Key facts
- California bill AB 1821 proposes to allow government agencies to charge fees for certain public records requests.
- The bill would also permit agencies to sue requesters deemed to have 'malicious intent,' potentially leading to court-imposed fees.
- Proponents argue the changes are necessary to manage an increasing volume of burdensome records requests.
- Opponents, including First Amendment groups, fear the bill will create financial barriers and hinder transparency.
- The bill could allow agencies to restrict the methods and times for submitting public records requests.
A bill progressing through the California legislature, AB 1821, aims to significantly alter the state's 58-year-old Public Records Act. Proponents, including Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, argue the changes are necessary to address an overwhelming increase in records requests that strain local government resources. The bill's author cited a 73% rise in requests in her home city of Downey since 2019 and instances where individuals have made requests with the stated intent to disrupt city services or for commercial gain.
However, the proposed amendments have alarmed transparency advocates, news organizations, and free speech groups like the First Amendment Coalition. These groups fear the bill will create financial barriers and allow officials to delay or deny access to public information. Key changes include empowering agencies to classify certain requests as 'commercial' and charge requesters fees ranging from $22 to $66 per hour for search and review time, potentially costing hundreds or thousands of dollars for complex requests. Currently, fees are generally limited to copying costs, often waived for digital records.
Furthermore, AB 1821 would grant agencies the power to sue requesters they believe are acting with 'malicious intent,' with a judge able to impose fees. Agencies could also restrict the methods and hours for submitting requests, moving away from 24/7 online portals. These more restrictive measures were present in the bill's initial February version but were removed before an earlier assembly vote. David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition described the fees as a 'direct attack on government transparency laws' and the lawsuit provision as a 'nonstarter' that could be 'weaponized' to thwart accountability.
Oakland's political leaders have shown divided opinions. The City Council unanimously supported an earlier version of the bill. Council President Kevin Jenkins acknowledged being overwhelmed by requests but stated he would need to review the latest amendments. Councilmember Ken Houston found the proposed fees and legal actions for 'malicious' requests reasonable, suggesting the city should be run 'like a business.' Conversely, Councilmember Charlene Wang expressed wariness about agencies or courts determining 'malicious intent' and indicated she would likely oppose the amended bill.