BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Bill No: SB
570
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Roderick D. Wright, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
Staff Analysis
SB 570 Author: DeSaulnier
As Amended: April 16, 2013
Hearing Date: April 23, 2013
Consultant: Art Terzakis
SUBJECT
Public Records: copy charges: retrieval
DESCRIPTION
SB 570 adds the following provisions to the California
Public Records Act (CPRA):
1)Provides that if a request for a copy of records includes
a total of 20 or fewer pages, the forms of payment
accepted by a public agency shall include credit card
payment or another electronic payment option.
2)Prohibits a public agency from charging for copies of
records under either of the following circumstances:
a) The records are available in portable digital
format (PDF).
b) The records consist of data extracted from a
database, if new programming is not required to
extract the data.
EXISTING LAW
Existing law, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) sets
forth a general rule that records in the possession of a
public agency shall be made available for inspection and
copying to members of the public upon request. (Government
Code Section 6250 et seq.)
BACKGROUND
SB 570 (DeSaulnier) continued
Page 2
The fundamental precept of the CPRA is that governmental
records shall be disclosed to the public, upon request,
unless there is a specific reason not to do so. Most of
the reasons for withholding disclosure of a record are set
forth in specific exemptions contained in the CPRA.
However, some confidentiality provisions are incorporated
by reference to other laws. Also, the CPRA provides for a
general balancing test by which an agency may withhold
records from disclosure, if it can establish that the
public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the
public interest in disclosure.
All state and local government agencies are covered by the
CPRA. Non-profit and for-profit entities subject to the
Ralph M. Brown Act are covered as well. The CPRA is not
applicable to the Legislature, which is instead covered by
the Legislative Open Records Act. The judicial branch is
not bound by the CPRA, although most court records are
disclosable as a matter of public rights of access to
courts.
The CPRA provides that any person may receive a copy of any
identifiable public record from any state or local agency
upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication
or a statutory fee if applicable. The direct cost of
duplication includes the pro rata expense of the
duplicating equipment utilized in making a copy of a record
and, conceivably, the pro rata expense in terms of staff
time (salary/benefits) required to produce the copy. A
staff person's time in researching, retrieving and mailing
the record is not included in the direct cost of
duplication. By contrast, when an agency must compile
records or extract information from an electronic record or
undertake programming to satisfy a request, the requestor
must bear the full cost, not merely the direct cost of
duplication. The right to inspect and copy records does
not extend to records that are exempt from disclosure. The
CPRA contains no provision for a charge to be imposed in
connection with the mere inspection of records.
Purpose of SB 570: The author's office notes that
currently, the rate charged for copies of electronic
records is the same as those for non-electronic records.
For example, The California State University System charges
the same amount for copies of a portable digital format
(PDF) document as for the paper document - $0.20 per page.
SB 570 (DeSaulnier) continued
Page 3
The author's office also points out that many agencies
charge a substantial fee for extracting data from an
existing database whether or not any new programming has to
be done to permit the extraction. The author's office
contends that the cost of sending a PDF is no different
whether the document is one-page or 100 pages - thus,
charging an individual for an
e-mail with a PDF attachment upwards of $0.20 per page
makes no sense.
Additionally, the author's office states that some public
agencies refuse to accept credit card or other digital
payment for copies of public records. As an example, the
author's office cites the California State University which
insists on a mailed check for less than a dollar before
e-mailing a requester a one-or two-page document. The
author's office believes that creating a payment form that
may offer greater convenience for members of the public
makes complete sense. Thus, this measure would require
agencies to accept credit card and other forms of
electronic payment if a request for a copy of records under
the CPRA includes a total of 20 or fewer pages.
Arguments in Opposition: Opponents argue that SB 570 would
likely place additional burdens on local agencies and
create a costly requirement for any special district or
local agency that does not currently accept credit card
payments for small transactions, or simply does not have
credit card payment processing capabilities in the first
place. Additionally, opponents believe that the problem SB
570 seeks to address is an isolated concern that can be
more appropriately addressed at the local level between the
public agency and affected members of the public.
SUPPORT: None on file as of April 19, 2013.
OPPOSE: California Special Districts Association
FISCAL COMMITTEE: Senate Appropriations Committee