BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chairman
1168 (Jones)
Hearing Date: 8/30/07 Amended: 8/1/07
Consultant: Nora Lynn Policy Vote: Judiciary 3-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY:
AB 1168 would impose a number of restrictions on the use of
Social Security numbers (SSNs) in public records, requiring they
be redacted or truncated prior to filing or disclosure to the
public by specified dates. AB 1168 would also require the Office
of Privacy Protection (OPP) to create a task force to review the
use of SSNs by colleges and universities.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Fund
SSN redaction Unknown, potentially significant;Local
offset by fee authorized in bill
SOS Absorbable costs Special*
Task Force $51 General
_____
* Business Fees Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
AB 1168 would require all local agencies, except county
recorders, to redact SSNs from any records filed with them on or
after July 1, 2008, prior to disclosing them to the public and
to redact a SSN in any document presented to them for filing
after that date. This duty comprises a state-mandated local
program. County recorders would be required under AB 1168 to
create a dual records system - one, of "official records" which
contain SSNs but are exempt from disclosure under the Public
Records Act, except as specified; and another, of "public
-1-
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 2
records" which would be exact electronic copies of the records
except with all but the last four digits of the SSN redacted. AB
1168 would authorize, if approved by the local board of
supervisors, a county recorder to charge up to $1 per document
recorded to fund the dual records system until Dec. 1, 2017.
AB 1168 would require the Secretary of State (SOS) and Franchise
Tax Board (FTB) to truncate (or redact at least the first five
digits) SSNs prior to disclosing records to the public.
Additionally, the SOS would be required to reject filings made
with that office pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
that contain SSNs.
Last, AB 1168 requires the Department of Consumer Affairs'
(DCA's) Office of Privacy
Protection (OPP) to convene a task force to study the use of
SSNs by colleges and universities and report to the Judiciary
Committees of the Legislature by July 1, 2009, with
recommendations on reducing SSNs' collection and use.
Costs for non-recorder local agencies to strike SSN information
from public records consistent with AB 1168's requirements
should not be expensive, but that duty does constitute a
state-mandated local program. Local agencies are permitted to
recoup reasonable copying costs associated with public records
requests, but whatever additional costs that would be associated
with redaction - staff time, materials, copying - could
potentially be sought through the Commission on State Mandates.
It's unlikely that these costs will be significant.
Additional redaction, document storage, and electronic
reproduction duties and costs associated with the county
recorders' dual records system are unknown, but would be
significant. AB 1168 allows recorders, if authorized by their
supervisors, to levy a fee of $1 per document filed in the
county to fund the cost of the system, but the bill's
requirements are not limited to counties with a funding stream
and it is unclear if this $1 additional fee will be sufficient
to fund the bill's requirements in all counties.
In order for SOS to reject filings made pursuant to the UCC
through its website that contain SSNs, the office would need to
AB 1168 (Jones)
Page 2
either purchase or create specialized software that would both
recognize the SSNs and then refuse the filing as a result. It's
unclear if such software exists, making cost characterizations
challenging, but SOS information technology staff project
software with the capacity required by the bill could be as much
as $500,000 in one-time costs, with $100,000-$200,000 in
on-going costs for licensing and staff support.
DCA estimates OPP will incur General Fund costs of approximately
$51,000 associated with the task force to fund a graduate
student assistant for one year, travel for task force members
and staff, and materials. Costs for representatives of the
University of California, the California State University and
the California Community Colleges to participate in the task
force should be minor and absorbable.
AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
Author's amendments would delete requirements on non-recorder
local agencies; limit the documents that recorders have to enter
into the dual document truncation system to those dating back to
1980 instead of 1962; and deleting requirements on SOS that it
reject documents containing SSNs.