{"id":371755,"date":"2026-06-23T18:13:23","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T18:13:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/371755\/"},"modified":"2026-06-23T18:13:23","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T18:13:23","slug":"public-records-bill-could-make-california-most-secretive-state-in-the-country","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/371755\/","title":{"rendered":"Public records bill could make California \u2018most secretive state in the country\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"State<\/a>The state capitol building in Sacramento. (Photo courtesy of the state Assembly)<\/p>\n

This story<\/a>\u00a0was originally published by CalMatters.\u00a0Sign up<\/a>\u00a0for their newsletters.<\/p>\n

In March, Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco\u00a0introduced a measure<\/a>\u00a0that would have made\u00a0 it more expensive for Californians to obtain government records.<\/p>\n

Amid opposition from transparency advocates and public access concerns\u00a0from her own Assembly colleagues<\/a>, though,\u00a0the Downey Democrat<\/a>\u00a0diluted her proposal to simply give governments more time to respond to records requests, a change that allowed the measure to sail through the Assembly in May.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Now, she\u2019s brought the controversial elements back \u2014 and they are even more restrictive than before, drawing fierce opposition from transparency advocates.<\/p>\n

The latest version of her proposal,\u00a0Assembly Bill 1821<\/a>, is co-written by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. It would allow government agencies to delay responding to certain requests and to charge $22 to $66 an hour to search for and review the records they deem are for \u201ccommercial use.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Government agencies could also take requests to court if they believe someone is asking for the records for a malicious reason.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Pacheco told CalMatters her measure aims to prevent frivolous records requests from inundating local governments, especially requests generated by artificial intelligence.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cTransparency is important to me,\u201d Pacheco said in an interview. \u201cWe just want it to run efficiently, and these are just minor amendments or minor tweaks to the Public Records Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

For years,\u00a0local agencies have argued<\/a>\u00a0that fulfilling extensive records requests burdens public workers and allows bad actors to overwhelm governments. In 2023, someone requested Bay Area city officials\u2019 emails to train an AI service they wanted to sell to local governments, said\u00a0Donald Larkin<\/a>, an attorney representing the League of California Cities. In Fresno County, a prankster asked for five years of 911 emergency records then never followed up, said Graham Knaus, CEO of the counties association.<\/p>\n

\u201cTaxpayers should not be forced to bear the cost of an AI business model or those that are attempting to overwhelm public agencies just for fun,\u201d Knaus said.<\/p>\n

But First Amendment advocates say\u00a0state law<\/a>\u00a0already allows agencies to decline frivolous records requests by arguing that they are \u201cunduly burdensome.\u201d Even when requests are legitimate, agencies routinely\u00a0delay fulfilling them<\/a>\u00a0or withhold records for months or years, drawing legal challenges.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Pacheco\u2019s measure would create barriers that would chill the public from filing requests, effectively gutting the state\u2019s open records act and violating the spirit of Californians\u2019\u00a0constitutional right to government information<\/a>, transparency advocates argue.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe only way that there\u2019s any government accountability is that people know what the government is doing,\u201d said David Snyder, a former journalist and now the executive director of the First Amendment Coalition.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis looks a lot like an effort to evade accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n

The proposed changes would \u201cmake California stand out as the most secretive state in the country,\u201d said David Cuillier, a University of Florida journalism professor who sits on the federal Freedom of Information Act advisory committee.<\/p>\n

The whiplash of amendments angered many transparency advocates, who criticized Pacheco for\u00a0 overhauling her proposal only after it was approved by the Assembly.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The move, prevalent in the Legislature, \u201coften leads to badly written bills with dangerous side effects and AB 1821 now fits squarely into that category,\u201d said Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director at local watchdog group Oakland Privacy, who called the proposal \u201ca virtual horror show of governmental non-transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n

Authority to sue for \u2018malicious\u2019 requests<\/p>\n

While many local governments across the nation have sued \u2014 and\u00a0largely lost<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 over what they consider \u201cvexatious\u201d requests, California would be the first state to explicitly allow agencies to sue for \u201cmalicious intent.\u201d Requesters the court deems malicious would have to pay an hourly fee to obtain records to compensate agencies for their time.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But public agencies already use the courts to target requests they don\u2019t like, and rubber-stamping that authority by writing it into law would embolden them to deny more requests, First Amendment advocates say.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability, as has already happened elsewhere in the country,\u201d Snyder said.<\/p>\n

