Work that is currently provided at no charge.
There’s no cap on billable hours in the bill.
Agencies would also gain the ability to petition a court to find that a request was filed with “malicious intent.” The bill doesn’t define that term. A court finding could stop the request cold and force the requester to pay legal costs before receiving anything.
David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the provision amounts to the government dragging citizens into court for doing nothing more than submitting a records request. “I think that will have a tremendous chilling effect,” he said.
The bill started differently. Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey) introduced it in February with fee provisions that drew immediate opposition. She pulled those provisions before the full Assembly voted. The scaled-back version passed 55-12 on May 27 and moved to the Senate. Pacheco then amended it June 10 — dropping in fee and malicious intent language more sweeping than what she had removed. The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties co-wrote the new version.
Tracy Rosenberg of Oakland Privacy called it “a virtual horror show of governmental non-transparency.”
Pacheco said no need to worry, the bill just targets AI-generated bulk requests that overwhelm agencies and called the changes “minor tweaks.” She said she doesn’t anticipate legitimate requests being impacted. Problem is, she offered no proof of that.
The response deadline would extend from 10 calendar days to 10 business days. For requests filed by fax, mail, or online portal, agencies would face no deadline.
California already ranks 39th nationally in government transparency, according to David Cuillier, director of the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida. He said the ranking drops further if AB 1821 passes.
The ACLU and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are both opposing it. The Senate Judiciary Committee hears it June 30.
West Hollywood residents who want to weigh in before the vote can contact their state senator, Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), at (916) 651-4024 or senator.allen@senate.ca.gov. Sen. Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), whose district borders West Hollywood, can be reached at (916) 651-4026 or senator.durazo@senate.ca.gov. Both sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which hears AB 1821 on June 30.
The text has 32 “ai” listings, but none are about AI-generated bulk requests.
Just terrible.
Feels awfully TRUMP 3.0 to me, the DSA ideologues & UNITE HERE 11 are hard at work. No doubt our very own Byers, Erickson, & Hang fully support this nonsense as well.
Dude, you mean it feels California State Assembly & NEWSOM.
This bill needs to be immediately scrapped. While there may be legitimate concerns about commercial exploitation of the information asked for, this bill is primarily about keeping citizens in the dark. I suspect that West Hollywood was lobbying on behalf of this bill and perhaps Alan Strasborg will be able to request information on our lobbying efforts. When four of our City Council members go to Amsterdam Pride in August, I am sure we will need a public records request to find out the extent of tax payer dollars were spent on this useless junket. See Anita Chabria’s commentary in… Read more »
When the ACLU and the Howard Jarvis people are in agreement, then the bill must really be bad!
More ways to brush things under the rug in the city.
Government should operate in the sunshine, not the shadows. Public records belong to the public not to bureaucrats or elected officials who decide what we should and shouldn’t see. The default should always be disclosure, not delay, litigation, redaction, or excuses. Transparency isn’t a burden on government; it’s the price of exercising public power. If our government can’t withstand public scrutiny, the problem isn’t the Public Records Act, it’s the government.
If any entity, person or City gov’t requires a mechanism such as this to avoid public scrutiny perhaps they should not be engaged in whatever the issue is. In honor of our Founding Fathers and simple ethics, this piece of legislation should be condemned and avoided.
Absolutely correct as always Mr. Strasburg!
The so called auditors that waste tax payer dollars by requesting EVERYTHING under the sun, trying to find something wrong should get off Scott free?
It takes employees time to process these requests and people should pony up the $$ for the employee’s time. I don’t see what the problem is.
I don’t want my tax dollars going to the frivolous requests that the City Clerk gets every day.
Hmmm, perhaps you have never noticed or attempted to advocate for serious matters such as when building owners have participated in acts of fraud. How would you anticipate obtaining such documents I would ask? Ah yes, well perhaps you may not realize that AI has gotten very good at their task and on another issue has recently offered to conduct just such tasks. It certainly changed my previous opinion on the possible accuracy of AI.
Seriously, what does that have to do with my comment. I’m merely suggesting that people should pay for their requests. How did AI become part of that??
Your and my tax dollars pay for the staff member that have to process these requests.
So the so called “auditors” that do nothing but request documents, that take up employees time and tax payer dollars for preparing their requests should get that for free???? No way, make them pay.
Jeff, you have a point, but there needs to be a balance and balance is what is lacking in this bill. People who just want to gum up the system with excessive, multiple requests should be restricted but this looks like promotion of secrecy at City Hall. The bill should be pulled and re-drafted and maybe a fee should apply after someone has made numerous requests, but media should be exempted.
I would accept this change if only the media acted in the best interests of the citizens. Too often, especially locally, we see media in bed with policymakers. One need only look at the cozy relationship between reporting staff at the Beverly Press and some members of the West Hollywood City Council for proof. Absent a robust Fourth Estate, it is incumbent upon citizens to do the work of uncovering corruption.
Agreed