Legislation that would dramatically undermine Californians\u2019 right to know \u2014 and therefore undermine local democracy \u2014 could be on the threshold of becoming law if enough legislators and members of the public don\u2019t stand up to stop it.<\/p>\n
Assembly Bill 1821 by Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey) is perhaps unique in its aggressive, omnibus approach to making it harder for the public to know what the government is doing. Late-session amendments dropped on the public just days ago have transformed the California Public Records Act bill from merely objectionable in April to a five-alarm fire of a threat to basic government transparency.<\/p>\n
AB 1821 hits Californians\u2019 constitutionally protected right to know on multiple fronts. It would make access to public records more expensive. It would also allow government to delay longer before responding \u2014 or to not respond at all if requesters don\u2019t submit requests in exactly the \u201cdesignated\u201d manner. It would allow the government to inquire into the identity of requesters and the purpose of their request \u2014 inquiries that for decades have been strictly verboten under California law.<\/p>\n
Perhaps most troublingly, AB 1821 would allow any state or local agency to sue members of the public for the simple act of filing a public records request. This provision alone, which would essentially overturn decades of case law making clear that government cannot preemptively sue requesters, will have a crippling chilling effect: If you knew that by simply filing a public records request, you could be hauled into court and forced to hire a lawyer, wouldn\u2019t you think twice? The prospect of being sued for merely asking for public records would make government dramatically less transparent.<\/p>\n
Under the bill, all an agency would need to do to bring a requester to court is decide their records request was made with \u201cmalicious intent.\u201d AB 1821 at present does not define \u201cmalicious intent,\u201d but even if it were amended to do so, agencies would have wide latitude to subject disfavored requesters, political opponents or reporters uncovering malfeasance to litigation and all the delays and costs that entails.<\/p>\n
Under current California law, the only cost agencies can bill to the public is the \u201cdirect cost of duplication,\u201d with some exceptions for fees previously set by the Legislature in limited, specific circumstances. We see too often how those fees already serve as a transparency tax, pricing people out of public records. AB 1821 would drastically alter this longstanding law, allowing agencies to bill \u201ccommercial requesters\u201d an \u201cadministrative fee\u201d of $22.35 per hour and a \u201cprofessional fee\u201d of $66.26 per hour to perform the search, review and processing functions our taxpayer dollars are already paying for. This will make the cost of receiving records easily grow into the thousands of dollars in many instances \u2014 far more than most people can afford.<\/p>\n
Specific groups would be exempt from the \u201ccommercial requesters\u201d designation \u2014 including certain members of the news media if they can prove their status under a restrictive definition \u2014 and \u201ceducational or noncommercial scientific institutions whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research.\u201d But these exceptions would inevitably be unevenly and improperly applied, would invite agencies to interrogate requesters and would ultimately chill requests before they were even fulfilled by hitting requesters with huge bills.<\/p>\n
Most notably, this fee structure would make it difficult if not impossible for requesters to ask for records anonymously, and to be free from inquiries about the purpose of their request. Both of these are rights long enshrined in California law to prevent the politicization of access to records.<\/p>\n
Pacheco, the bill author, backed by groups with the government-agency lobby, including the California State Assn. of Counties and the California League of Cities, describes extremely onerous requests as the reason these dramatic changes to the public\u2019s right of access are necessary. But existing law already provides ample tools for responding to burdensome requests. The California Supreme Court has long recognized that agencies may lawfully decline to process requests that place an undue burden on public resources. Government entities could also simplify the process by posting frequently requested records online and referring requesters to the relevant website, and they are directed under the existing California Public Records Act to help requesters make more focused requests \u2014 work that would reduce the burdens for all.<\/p>\n
The right to know is the oxygen of all our other rights, for without knowing what the government is doing, it is impossible to protest government action, to mobilize change, to vote elected officials out of office based on fact rather than lies and innuendo.<\/p>\n
This bill would cut that flow of oxygen at exactly the wrong time. California state government officials have taken a lead nationally in decrying abuses of power, including serious failures of government transparency, by the Trump administration. The Legislature should reject this effort to hamstring transparency and accountability in its own back yard.<\/p>\n
Two Los Angeles-area state senators, Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) and Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), should play a key role in scuttling this terrible bill by voting \u201cno\u201d when it comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 30.<\/p>\n
David Snyder is the executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a California nonprofit that works to advance free speech, a free press and a more open and accountable government.<\/p>\n
Insights <\/p>\n
