BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1002
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1002 (Yee) - As Amended: June 21, 2012
Policy Committee: Governmental
Organization Vote: 11 - 3
Local Government 5 - 3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires public agencies to provide or post to the
Internet required public documents in an open format, as
defined, and authorizes state or local public agencies to
provide a copy of an electronic record in a format in which
electronic record text is searchable. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes a public agency to provide a copy of a requested
electronic record in a format in which the text in the
electronic record is searchable in an open format, as
specified, if the agency does not already have the electronic
record in an open format.
2)Provides that whenever a state or local agency is required by
law to make electronic data or an electronic document
available to the public, and the agency has the software,
hardware, or services that allow it to retain the data or
document in an open format, it shall post and provide the data
or document in an open format.
3)Requires that the data or text in the document be machine
readable and can be searched, indexed, organized, categorized,
and is otherwise automatically processable.
4)Requires the requester to bear the cost of converting the
electronic record into an open format, including the cost of
programming and computer services necessary to produce the
electronic record.
5)Provides that the requirements of this bill shall not apply to
SB 1002
Page 2
data or documents posted on the Internet before January 1,
2013.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Cumulative statewide costs across all agencies potentially in
the range of tens of millions of dollars. Currently documents
that may be held in an open format, may not be easily provided
to the public, or may need to be modified to protect propriety
or confidential information before release. This would likely
require staff time, training and potentially new systems to
enable these adjustments to be made. Under the provisions of
this bill, such documents would still have to be provided in
an open format to the public. The state will either be forced
to release information it does not feel is appropriate, modify
the documents, or be taken to court to get clarification on
the issue.
2)California's Special Districts estimate costs likely in excess
of $1 million GF, which may be reimbursable by the state, for
the workload associated with converting California Public
Records Act (CPRA) requests to the new open format standards.
It is likely that reimbursable mandate costs for California's
cities and counties would be considerably higher.
Current law does not prevent local agencies from providing
information in an open format, however placing the requirement
in statute would result in a new reimbursable mandate for all
local agencies that subsequently provide CPRA requests in an
open format.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . This bill aims to encourage state and local public
agencies to maintain and provide electronic data or documents
in an open format, as defined, under the CPRA in order to
facilitate the electronic access, searching, indexing and
extraction of data from government records. According to the
author, this bill is intended to ensure an accessible,
transparent government by providing a clear guideline with a
reference standard so that when new mandates pass, or new
documents are published online as a matter of course under
existing law or regular business, they are in an open and
accessible format.
SB 1002
Page 3
2)Background . Existing law requires a public agency to make
non-exempt electronic public records available in any
electronic format in which it holds the information or, if
requested, in an electronic format used by the agency to
create copies for its own or other agencies' use. Existing law
also authorizes a public agency to charge to the requestor the
direct cost of producing the electronic public record. The
requestor of an electronic public record must also pay the
cost of producing a copy of the record, including the cost to
construct the record, or the costs of data compilation,
extraction, or programming to produce the record if certain
conditions apply.
3)Support . According to California Aware, "The CPRA was amended
in the 1990s to bring its disclosure requirements up to date
to prevent new technology from becoming a barrier to
government transparency rather than a supportive factor.
Another updating is overdue to accomplish the same objective,
by encouraging public agencies to make information not only
available in static electronic format - humanly readable - but
in a machine readable form useable by the public for purposes
of the kind of sophisticated analysis that was beyond the
reach or even imagination of most people a decade ago or so."
4)Opposition . A coalition of the California State Association of
Counties (CSAC), Urban Counties Caucus (UCC), the Regional
Council of Rural Counties (RCRC), and the League of Cities has
taken an oppose unless amended position, requesting that the
bill be amended to require that only non-sensitive documents
be required to be provided in an open and searchable format,
and that the open format provisions be deleted in their
entirety.
The California Special Districts Association notes that among
other things this bill will require considerable staff time
for agencies' legal counsel and information technology staff
to determine if it is able to convert a document into an open
format and legally meet the vague definition of an open format
created by this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 1002
Page 4