{"id":366737,"date":"2026-06-19T04:45:13","date_gmt":"2026-06-19T04:45:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/366737\/"},"modified":"2026-06-19T04:45:13","modified_gmt":"2026-06-19T04:45:13","slug":"california-bill-would-charge-66-hour-for-records-requests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/366737\/","title":{"rendered":"California bill would charge $66\/hour for records requests"},"content":{"rendered":"

Transparency advocates are enraged over a sneaky change to a California bill<\/a> that would make it harder to get details on what government agencies are doing \u2014 and could even haul people seeking public records to court.<\/p>\n

News publishers and other First Amendment supporters had already opposed Assembly Bill 1821 by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D)<\/a>, which initially just sought to extend the timeline for when government entities, such as city halls or state agencies, needed to respond to a request for public records.<\/p>\n

A bill in California is drawing fire from government transparency advocates. Getty Images<\/p>\n

But Pacheco adjusted her measure so that steep fees can be charged for the time staff spends to find publicly available records: an administrative fee of $22.35 per hour and a \u201cprofessional fee\u201d of $66.26 per hour, both subject to cost-of-living increases.<\/p>\n

Not only that, under the newest version of the bill, if a government believes the record requester has \u201cmalicious intent,\u201d it can ask a court to make that determination and put the request on hold pending a court decision. <\/p>\n

The pro-free speech nonprofit First Amendment Coalition blasted the new language and claimed obtaining government records would cost much more. Currently, agencies may generally only charge for copying costs. <\/p>\n

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters <\/p>\n

California Post News: Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, TikTok<\/a>, X<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, WhatsApp<\/a>, LinkedIn<\/a>
California Post Sports Facebook<\/a>, Instagram<\/a>, TikTok<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, X<\/a>
California Post Opinion<\/a>
California Post Newsletters: Sign up here!<\/a>
California Post App: Download here!<\/a>
Home delivery: Sign up here!<\/a>
<\/a>Page Six Hollywood: Sign up here!<\/a><\/p>\n

Asm. Blanca Pacheco Digital Democracy Matters<\/p>\n

But the \u201cmalicious intent\u201d provision that allows the government to take someone to court is particularly dangerous, claimed David Snyder, the coalition\u2019s executive director.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability, as has already happened elsewhere in the country,\u201d he said. \u201cFor decades, California law has been clear that state and local agencies cannot sue records requesters.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Pacheco told The Post that the bill is designed to help small government entities like city and county governments \u2014 who support the legislation \u2014 handle unreasonable records requests.<\/p>\n

For example, counties have pointed to a case in late 2021 in early 2022<\/a> in which a requester sought records between El Dorado County and four email domains over a five year period. That resulted in more than 42,000 potential records, but the county could not get the requester to narrow his or her request even after going to court.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe malicious-intent provision is intended to address the rare circumstances in which the Public Records Act is being used to disrupt agency operations, harass staff, or consume disproportionate public resources without a corresponding public benefit,\u201d Pacheco\u2019s office said.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSign up for the California Morning Report newsletter\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCalifornia’s top news, sports and entertainment delivered to your inbox every day.\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\tThanks for signing up!\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

California agencies could charge more for records requests. Gado via Getty Images<\/p>\n

The legislator described the court determination process as a \u201csafeguard\u201d and said the bill \u201cdoes not authorize punitive damages, penalties, or damages actions against requesters.\u201d<\/p>\n

Supporters also note the bill\u2019s fees mainly targets commercial requesters \u2014 those making records requests for a company such as a data broker to make profit \u2014 and not those in education or the news media.<\/p>\n

Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Association of Counties, insisted to The Post that going to the court for \u201cmalicious intent\u201d determinations will only be used for very rare cases. It\u2019s about leaving it to an impartial court \u2014 not the government agency itself \u2014 to be the adjudicator, he added.<\/p>\n

Artificial intelligence has made it extremely easy to draft records requests, and unreasonable requests can force huge costs that ultimately hurt the public, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe believe that taxpayers should not be forced to bear the cost of an AI business model for those that are attempting to overwhelm the ability of local governments to provide services to our residents,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Still, the measure can put a \u201cchill\u201d on general access to government information, Snyder said, and does not make California Democrats who have attacked President Donald Trump for non-transparency look great.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fundamentals of democracy are being tested now in America. It is exactly the wrong time for California to take the serious backward step toward unaccountability,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Lawmakers have until end of August to send bills to the governor. Pacheco\u2019s bill passed the Assembly and is currently making its way through the state Senate.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t