L.A. Times Insights<\/a> delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles. <\/p>\n Viewpoint This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis<\/a> Perspectives <\/p>\n The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.<\/p>\n Ideas expressed in the pieceThe article argues that Assembly Bill 1821 is an unusually sweeping attempt to weaken the California Public Records Act, transforming what began as a narrower proposal into an omnibus measure that would make it significantly harder for Californians to find out what their government is doing and thereby erode local democracy[1]<\/a>[4]<\/a>[6]<\/a>.It contends that new provisions allowing agencies to delay responses, refuse to respond if requests are not submitted in a narrowly \u201cdesignated\u201d way, and ask about a requester\u2019s identity and purpose would reverse longstanding norms that protect anonymous, content\u2011neutral access to records and would invite political gatekeeping of who gets information and why[1]<\/a>[6]<\/a>[9]<\/a>.The piece stresses that authorizing agencies to sue members of the public over records requests allegedly made with \u201cmalicious intent\u201d would overturn decades of case law barring preemptive suits against requesters, creating a powerful tool to intimidate disfavored citizens, activists, and reporters through the cost and fear of litigation, especially since \u201cmalicious intent\u201d is undefined and could be stretched to cover legitimate oversight efforts[3]<\/a>[6]<\/a>[9]<\/a>.It argues that AB 1821\u2019s new hourly \u201cadministrative\u201d and \u201cprofessional\u201d fees for so\u2011called commercial requesters\u2014roughly in the $20\u2013$60\u2011plus per\u2011hour range for searching, reviewing, and processing records\u2014would turn access into a \u201ctransparency tax\u201d that could push the cost of many requests into the thousands of dollars, pricing out many members of the public even though taxpayers already fund this work through agency budgets[1]<\/a>[4]<\/a>[6]<\/a>.The article further warns that carving out exemptions for some journalists and educational or scientific institutions, while labeling others as commercial, would force agencies to scrutinize who is asking and for what purpose, encouraging uneven, subjective application of the law and effectively ending the ability to seek records anonymously[1]<\/a>[4]<\/a>[6]<\/a>.It maintains that the burdens AB 1821 purports to address can already be handled under existing law, noting that courts have recognized agencies\u2019 authority to refuse unduly burdensome requests and that current statutes direct agencies to assist requesters in narrowing overly broad demands and to mitigate strain by proactively posting frequently requested records online[2]<\/a>[5]<\/a>[8]<\/a>.The piece suggests that advancing AB 1821 would be especially hypocritical for California leaders who have criticized federal transparency failures, arguing that the bill would cut off the \u201coxygen\u201d of public oversight at a moment of heightened concern about government accountability and urging legislators, including key Los Angeles\u2011area senators, to vote it down[4]<\/a>[6]<\/a>[9]<\/a>.Different views on the topicSupporters of AB 1821, including the bill\u2019s author and organizations representing cities and counties, argue that public agencies are facing a surge of broad, repetitive, and highly complex records requests that tie up limited staff for weeks or months, diverting resources from core services and slowing responses to other residents who need information or assistance[1]<\/a>[4]<\/a>[9]<\/a>.Proponents say the provision allowing agencies to petition a court when they believe a request was made with \u201cmalicious intent\u201d is aimed at deterring abusive or harassing requesters rather than ordinary members of the public, framing the court process as a neutral check that lets judges distinguish between legitimate oversight and bad\u2011faith efforts to punish or overwhelm agencies[1]<\/a>[3]<\/a>[9]<\/a>.They contend that the new fee authority is narrowly focused on \u201ccommercial requesters,\u201d such as data brokers or businesses that resell or monetize public records, so that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize extensive searches and review work that primarily benefits private profit, while noncommercial users would remain exempt or pay minimal costs[1]<\/a>[4]<\/a>[9]<\/a>.In addition, supporters argue that clarifying how requests must be submitted\u2014such as routing them through specified portals or email addresses\u2014and allowing agencies to verify a requester\u2019s status or purpose will help standardize workflows, reduce confusion over misdirected or duplicative requests, and ultimately improve agencies\u2019 ability to track, prioritize, and respond to legitimate requests in a timely manner[1]<\/a>[9]<\/a>[10]<\/a>.Some local government advocates assert that, absent reforms like those in AB 1821, mounting backlogs and staff shortages will gradually undermine transparency anyway, and that a structured system of defined timelines, submission rules, and cost\u2011recovery mechanisms offers a more sustainable way to preserve long\u2011term access than leaving agencies to cope informally with escalating volumes of requests[1]<\/a>[4]<\/a>[7]<\/a>.Backers also emphasize that AB 1821 does not expand the categories of records that can be withheld, but instead updates procedures around how requests are made and processed, arguing that transparency laws must evolve to address the realities of large digital archives, mass\u2011request tools, and increasingly sophisticated commercial use of public records while still maintaining meaningful public access[1]<\/a>[3]<\/a>[9]<\/a>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Legislation that would dramatically undermine Californians\u2019 right to know \u2014 and therefore undermine local democracy \u2014 could be…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":374294,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[5658,4329,2675,7,11960,9,3501,8,1750,405,721,100288,6162,31751,50007,6247,151671,15157],"class_list":["post-374293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-ab","tag-access","tag-accountability","tag-california","tag-california-government","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-law","tag-california-news","tag-cost","tag-government","tag-law","tag-local-agency","tag-public","tag-public-record","tag-purpose","tag-request","tag-requester","tag-right"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374293","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=374293"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374293\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/374294"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=374293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=374293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=374293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}