BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 448
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478
.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
.
Bill No: SB 448
Author: Sher (D)
Amended: 6/24/97
Vote: 21
.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 9-0, 4/8/97
AYES: Burton, Calderon, Haynes, Lee, Leslie, Lockyer,
O'Connell, Sher, Wright
SENATE FLOOR : 39-0, 4/17/97 (Consent)
AYES: Alpert, Ayala, Brulte, Burton, Calderon, Costa,
Dills, Greene, Hayden, Haynes, Hughes, Hurtt,
Johannessen, Johnson, Johnston, Karnette, Kelley, Knight,
Kopp, Lee, Leslie, Lewis, Lockyer, Maddy, McPherson,
Monteith, Mountjoy, O'Connell, Peace, Polanco, Rainey,
Rosenthal, Schiff, Sher, Solis, Thompson, Vasconcellos,
Watson, Wright
NOT VOTING: Craven
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 67-0, 7/18/97
.
SUBJECT : Public utility records
SOURCE : City of Palo Alto
.
DIGEST : This bill would prohibit the release of
specified information about private citizens who are
utility customers of local agencies contained in public
records, such as name, address, and telephone number.
Exceptions are made for authorized family members, police,
courts, official government business, and where the utility
determines that the public interest in disclosure clearly
outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.
Assembly Amendments narrowed the scope of this bill to
"local agencies" from "municipal utility" customers.
ANALYSIS : The customer files of municipally owned
utility companies are considered public records, and as
such are available to any person who requests them. This
information includes the customer's name, address,
telephone number, utility usage, payment and credit
history.
An ongoing lawsuit in Tennessee illustrates the danger of
allowing unfettered public access to utility customers'
personal information. On March 21, 1994, a police
informant was murdered the morning before he was to testify
in a drug trafficking trial. The week prior to the
shooting, according to their records, the local municipally
owned utility company had divulged the victim's address,
pursuant to a public records request. The family of the
victim has sued the city and police department for wrongful
death. A privacy claim against the utility was dropped, as
the victim's personal information was determined to be a
public record. However, the suit against the police and
metro continue on.
Investor-owned utility companies are not bound by the
disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act. Most do
not release the private information contained in their
customer files.
In partial response to these events, and in an attempt to
achieve parity with investor-owned utilities, the
California League of Cities unanimously passed a resolution
in October of 1996 resolving, "that the League support
legislation that will provide municipal utilities and their
customers with business confidentiality and personal
customer information privacy protection which is equivalent
to that which is currently enjoyed by investor-owned
utilities and their customers."
Changes to existing law:
Existing law, the Public Records Act, requires that:
1. Public records are open to inspection at all times
during the office hours of the state or local agency and
every person has the right to inspect any public record,
except for records specifically exempted from disclosure
by law.
2. Public record is defined as "any writing containing
information relating to the conduct of the public's
business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any public
or local agency regardless of physical form or
characteristics."
3. Local agencies include "any....municipal corporation;
district; political subdivision; or any board commission
or agency thereof; other local public agency...."
If a record is not covered by a specific exemption from
disclosure, the test for withholding documents from release
requires a case-by-case balancing of the public and private
interests. In each instance, the agency must ask whether
on the facts of the particular case, the public interest
served by not making the record public clearly outweighs
the public interest served by disclosure of the record.
This bill would add to the list of express exceptions to
disclosure the release of names, credit history, utility
usage data, home address, or telephone number of utility
customers of local agencies.
This bill would allow continued disclosure of customers'
personal information in the following circumstances.
1. To an agent or authorized family member authorized by
the customer.
2. To an officer or employee of another governmental
agency when necessary for the performance of its official
duties.
3. Upon court order or request of a law enforcement agency
in relation to an ongoing investigation.
4. Upon determination by the local agency that utility
customer who is the subject of the request has used
utility in a manner inconsistent with applicable federal,
state, or local utility usage policy.
5. Upon determination by the local agency that the utility
customer who is the subject of the request is an elected
or appointed official with authority to determine the
utility usage policies of the local agency provided that
the home address of an appointed official shall not be
disclosed without his or her consent.
6. The local agency determines that the public interest in
disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in
nondisclosure.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/8/97)
City of Palo Alto (source)
California Municipal Utilities Association
SMUD
Contra Costa Water District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsors of this bill state
that this proposal closes a gap in the privacy-protection
legislation enacted after the fatal shooting in Los Angeles
of actress Rebecca Shafer. Ms. Shafer's assailant obtained
her address through DMV records, which at the time were
public records. In response, the Public Records Act was
amended to prohibit release of the personal information
contained in DMV and Department of Housing and
Redevelopment files. This bill applies the same concept of
privacy, says the sponsor, to the records contained in a
public utility's files.
RJG:jk 7/30/97 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****