BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2843|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2843
Author: Chau (D)
Amended: 8/18/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/21/16
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 5/5/16 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Public records: employee contact information
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill extends an exemption from disclosure under
the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to include personal
cellular telephone numbers and birth dates, and makes other
conforming changes.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/18/16 make technical changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 2843
Page 2
1)Declares, in the California Constitution, the people's right
to transparency in government. ("The people have the right of
access to information concerning the conduct of the people's
business, and therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the
writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to
public scrutiny....") (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 3.)
2)Governs, pursuant to the CPRA, the disclosure of information
collected and maintained by public agencies. (Gov. Code Sec.
6250 et seq.) Generally, all public records are accessible to
the public upon request, unless the record requested is exempt
from public disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.) There are 30
general categories of documents or information that are exempt
from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the
information, and unless it is shown that the public's interest
in disclosure outweighs the public's interest in
non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may
be withheld by the public agency with custody of the
information.
3)Provides that the home addresses and home telephone numbers of
state employees and employees of a school district or county
office of education shall not be deemed to be public records
and shall not be open to public inspection, unless the
disclosure is made to an agent or family member of the
employee; an officer or employee of another state agency,
school district, or county office of education when necessary
for the performance of official duties; to an employee
organization, as specified; or to an agent of a health benefit
plan, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254.3.)
4)Protects the information regarding persons paid by the state
to provide in-home supportive services, except names, address
and telephone numbers as requested by an exclusive bargaining
agent and to any labor organization for employee organizing,
representation, and assistance activities of the labor
organization. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253.2.)
AB 2843
Page 3
This bill:
1)Adds personal cellular phone numbers and birth dates to the
above exemption to the CPRA.
2)Adds personal cellular phone numbers and personal electronic
mail addresses to the above provision relating to persons paid
by the state to provide in-home supportive services.
3)Makes findings, as required by the California Constitution,
that this bill's limitation on the public's right to access
public records is necessary in order to protect the privacy
and well-being of state and local employees by limiting access
to their personal and emergency contact information.
Background
The CPRA governs the disclosure of information collected and
maintained by public agencies. Generally, all public records
are accessible to the public upon request, unless the record
requested is exempt from public disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6254
et seq.) There are 30 general categories of documents or
information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to
the character of the information, and unless it is shown that
the public's interest in disclosure outweighs the public's
interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt
information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of
the information.
Existing law exempts from disclosure under the CPRA the home
addresses and home phone numbers of state employees and
employees of a school district or county office of education,
unless the disclosure is made to a family member, an employee
organization, or to another agency or entity for a designated
administrative purpose. This exemption is necessary to protect
the privacy of these employees, who necessarily work with the
public and may be subject to harassment.
AB 2843
Page 4
Seeking to ensure that the privacy of employees is protected,
this bill extends the existing exemption from the CPRA for home
addresses and home telephone numbers of government employees to
include the employee's personal cellular phone numbers and
birthdates. This bill also adds this contact information to the
information exclusive bargaining agents are able to receive for
the purposes of employee organizing, representation, and
assistance activities of the labor organization, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified8/16/16)
California Educational Technology Professionals Association
California Labor Federation
California Professional Firefighters
LIUNA Locals 777 & 792
Peace Officers Research Association of California
School Employers Association of California
Service Employees International Union California
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/16/16)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: LIUNA Locals 777 & 792 write in support:
AB 2843 seeks to modernize the statutes governing the California
Public Records Act (CPRA)by clarifying that modern
communication modes, such as [?] personal cell phones are
protected under the act.
There have been several court cases since the inception of the
CPRA (see, City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Employee
Relations Commission, 56 Cal. App 4th 905, 927 (2013), Sonoma
county Employees Retirement Association v. Superior Court, 198
AB 2843
Page 5
Cal. App 4th 986, 1006 (2011), and Lorig v. Medical Board, 78
Cal. App. 4th 462, 468 (2000), all of which have focused on
the tight-rope balance between privacy interests obligations
under the CPRA. Unfortunately, the CPRA has not been amended
to address many of the important privacy rights finding, noted
by the court. Further, although the CPRA is modeled after
the Freedom of Information Act, CPRA fails to adhere to
privacy rights protections the court have found inherent to
FOIA.
AB 2843 seeks to align the CPRA with Case law as it regards to
the protection of privacy rights of public employees.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 5/5/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson,
Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger
Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey,
Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes,
McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte,
O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Beth Gaines
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
8/19/16 18:49:21
**** END ****