BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1921
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1921 (Holden and Rendon)
As Amended April 28, 2014
Majority vote
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 8-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Frazier, Buchanan, Ian |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Calderon, Cooley, Gorell, | |Bradford, |
| |Lowenthal, Medina, Salas | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Holden, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Hagman, Wagner |Nays:|Donnelly, Jones, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a contractor who has a service contract with
a state agency in excess of $25,000 to agree that the state
agency is entitled to receive a copy of records and files
related to the performance of the contract. Specifically, this
bill :
1)States that such records related to the performance of the
service contract may be disclosed by the state agency under
the requirements and exceptions of the California Public
Records Act (CPRA).
2)Requires those seeking these records under the CPRA to request
them directly from the state agency and not from the service
contractor.
EXISTING LAW establishes the CPRA, which generally requires the
disclosure of state government records, but provides specific
exemptions from disclosure.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, standard language in state service contracts requires
contractors to agree to allow the state to review and copy any
records related to the performance of the contract, thus this
information is already to be made available to state agencies
upon request. By making this information subject to disclosure
AB 1921
Page 2
by state agencies, under the CPRA, this bill could result in
additional CPRA requests to be processed by departments
throughout state government. Given the large number of personal
services contracts, these costs could be significant statewide,
but would mostly be absorbable within individual department
budgets.
COMMENTS : This bill would require a contractor who has a
service contract with the state in excess of $25,000 to agree
that the state agency is entitled to receive a copy of records
and files related to the performance of the service contract.
According to the sponsor, the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, this bill would provide
transparency in the handling of taxpayer funds.
The state currently has standard language in its service
contracts that requires contractors to agree to allow the state
to review and copy any records related to the performance of the
contract. According to the author, this bill acts to codify
these access requirements in the Government Code section related
to service contracts.
This bill also specifies that records related to the performance
of the contract are subject to the CPRA, and may be subject to
public disclosure depending on the requirements and exceptions
stated in the CPRA. The CPRA lists several exceptions to what
documents must be publicly disclosed. Specifically, in
accordance to exceptions in Chapter 3.5, Inspection of Public
Records, of the Government Code, some personal, financial, and
trade secret information is protected from disclosure.
As this bill specifies what records would be subject to the
CPRA, it also denotes the process for requesting records under
the CPRA. It requires that requests under CPRA must be
submitted directly to the agency and not its contractor. This
requirement will ensure that contractors are not burdened by
requests for which they may not be qualified to respond.
The impact of this bill is unclear since it generally mirrors
the state's current processes. However, it could serve to
increase agencies' oversight of contractors and increase public
access to information related to the performance of these
contracts.
AB 1921
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Scott Herbstman / A. & A.R. / (916)
319-3600
FN: 0003453