The threat of a lawsuit alone would \u201cchill requesters from submitting public requests,\u201d said Shaila Nathu, a senior attorney with ACLU of Northern California, which also opposes the bill.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Pacheco dismissed the concerns, stating that she doubts that cities would sue very often because it\u2019d require them to go to court just to recover a limited amount of fees. But the provision would offer a tool just in case, she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cHopefully this will curb the bad actors,\u201d she said. \u201cI don\u2019t anticipate that this would slow down legitimate requests.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Outrageous\u2019 fees risk chilling public engagement<\/p>\n

Advocates also criticized Pacheco\u2019s fee proposal, arguing it would discriminate against requesters based on their use for the records. State law bars agencies from\u00a0limiting access to public records<\/a>\u00a0based on purpose.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The measure would allow agencies to charge more for requests they deem to further someone\u2019s \u201ccommercial, trade, or profit interests\u201d \u2014 language modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act.<\/p>\n

It would exempt just a small group of people, such as academics, journalists and government agencies. Under current law, agencies can only charge for making copies of the records, usually at between\u00a010<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a050 cents<\/a>\u00a0a page.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For the rest of the public, agencies could ask them to submit information \u201cpromptly\u201d to prove their intent and automatically treat those who don\u2019t as commercial requesters. The bill includes no standard for what is \u201cprompt.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s so fact-specific that it\u2019s kind of hard to say what\u2019s reasonable, what\u2019s prompt,\u201d Pacheco said. \u201cMost people will reply if a city asks, and then the city can then obtain the records for the individual.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an email, Pacheco spokesperson Alina Evans told CalMatters that the assemblymember wants to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing \u201cthe cost of building or improving a private company\u2019s commercial product.\u201d But, she said, Pacheco will amend the measure to prevent forcing every requester to justify their request.<\/p>\n

Snyder said that language would give governments broad authority to play favorites \u2014 \u201cto see why it is somebody\u2019s requesting records and then to potentially make decisions based on that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pacheco wants those deemed commercial to pay $22 an hour in \u201cadministrative fees\u201d or $66 an hour in \u201cprofessional fees\u201d for the search, review and redaction of the records, although the California Supreme Court\u00a0already ruled in 2020<\/a>\u00a0that such charges threaten Californians\u2019 right to access.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Critics also slammed the measure for empowering agencies to decide how quickly they need to respond to requests based on how people file them.<\/p>\n

Under current law, government agencies must respond to a request within 10 calendar days and extend the deadline for providing the records by no more than 14 calendar days. The law does not mandate a specific format for submission, although many local and state agencies allow requests through an online portal.<\/p>\n

Pacheco\u2019s bill would extend the timeline to 10 and 14 business days respectively, but only if the requests are filed in person or by email during normal business hours.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Those requesting records by fax, by mail or through an online portal would be at the agencies\u2019 mercy.<\/p>\n

The initiative originated from one of Pacheco\u2019s many trips sponsored by\u00a0special interest groups last year,<\/a>\u00a0her spokesperson, Evans, told CalMatters in March. Last year, Pacheco reported receiving more than $45,000 in sponsored travel \u2014 the most of any California lawmaker \u2014 including a study tour in Spain, a golf tournament in Pebble Beach and a conference in Maui. When asked Wednesday, however, Pacheco said she did not remember which one inspired her measure and said the idea came from multiple conversations with local governments.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The latest amendment reflects talks Pacheco had with the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the city of Downey, municipal clerks and several lawmakers on the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which approved a much narrower version of her proposal, Evans said.<\/p>\n

This story was updated throughout to include comments from the California State Association of Counties. It also clarifies that Pacheco intends to allow public agencies to charge an hourly fee between $22 to $66, not $88, after her office said it would amend the bill accordingly.<\/p>\n

CalMatters<\/a>\u00a0is a nonpartisan and nonprofit news organization bringing Californians stories that probe, explain and explore solutions to quality of life issues while holding our leaders accountable.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The state capitol building in Sacramento. (Photo courtesy of the state Assembly) This story\u00a0was originally published by CalMatters.\u00a0Sign…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":108984,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7,9,1843,8,27479,2684],"class_list":["post-371755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-legislature","tag-california-news","tag-public-records","tag-transparency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=371755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371755\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/108984"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=371755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=371755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=371755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}