A California State Assembly bill has been amended to increase the difficulty and burden for Californians seeking government records.
Democrat California Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco amended CA AB 1821, named the California Public Records Act on June 10 to allow public agencies to delay and increase charges for “commercial use” records requests. The bill, first introduced in February, was amended to require a $22.35-per-hour administrative fee and a $66.26-per-hour professional fee to be used as compensation for record searches determined to be for “commercial use.” Both fees can also increase by “a cost-of-living adjustment.” Supporters have defended it as a necessary change for local governments while critics have argued it creates an unprecedented burden for residents to secure transparency. (RELATED: SCOOP: Blue State Democrat Voted For Own Union’s Agenda)
The amended bill also allows an agency to petition the superior court for a determination of whether a records request was submitted with “malicious intent,” such as an attempt to delay the agency, thus suspending the agency’s duty to respond to the request while awaiting the court’s ruling. If malicious intent is proven, the agency could still impose fees to cover the search and review, in addition to “other applicable fees.”
The legislation notes that current California law requires that state or local agencies promptly answer reasonable records requests while charging for the copying costs as well as applicable statutory fees. California agencies typically charge between 10 cents and $1 per page.
Pacheco told CalMatters that she hopes the changes would curb bad actors while not slowing down legitimate requests. “Transparency is important to me,” Pacheco said. “We just want it to run efficiently, and these are just minor amendments or minor tweaks to the Public Records Act.”
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – OCTOBER 14: Assembly Member Blanca Pacheco speaks on stage at the Los Angeles Equality Awards at The Westin Bonaventure Rooftop on October 14, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Rich Polk/Getty Images for Equality California)
Along with Pacheco, the latest adjustments were reportedly co-written by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, according to CalMatters.
An attorney representing the League of California Cities, Donald Larkin, allegd that someone had requested emails from California Bay Area city officials to train an AI model to market to local governments in 2023.
The CEO of the California State Association of Counties, Graham Knaus, also alleged that a Fresno prankster had once requested five years of 911 operator calls only to not reach out again.
“Taxpayers 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,” Knaus told CalMatters.
However, skeptics and critics believe the bill could create unprecedented barriers for California residents seeking government accountability.
The executive director of the First Amendment Coalition and a former journalist, David Snyder, said, “This looks a lot like an effort to evade accountability.”
“The only way that there’s any government accountability is that people know what the government is doing,” he added.
Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy head at the California watchdog group Oakland Privacy, called the amended proposal a “virtual horror show of governmental non-transparency” that may be fraught with unintended side effects, according to CalMatters.
University of Florida journalism professor David Cuillier, a federal Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee member, said that, if passed, the bill could “make California stand out as the most secretive state in the country,” CalMatters reported. (RELATED: Former GOP State Attorney General Deploying Novel Strategy To Sink Democrat Governor’s Semi-Auto Gun Ban)
Critics took aim at Pacheco for pushing the amendment after the legislation had passed through the Assembly. Rosenberg said such tactics are frequent in the California legislature. The state would be the first in the nation to explicitly grant agencies the ability to sue those they allege made “vexatious” requests for “malicious intent,” the outlet reported.
Pacheco did not respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.