BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 272 (Hertzberg) - The California Public Records Act: local agencies: inventory ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: April 6, 2015 |Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 7 - 0, | | | JUD. 7 - 0 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: May 4, 2015 |Consultant: Mark McKenzie | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill does not meet the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: SB 272 would require a local agency to create a catalog of "enterprise systems" utilized by the agency, make the catalog available to the public upon request in the agency's offices, and to post the catalog on the agency's website. Fiscal Impact: Unknown, likely significant costs to local agencies to compile information on enterprise systems that contain data collected about the public, post the catalog on agency websites, and SB 272 (Hertzberg) Page 1 of ? make it available to the public (Local funds). These costs are not anticipated to be reimbursable from the state General Fund. See staff comments. Potential costs in the low tens of thousands to the Commission on State Mandates (COSM). To the extent an affected local agency files a test claim for reimbursement of mandated costs, Commission legal staff would prepare a full analysis of the legal and factual issues raised for purposes of a determination by the COSM. Background: The California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires public records to be open to inspection during office hours and gives every person a right to inspect public records, with specific exceptions. The CRPA also specifies procedures for requesting copies of public records. State and local agencies are required to make records available in any electronic format that holds the information, if a person requests the records in an electronic format, unless release of the record in that form would jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or of any proprietary software in which it is maintained. Existing law, the California Constitution, declares that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and requires that the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials be open to public scrutiny. The voters approved Proposition 42 in June of 2014, which amended the Constitution to require local agencies to comply with the CPRA and the Ralph M. Brown Act, and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, enacting a successor act, or amending any successor act that contains findings demonstrating that the statutory enactment furthers the purposes of these constitutional provisions. Proposition 42 also amended the Constitutional requirements to disclaim state reimbursement for local mandates contained within the scope of the CPRA and Ralph M. Brown Act. Proposed Law: SB 272 would require local agencies, in implementing the CPRA, to create a catalog of enterprise systems, which are defined as systems that are both a system of record that serves as an SB 272 (Hertzberg) Page 2 of ? original source of data within an agency, and a multi-departmental system that contains information collected about the public. The bill requires that the catalog prepared by each local agency must do the following: List the enterprise systems utilized by the agency. Disclose, for each enterprise system, all of the following: o Current system vendor. o Current system product. o A brief statement of the system's purpose. o A general description of categories, modules, or layers of data. o The department that serves as the system's primary custodian. o How frequently system data is collected. o How frequently system data is updated. Be made publicly available in a specified manner. Related Legislation: SB 573 (Pan), which was approved by the Senate Governmental Operations Committee with amendments on April 28, 2015, would require the Governor to appoint a Chief Data Officer and, among other things, would create the statewide "open data portal" to provide public access to data sets from state agencies, as specified. Staff Comments: Although state law already guarantees the public's right to access electronic records that are not otherwise exempt from disclosure, it can be difficult for members of the public to know exactly what types of data local governments collect, what formats the data are in, and where the data are stored. This bill is intended to provide the public with information regarding the systems used by local agencies to collect and manage data and public records collected about the public. This bill is likely to impose significant costs in the aggregate on over 4,000 local agencies (cities, counties, and special districts) to compile and periodically update information on SB 272 (Hertzberg) Page 3 of ? enterprise systems that contain data collected about the public, post the catalog on agency websites, and make it available to the public. SB 272 contains legislative findings that the bill furthers the purpose of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution "[b]ecause increased information about what data is collected by local agencies could be leveraged by the public to more efficiently access and better use that information." As a result, SB 272 disclaims the state's responsibility for reimbursing local governments' costs of complying with the bill's requirements. Staff notes that a local agency may submit a test claim on any statute that it alleges imposes a state-mandate, regardless of legislative findings. If one were submitted, Commission staff would prepare a full analysis of the legal and factual issues raised for determination by the Commission. The courts have found that a finding of the Legislature is not determinative of the mandate issue, which must be determined by the Commission reviewing the statute de novo. Costs for COSM staff to prepare a legal analysis would depend upon the issues raised by a particular claim. -- END --