BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 570|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 570
Author: DeSaulnier (D)
Amended: 5/24/13
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE : 11-0, 4/23/13
AYES: Wright, Nielsen, Berryhill, Calderon, Cannella, Correa,
De León, Galgiani, Hernandez, Lieu, Padilla
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/13
AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SUBJECT : Public records: copy charges: retrieval
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill prohibits public agencies from charging for
copies of records if they are available in portable digital
format (PDF) or if the records consist of data extracted from a
database.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the California Public Records Act,
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.
This bill prohibits a public agency from charging for copies of
records if (1) the records are available in PDF, or (2) the
records consist of data extracted from a database, if new
programming is not required to extract the data.
CONTINUED
SB 570
Page
2
Background
The California Public Records Act 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Unknown aggregate impact on over 200 state agencies by
eliminating authority to charge for certain electronic records
(General Fund and Various Special Funds). Costs to individual
agencies may be relatively minor.
Potential state-reimbursable mandate costs (General Fund).
This bill prohibits local agencies from charging for records
available in a PDF or records that consist of data extraction.
This may constitute a "higher level of service" that is not
recoverable by fees, and any local costs associated with these
activities could be subject to reimbursement by the state.
There are approximately 5,000 local agencies that would be
subject to the requirements of this bill. If 5% of them
incurred costs of $1,000 in a given year, and the Commission
on State Mandates approves a claim, General Fund costs would
be $250,000 annually.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/13)
CONTINUED
SB 570
Page
3
---
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/24/13)
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Rural County Representatives of California
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Urban Counties Caucus
Vista Irrigation District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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 PDF document as for the paper document - $0.20 per
page. 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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents believe that the problem
this bill 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.
MW:ej 5/24/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED