This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
At a moment in our country’s history when transparency is more vital than ever, a California legislator wants to make it harder for the public to get information from their government.
A bill introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco, a Downey Democrat, would amend the California Public Records Act to make it more expensive — in many cases much more expensive — for the public to get records from state and local agencies.
It would price out many Californians altogether.
Assembly Bill 1821 would make it much harder for parents to learn about their school districts, for community members to get the full story about police shootings and for concerned Californians to follow local impacts of the Trump administration’s actions.
The California Public Records Act, while it only applies to state and local agencies, has proven to be an essential tool for understanding the local effects of President Donald Trump’s policies.
For example, the First Amendment Coalition recently won the release of bodycam footage from Ventura County sheriff’s deputies who assisted an ICE raid on farms. The raid resulted in one death and more than 300 arrests. The sheriff refused to release the footage until my organization used the act to sue on behalf of Buen Vecino, a local group that advocates for immigrants.
Under AB 1821, once the sheriff released the footage as the law requires, he could have charged an hourly rate for any time over two hours that it took to review and redact the footage before releasing it. That could be dozens or even hundreds of hours. So, depending on the rate the sheriff’s department decided to charge — something the bill doesn’t limit — that could have cost thousands of dollars.
The vast majority of Californians could not afford that.
In a bit of irony one hopes is not intentional, this bill’s language became public in March, amid Sunshine Week, a national celebration of government transparency.
Pacheco’s bill would create different fee regimes for various types of information requesters. It would allow for free waivers for a “ journalist,” “newspaper” or “educational or noncommercial scientific institution.”
That puts every state and local government entity in the position of deciding who qualifies as a journalist. And it would mean organizations like Buen Vecino could be stuck with a big bill.
Even if a reporter were able to persuade an agency that they qualified for a fee waiver, the bill would still hurt newsgathering because reporters would be working in an environment with less transparency.
Exorbitant fees could chill taxpayer groups from investigations of public employee pension spending, for instance. Civil liberties advocates could be discouraged from analyzing the implementation of the Racial Justice Act. Social justice advocates could shy away from examining police treatment of the unhoused. And environmental nonprofits could refrain from conducting oversight of state agencies.
When you price the public out of public records, important information will remain out of reach for all.
Most California legislators wouldn’t dream of letting the Trump administration make it harder to get public records from ICE or the Department of Homeland Security by pricing out people or groups with the fewest resources. Lawmakers should not let this ill-conceived bill do the same in their own backyard.
Transparency is the lifeblood of accountability in government. Accountability is how the people keep the government on course. If the people don’t know what the government is up to, they can’t hold it accountable.
Pacheco’s bill would make it much harder for Californians to hold their government — local, state and federal — accountable.
