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 --