PDA

View Full Version : SB 1110: Anti-CGF Sunshine Initiative Act


wildhawker
02-18-2012, 6:49 PM
Make no mistake, this bill is a direct response to the Sunshine Initiative.

-Brandon

###

BILL NUMBER: SB 1110 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1110&sess=CUR&house=B&author=rubio)

INTRODUCED BY Senator Rubio

FEBRUARY 17, 2012

An act to amend Section 6253 of the Government Code, relating to
public records.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1110, as introduced, Rubio. Public records.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state
and local agencies to make public records available upon receipt of a
request that reasonably describes an identifiable record not
otherwise exempt from disclosure, and upon payment of fees covering
direct costs of duplication.

This bill would authorize a state or local agency to charge a fee
to cover the direct costs of duplication of a public record that may
include personnel costs associated with that duplication. The bill
would also authorize a state or local agency to collect a deposit
from an entity or individual requesting records prior to engaging in
the collection of the records.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.

Connor P Price
02-18-2012, 7:16 PM
Interesting. They seem to want to make the public records act so costly for those who request records that people won't bother.

nick
02-18-2012, 7:23 PM
Well, it's only to be expected that the corrupt legislative branch would want to protect the corrupt executive branch, and to block the sunlight from shining on the cockroaches.

Drivedabizness
02-18-2012, 7:23 PM
I believe this bill, if passed, would be overturned in court.

wildhawker
02-18-2012, 7:26 PM
Interesting. They seem to want to make the public records act so costly for those who request records that people won't bother.

I'm working on a little something to make sure this isn't the case.

-Brandon

safewaysecurity
02-18-2012, 7:35 PM
Transparent government folk should be outraged.

AyatollahGondola
02-18-2012, 7:53 PM
This bill would authorize a state or local agency to charge a fee
to cover the direct costs of duplication of a public record that may
include personnel costs associated with that duplication

I do a lot of PRA's, and I usually just ask to inspect the records first. there's no duplication charges involved if you don't want copies. Then, if I find records I want to have and hold, I ask for copies of just those.
There are instances where a requestor wants the records in a certain format. This bill might be an attempt to allow charges for that. Don't really know though; we'll have to listen in to the committee meetings and see what rubio is trying to sell, and why.

AyatollahGondola
02-18-2012, 7:57 PM
Transparent government folk should be outraged.

We're always in a state of outrage.

wildhawker
02-18-2012, 8:04 PM
I know the case you mention, and I think there are some things at play here that cut against your analysis. (I don't mean to say that FAC v. SCC isn't on their minds, but if you read the bill it doesn't actually protect the interests your analysis assumes.) I'd be happy to discuss them offline if it would be of any interest.

-Brandon

Strange. I've heard that this is a direct response to GIS data PRA requests (see First Amendment Coalition v. Santa Clara County, and Sierra Club v. Orange County), and that the whole purpose of this bill is to make sure counties can retain their very lucrative business of selling GIS data to map making companies. Right now, the Orange County case is at the supreme court, and what I've heard from the public records access advocacy front is that Senator Rubio is trying to preempt the nasty slap that Orange County is likely to receive (just like Santa Clara county was massively slapped in the appeals court) by legislating around it.

By the way, the expected cost of a PRA request for the Orange County GIS data is about half a million bucks. To me, it makes much more sense that Senator Rubio is trying to preserve a business that nets the counties collectively dozens of millions of dollars per year; in this day and age of fiscal crisis, that is probably more important to the legislature than a few CCW permits.

EDIT: The dirty word filter didn't like the term I used for "slapping" at first. You can probably imagine it.